Enough is enough - repost from the GA sub. (ProtectVoat)

submitted ago by sguevar

For as much as I liked srayzie this movement of people justifying an unjustifiable ban under the false pretence of doxx needs to see this:

I am setting the record straight because the person in question decided not to and because now out of convenience the Mod team of GA is applying a ban hammer without justification. I am also posting this on v/ProtectVoat in case that the mod team wishes to play convenience once again a delete this post.

Multiple times I asked srayzie to set the record straight, this is just the first message I sent to her:

https://i.imgtc.ws/hWftcMX.png

However she was reluctant to do it. So I was forced to send a group message to @Puttitout, @Cynabuns, @PeaceSeeker, @kevdude, @Crensch and to the very same srayzie:

https://i.imgtc.ws/turXcv1.png - this one is the one I sent to Crensch

And here is the post that she did where she linked her personal twitter account:

https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/2881196

Enough is enough. Stop with the false pretences and narrative. Stop deceiving your subscribers and stop this charade because it is not being done in the best interest of Voat.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Octocopter ago

Trying to run defense now for those that are targeting kids with violence? I have zero respect for you so why would I now give a flying fuck what your position on the matter is?

Violence against kids is the line that should never be crossed, decide what side of that line you want to be remembered on.

sguevar ago

Trying to run defense now for those that are targeting kids with violence?

Mislabelling what I am doing here is a nice way to engage this conversation.

I have zero respect for you so why would I now give a flying fuck what your position on the matter is?

And I would have to care what your stance on me is because?

Violence against kids is the line that should never be crossed, decide what side of that line you want to be remembered on.

I agree, no doxxing of kids has occur on Voat and we have no "jurisdiction" on other sites. So your white knight faggotry can be put to rest.

Octocopter ago

User agreement

Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.

Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.

sguevar ago

Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.

Do we have at Voat probable cause to determine that Zyklon B is in fact engaging on that or is more of a faggots way to attempt to discredit Voat and to appeal to the emotional indignation of the community?

Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.

Have any kid been doxxed here at Voat, if so show the proof? Verifiable proof not a comment that shows no doxx...

Octocopter ago

Its not about the doxx, its about calls to violence against kids, and your "muh comedy act trolling bullshit" would not hold up in court.

The line has been crossed and you are still here trying to deflect in defense of those that crossed the line. Your username and statements here will be remembered.

sguevar ago

Its not about the doxx, its about calls to violence against kids, and your "muh comedy act trolling bullshit" would not hold up in court.

But it has.. otherwise why sick fucking (((comedians))) haven't been brought to justice for making rape jokes about kids? Do you have a precedent there that we can lean on or are you just basing all this in your own personal moral and emotional, i might add, indignation?

The line has been crossed and you are still here trying to deflect in defense of those that crossed the line. Your username and statements here will be remembered.

At this moment it hasn't because a due process and concepts are not clearly defined to deal with this and as understanding as I can be to your frustration I am seeing this an opportunity to work on the voids that Voat currently has to prevent this shit from happening again instead of basing our decisions on the virtue signalling faggotry of a bunch of emotional wrecks that can't deal with the though task of getting this done.

Octocopter ago

User agreement

Do Not Incite Harm: You agree not to encourage harm against people.

Protect Kids: You agree not to post any child pornography or sexually suggestive content involving minors.

The line already exists within Voat's rules. Your "opportunity to work on the voids that Voat currently has" is a hollow excuse to push your obvious bullshit deflection attempts.

sguevar ago

Show me the proof of concrete and credible threats and not trolling from the part of the user.

Show me concrete proof of doxxing being made here at Voat.

If you find them then by all means share them but if this just an appeal for moral indignation from your part then we don't need this at Voat.

is a hollow excuse to push your obvious bullshit deflection attempts.

Not really you are simply frustrated because you can't proof your claims. You can't proof they are credible threats, you can't proof there was doxxing here at Voat.

It is not our fault the user linked her social media to Voat. It is not our fault the user didn't take care of that in time. It is not our fault what happens outside of Voat.

So if you only have moral indignation on you then, with all due respect, fuck off.

VicariousJambi ago

These guidelines are intended to keep people safe, protect kids, keep Voat running, and to encourage personal responsibility for what you do on Voat. You must:

Take Personal Responsibility: As you use Voat, please remember that your speech may have consequences and could lead to criminal and civil liability.

sguevar ago

Agreed but what is happening is not on Voat's jurisdiction. For example the doxx on Gab. That is not on Voat.

The doxx of kids didn't happen on Voat.

And the user is well known for trolling without restraint, which pisses me off quite a bit, users sensitivities.

For example he is well known for pushing the troll of " X user raped and murder a kid in 1990"

His sick ways may be sick ways but are not reason enough to believe the credibility of his so called threats.

To add to the matter the user also appears to be working for someone to try to destabilize Voat.

  • Attacks voat using free speech to appeal for a moral indignation of the community pushing for a ban of his user name and hence Voat betrays its own essence if we ban him for that.

  • Attacks Voat showing the empty voids on the UA and use the same MO than many others here stating Gas the kikes hence discredits voat as a far right site and so on and so forth.

We can't play into his hands because that is what he wants and specially his (((handlers)))

VicariousJambi ago

You can spin it any way you want.

The rules are clear.

The Rules are there to protect people.

People need to take personal responsibility for the shit they say.

Encouraging violence, especially against children, against the rules.

theoldones ago

these rules are not being fairly enforced, and certain events are slipping through the filter.

sguevar ago

People need to take personal responsibility for the shit they say. Encouraging violence, especially against children, against the rules.

So that includes the (((comedians))) out there that make jokes about raping kids?

The dangerous slippery slope you can't see because of your lack of objectivity is right in front of you.

VicariousJambi ago

Making jokes about raping kids =/= telling people to specifically go rape someones kid

http://archive.li/HYr0C

[–] Shizy -1 points (+3|-4) 1.2 hours ago

Hey @pangaea pm me and I'll give you @gothamgirls address so you can fuck her kid to death. What fun! All is satire!

sguevar ago

Wait wait so are you telling me that she also engaged in the same behavior that she complained about?

Also did the pm ever happen? Do we have proof of this or again is zyklon fucking with all of you.

Dude I am sorry but we can't compromise for the lack of evidence.

VicariousJambi ago

Here maybe this will clear it up for your understanding.

Do Not Incite Harm:

You agree not to encourage harm against people.

sguevar ago

Of things that come from a user that often jokes (in a sick way I grant you that) with all of that.

No credible source of incitement appears. The only incitement I saw during all this was his attempt of flooding the subs with porn and loli and brigade the Mods.

That I did see and I called him out for that.

But regarding the rest I am sorry but I have to remain objective despite of the fact that I truly dislike the faggot at this point.

I can't support a biased stance on this. So I extend my apologies for disappointing you.

VicariousJambi ago

"Jokes" can encourage violence you know.

sguevar ago

I know but should we then make our decisions on what we thought he was trying to say?

Are we mind readers also?

Zyklon_b is a faggot and as I read before on another comment he should be ostracised for all the things he has done.

But I can't compromise my objectivity for hypothetical assumptions.

Again I know I come across as highly disappointing for you and many others. But I need to remain true to my self and my faith. I can't support false narratives that could compromise Voat in a whole and if for that I will be hated then so be it.

The Lord knows that I act only in the best interest of the site.

VicariousJambi ago

You are ignoring the intention of the rules, to keep people safe.

Is what z_b is doing safe? He's encouraging harm. It doesn't matter if he intended to just make a joke, troll, subvert the website, etc.

He's encouraging violence upon someones children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement#United_States

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees free speech, and the degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected. This "view reflects longstanding law and is shared by the Federalist Society, the ACLU, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the vast majority of Americans, including most staunch free-speech advocates."

Incitement to riot is illegal under U.S. federal law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.

**

http://archive.li/HYr0C

[–] Shizy -1 points (+3|-4) 1.2 hours ago

Hey @pangaea pm me and I'll give you @gothamgirls address so you can fuck her kid to death. What fun! All is satire!

Imminent - Hey @pangaea pm me and I'll give you @gothamgirls address so you can

Lawless action - fuck her kid to death.

JackHoff ago

You're not telling the whole story. I saw this go down today and she left that comment in a reply to zyklon_b calling for her child to be raped.

The way you're presenting this makes it look like it was done out of the blue.

VicariousJambi ago

Here's the comment you're referring to I believe.

http://archive.is/QtsH7