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.
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
Mislabelling what I am doing here is a nice way to engage this conversation.
And I would have to care what your stance on me is because?
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
sguevar ago
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?
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
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?
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
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.
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.
Octocopter ago
Read the comments yourself, the pages are filled with them from him and others. /u/zyklon_b
You can go ahead and fuck off. You can claim you are only "vigorously defending free speech" all you want. My opinion on you is set now and you had plenty of opportunities to distance yourself from the literal scum of the earth.
The site rules were violated and your pathetic deflection attempts wont do anything to change that, even now people are seeing past that and judging you accordingly to your actions here.
sguevar ago
I am pretty distant from the faggot.
I am not going to help you compromise Voat for your own convenience and that of the virtue signalers out there.
The site rules were not broke as we have no explicit call to action but him trying to troll the emotions of the weak minded users that are here including yourself.
A doxx on a website that is not this one is not a justification for us to ban the guy if you can't understand that then fuck off.
Vindicator ago
Wow. So you are saying that you think it's okay to knowingly harbor a predator just because he hasn't hurt someone under your own roof yet? WTF?
sguevar ago
If a known pedophile that recently got off of jail and now lives in your neighborhood, I welcome you to go post fliers telling the people that he is a known pedophile and that they need to be careful with their kids around that pedophile.
That is basically what I do with u/Aged. I call him a pedophile constantly here on Voat for we have circumstantial proof that he is one.
But if you are about to kill the pedophile that hasn't hurt anyone after getting off jail to prevent him from doing harm to a kid then I don't support that. Why? Because you are not a judge of anyone in this world. You wouldn't be pursuing a righteous quest, you would be corrupting it.
Isn't that clear enough?
We can't ban u/Aged from Voat for posting barely legal content on Voat can we? I personally disliked the fact that his ban from v/gaming was removed because he spams low effort content, doesn't engage with the community and because he is a known pedophile to the eyes of Voat. But the ban was removed and despite the fact that I didn't like it or didn't agree with the logic of some, I have to live with it. Period.
We don't get to ban someone from Voat because he allegedly doxxed someone on a different site. We can however start telling people that the user in question is not trust worthy and we should avoid engaging him/her. By all means go for it.
Vindicator ago
So banning equals killing?
You are seriously actually saying this? A Christian arguing "objectivity" and "fairness" is telling me that banning is the same as killing. Unbelievable.
The only thing a ban kills is the ability of a user's account -- with it's accumulated downvote-proof CCP and reputation -- to roam around scott free wreaking havoc and proving to all that there are no consequences for shitty behavior.
I am amazed you are making this argument.
A) No one is advocating banning for "alleged" doxxing.
B) You seem to be missing my point entirely. You or I following a user around dropping links to proof of his evil deeds is not Justice. Justice is a ruling rendered by the community, it's leader, or it's representatives that someone's actions will not be tolerated. A ban clearly communicates that. A sitewide username flair of shame might also satisfy justice. But being chased by schoolmarms shaking fingers and frowning is not justice.
These people are shameless. We need to create a system that causes people who abuse their free speech here to suppress the free speech of others to be shamed. Otherwise, only the evil ones will have freedom.
sguevar ago
In a sort of speak it is. You are killing that user on the site. Now you want to go ahead and take a literal translation of the analogy that I am giving that is your decision. But again that is simple convenience to try to blind yourself from the argument at hand.
Yes doxxing never occur. She doxxed herself.
As long as it follows a due process and it doesn't trump on the integrity of the main principle of the site. Period. That is non negociable. If you think it is then in that case you are following convenience and stating that the end justifies the means.
As long as is justified.
Show me the crime to which we can uphold this ban with clear and concrete evidence of the matter not circumstantial. You know you can't. Stop trying to follow de argument of a moral ground because as you can't impose your morals on others I can't impose my faith to others either. I can only share it as you can only share your morals but if they are not well received you are not to ask for them to suffer them at your will period. Also non negociable.
Agreed, so your objective is to become shameless like them to obtain what you want? Is that your solution? I do not share that and many here don't either for it trumps the value that we all hold dear here: Freedom of Speech. For good or for bad that is our modo and we have to be true to ourselves.
This is basically what the (((jews in the letter))), the sodomites, feminists, leftists and many others SJWs look for. Censor free speech for their pursuit of what is deemed good and what is deemed bad. But their notion of good is corrupted by convenience and convenience changes with time and chaos reigns through convenience. The new system most respect objectivity and due process not a public court of virtue signalling. So your assertions here are blinded by mere pride - and you may not agree with me here but read your words outloud and hear yourself then play some videos of the same groups I just numbered saying exactly the same thing.
Evil only roams free in a Godless world. And as this world is not of God I can only share Truth and stand by the Truth. I will not break nor compromise my faith by the convenience of a few to reign over all. That is what system of the antichrist is.
So to sum up - I also want to work on a system that comes by consensus. That follows due process and that remains objective. That doesn't base it's judgement on circumstantial evidence and moral indignation but that remains true to the facts. If we can't reach a consensus it will be just the authority of a few reigning over all. Due process must remain. If you don't believe in this then in that case there is nothing further to discuss.
Vindicator ago
I think it's a pretty shitty tactic to dismiss people's legitimate replies to you in a discussion as "convenience". It's a smear, implying the person you are talking to is not trying to have a serious conversation, and what they said to you isn't even worth engaging. Lame, dude. Especially in a thread purportedly about "healing".
It already IS the authority of a few reigning over all. A few trolls who can do whatever they want with impunity.
I never had an opportunity to vote on any of the rules around here. Nor did anyone I research with or mod for. And my attempts to engage in the conversation these past few days have resulted in massive attacks against me with shills I've busted in the past lying about me and drowning my inbox with pings as well as longwinded replies demanding answers, which are then dismissed without honest discussion.
What a shitty thing to say. Where the hell did I say I was against due process? Why would you imply I was advocating that? This statement is dishonest.
I started talking to you because I have been dealing with the situation that led to this latest trollfest for over a year. It didn't start with srayzie. It started with attacks against me. Srayzie became a target when she defended me.
My point was that Voat is fucked up. The "principles" as they are currently being applied are NOT protecting freedom of speech, because organized bad operators who have an agenda that is bigger than trolling (which I have documented) face no barriers whatsoever to their abusive ways.
You have not only NOT listened to my point of view, dismissing it as "convenience," "moral outrage," and "emotionalism" and repeating your own viewpoint over and over again, you've done it all under the umbrella of "dialogue", which is a travesty.
You don't want dialogue. You don't want to listen to me. You want to tell me why you're better and more noble and that I better shut up and listen.
Wake up. You're treating people like shit.
sguevar ago
You can criticise me all you want. Heck no idea is bullet proof without feedback, which is why @Sandhog ping you so you could also participate in this process. Are you willing to do it? Or you this is your way to say no to it?
And I am sorry if you felt I treated you like shit as it is not my intention but the chance is now and even if I sound dishonest to you I have never worked on the backs of anyone. So I ask you as I asked Crensch that keeps saying that I am dishonest and that he is taking me apart. Will you chip in?
Vindicator ago
What the hell do you think I have been trying to do?!
sguevar ago
Having a discussion with me. No process nor dialogue has started yet man. Look, I gave you my opinion from what I read on your responses. If you think is far off or is pretty shitty, well that is your opinion. Right now I am simply trying to find the users that are willing to sit down and talk.
You have a good insight on the problems Mods face hence I think you are needed also. So you can consider all our discussion the mere draft of what needs to be done. We need all to sit down and talk, that should be on a different post man.
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
That is one wordy SOB.
He thinks words = IQ
funny shit going on in this sub. Laugh-a-minute.
Vindicator ago
Especially if you have a gallows sense of humor.
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
Guilty.
SandHog ago
I don't think you were being dishonest. You were just sticking to the letter of the law is all. @Vindicator please come contribute here https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3250302/18941145/ We could use your input.
Vindicator ago
He was putting words in my mouth and making as if I am advocating for bans without due process. I never said any such thing, and stating that I did is dishonest.
SandHog ago
Ah, I read through the whole exchange. Possible he just misinterpreted what you were getting at. I know my brain is numb after days of this shit. It's become exhausting just trying to read through them much less participate.
Crensch ago
Fucking well said. He just keeps talking past everyone.
Dishonest as fuck.
kestrel9 ago
you guys are doing a bang up job in tolerating The Antifa Philosophy of Free Speech
Consensus from whom? Certainly not the members subs like in GA, who are quite happy to having to resort long lists of rules and shit because malignant bands of shitposters who WANT to be downvoted rule over Voat after weeks of harassment. But Protect Voat doesn't wait two hours before closing ranks to pontificate and object to the bans for actually breaking the rules. Just admit it, this sub protects shitposting trolls and nothing more. It's a joke, and therefore Voat is a joke too, because the great council of goats philosophically tug at their beards here as if they're accomplishing something worthwhile by doing nothing.
@Vindicator @Crensch
sguevar ago
How?
The community, and this regards more Global rules than subverse rules.
Tell me from the recent bans in the past 2 days that occur in GA which ones broke the rules of the site?
Which rule was broken since the ban hammer was dropped?
And since we are at this, why are comment deletions justified? I thought that, that was the point of upvotes/downvoutes to determine the relevance of a comment or not. Am I wrong on that assertion?
We protect all, or at least that is why I subscribed the sub and then joined the team. As I defended Srayzie and Shizy from that harassment that I never saw you do it, I defended Trigglypuff from an unjustifiable ban, I defended Obrez from an unjustifiable ban and I have defended many others from false accusations including myself. And under the same principle I would defend you or anyone else, including the ones I don't like because they all have a right to say what they want. Even if I don't agree nor like what they are saying.
This is a mere emotional outburst of yours for saying that. I have been in the front trying to stop the fights and trying to find a way in which we can create a new process that follows due process and is objective. I have been insisting to tell everyone to be true to themselves and the idea they married when they join the site. And though the two users that you are pinging here appear to want to (for one) follow convenience to fight their enemies resorting in the same tactic to see which moral outcry sounds the strongest amongs the community to shut their counterpart is simply disappointing. But hey, they already expressed they don't care about my opinion. For that should I just shut up or keep talking and reason with all of you?
I don't quit so easily as you see, I am a Costa Rican Christian that has been slandered many times here at Voat. But according to @Crensch only the (((chosen))) ones are allowed to thrive in this site. Am i then one of the (((chosen))) ones?
My mere interest is to end this and to start a new. So we can get the site stronger than before. And if you think is a joke, then amuse yourself or leave if you don't find it so funny. Why duel in a place that you feel so disappointing of? Or you could man up and start working with others. Up to you.
Do you have other comments you want to add in this moral indignation of yours?
kestrel9 ago
Regarding up/down votes. You must be aware that a some of the shitposting trolls seek to get banned right? Downvoting them becomes in essence a form of feeding them. I've yet to see this wise council take up deliberations on how that affects the members. When I realized it I stopped downvoting them, until @crensch took over and it was clear that yes, there for once could be consequences for the trolls who had up until then relied on hiding behind the apron of protect voat to get unbanned or 'ignored'.
Why are you complaining so much?
Interesting way to describe that.
Freedom of speech and right to freely assemble do have some crossover. In voat I would consider that the right to assemble within subverses and have a reasonable expectation that NPCs aren't stomping on the sub because they don't want people to speak or to be heard. You must be aware of the bias within Protect Voat against the existence of GA and Q related discussions. I don't believe the protect voat community cares when subs are overrun with brigades with the purpose of sabotaging the sub. I would bet that a good number of members of protect voat engaged in this using alts. How can they claim to represent the good of 'community' when they appear to reserve the right to act hypocritically? Choosing favorites when it comes down to it.
I can review them and tell you. But I imagine if it were so important a point for you, you would examine the rules and posts yourself. You just assume no rules were violated. Anytime a ban happens to a troll they squeal and protect voat jumps. When members of the sub complain about trolls, it's just 'moral indignation' or 'go make more rules that we will disregard if you try to enforce them'
So stay out the subverse bans where rules are broken, why does a bureaucracy of goats have to hobble over and chime in? People talk about the 'hands off' approach. Having protect voat goats and their alts milling around complaining because people broke the rules and were banned, but should they stay banned? Did the Mod get too emotional? Do the subscribers really just deserve what they get because they don't vote properly? FFS keep that shit here, it's almost worse than the trolling.
I appreciate you have the best interests at heart and I don't know all the details of what you have done, but overall in regards to GA, protect voat gets an F in my book. Fights haven't stopped on behave of the shitposting trolls have they? 2 mods leaving have not satisfied them because that is what they like to do. And protect voat is feckless about dealing with them.
You are sadly mistaken. If I thought voat wasn't worthwhile I would have left right? Why is discussing issues that oppose malignant shitposting activity considered 'dueling' but when the said harassment and sabotage of subverses goes on it's just 'free speech'?
sguevar ago
We don’t mess with subs bans where rules are broken. We put our foot down on those that are not justifiable bans. If you don’t help your Mods, you are not adding value nor strength to your sub. You are diminishing it. If you can’t understand that I can’t help you further. And it seems that is an impasse we have reached. Regarding the hypothetical of the alts – bring me proof and I will stand with you. If not I am not engaging.
I was at the beginning when QVR moved here that fought for you guys to join forces and not be separated. That was lost fight but I am proud of it. @Crensch can vouch for me on there, he knows I am true in my words even if right now he is pissed at me for posting the truth about the so called doxxing of srayzie. And that is just one example of many. I may have not been as invested on your community because I am not a follower of it but I strongly believe in your right to be here. So there is that. Shitposts and trolls will never stop. You need to understand that. They won’t. You need to face them. Not dodge them. And by face them is not engaging them with responses. But by facing that truth and downvote and move on. And regard the posts that do not respect the rules of the sub, they can be deleted and if the offenses continue then the users can be banned. To be honest I agree with that. But no ban should be done because of a comment unless is illegal under the law and the same goes for its deletion. I am sorry that you feel like that on PV. To be honest that is one of the subs that stood on beside of GA to help you guys out when QVR wanted to infiltrate you and also to assist srayzie on her harassment. Could have we done better. For sure. But that is why we need to start a new and work together.
Hey don’t get me wrong, I took your comment “Is a joke” at face value. If that was a mistake I am sorry.
kestrel9 ago
fwiw "is a joke" in context of my statement was intended to imply 'is a travesty', I didn't think that would have been lost on you. Also when I said, "Interesting way to describe that." I meant the use of the word married, 'married to free speech'. It just was different that's all.
When they come to break rules they want downvoats and want bans as troll badges of honor, you say that in those cases don't ban them and don't downvoat, correct? Just ignore them and they will vanish in the mist of our collective faith. oh wait
and then if they complain protect voat will make a week long all hands on deck event over it and if it's those trolls who wanted to be banned we all win right? They also win by getting unbanned. But don't talk to them, because then they win ;)
In Regards to how I feel about Protect voat, I'm speaking specifically about GA and about recent events. (not as much as the doxing I'm talking about what led up to that controversy, and why I think protect voat made things worse by opining way too much over the ban on zyklon_b's the ban that was overturned after he made many threats and to reward his great work, protect voat gave everyone voat's semi annual kumbaya with the trolls ceremony before the shit picked up where it left off. Members of subverses are very often told to shut up and ignore the trolls, but then the trolls come here and end up getting unbanned and it's even more rewarding for them imo.
What does starting new entail? unbanning? shut up and downvoat the unbanned trolls when they return to attempt to get rebanned and unbanned again?
sguevar ago
Sorry for misunderstanding you then. We've been going on and on so one can lose the track of some things. I apologize.
No the posts that break the rules can be deleted. Repeated offenses can get the users banned. Go for it! Comments can't be the reason you get banned unless that it is illegal or against Voat's global rules. Most of the ban hammered in the past few days were for comments not posts.
No, i personally just took like 1 hour or maybe less to check the reason why Zyklon B was banned and also Gabara and saw that the bans were justified. So no we shouldn't take that long to back up justifiable bans.
When unbaning is because Free Speech won there. Not the trolls. And again that would be only if the bans are not justified.
I agreed on his ban. I never asked for it to be removed. The only ban I disagree with was Triggly's on Voat and Obrez so far. But not from GA. I supported and defended the ban on ZB when it was made. I don't know about the others to be honest, but doubt that most were against it because we are tired of that faggot and he really didn't give us much with what we could defend him GA did provide proofs and hence I accepted the ban was justified.
I was referring to the whole harassment deal that srayzie had to go through. If we had better tools to work with to prevent that from happening again we would be very well more capable of defending the mods that are threaten and the subs. But that needs to be reached by consensus and the discussion hasn't taken place for me to be able to elaborate further.
kestrel9 ago
Okay on my new response consider it answered in this one (I was writing it before I read this) thanks
sguevar ago
Hey believe me I am not against you. And when it is justified I will support. If you have proof or evidence then I will back you up. If not I can't, even if it sounds as beautiful as the Word of God. Can't.
Crensch ago
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, dude. I don't really know shit about you. You meander and wax philosophical so often that my eyes glaze over and I stop reading.
I don't care whose side you're on with any of the myriad facets of this happening. You either see the absurdity and immorality of this place looking from the outside in, or you're stuck in a bubble of impeccable internal logic. I know. I was there. Most of that logic was fashioned by me. Going against you guys is like playing chess against a me that had years to perfect his words and plays; I'm behind right now, but I'm right.
sguevar ago
Well you area good digger, why don't you go dig then and prove me wrong if you think you can :) Glad to see you are able to laugh still.
Many have already stated that but I am on the side of Voat. Period. I am not the one betraying my principles. You are.
I am seeing at what we can make of this together. That is all and even if it makes you mad or laugh that I express myself the way I do, that is besides the point I am making.
Yup ok
Well I can only repeat myself: you betrayed your principles and decided to go to a place where the end justifies the means no matter how questionable your actions are. Basically you became a cynic.
That's too bad because I know you are better than that. You have shown it to me in the past and this mere frustration of yours is not going to change that. My understanding remains but my support is not. You don't care or not, I am just stating a truth.
The rest I leave it to God.
Hope you are doing well, but as I said to shizy, I will stand in the middle to reduce the effect this can have on Voat. I give you my word on it. So have at it my friend.
Crensch ago
Define this "voat" you are protecting.
sguevar ago
The same one you fought for when you got all your exposés about the holohoax and the (((jews in the letter))).
Crensch ago
That's not an answer.
When I "got" them? Interesting wording.
sguevar ago
Oh well you will have to do with my wording because sometimes I mess up. Remember I am from Costa Rica. So, change it for "made".
It is in fact and that has been elaborated through all of the other answers I have made today and in the past days. So I will have to ask you to look for them.
The main principle I defend is Freedom of Speech, the good and bad of it. Everyone has a right to it. That is the Voat I defend. The one I saw when you showed me about the holohoax (not me directly but I read them when you were addressing others) and when because of them I learned more about the Word of God. Even when you didn't intend to.
Outside of Voat, I would probably have not understood the difference between the (((jews in the letter))) and the Jews in Spirit. So hey, thanks for that once again.
Crensch ago
"I answered it somewhere in my projectile vomit of philosophical masturbation. Please search through the cum all over the walls and ceiling for me because I just can't cum ONE more time."
Whose freedom? When this idea was fashioned, who had a vote? Who could be a citizen? In the first immigration act, who could become a citizen?
What do we have that is different?
Oh, we agree! Now why is it that businesses will kick out the guy yelling at the customers and driving them off, instead of following that philosophy like you seem to want us to?
The one that was made up by some users some time ago and was never officially sanctioned by the admin?
I don't even know what that means, and my eyesight is yellow-shifting with the glaze, but I could still wreck some Jews if I were bored enough. The environment here is so target rich right now that I have to find ways to pare down the list of targets each night to something more manageable.
Yeah, no problem. No idea still, but whatever gets your goat.
Outside of Voat, I would probably have not understood the difference between the (((jews in the letter))) and the Jews in Spirit. So hey, thanks for that once again.
sguevar ago
LMAO, well you got it now.
The Voat users' all of them. But in a generic way: the Idea defended by most of the Constitutions of the western world before most of their govenrments go soooo corrupted that now is like a thin line in the horizon - too phylosophical for you?
We don't ban because of our fee fees Crensch.
Oh so you are seeing it as a buisiness then. Good because economics is one of my things. Ok well what was the first thing that appeal those customers in the first place? And if that business starts betraying the main appeal it brought so many customers what happens then?
Well that is what got me to stay here. The fact that I could be called a spic and not feel offended. Yes. Maybe we can approach the admin to get to it. Do you not think that?
I am sure you could. Never doubted you there.
I can understand that. But we can't compromise on Free Speech. This is our main sale point if we continue with the business approach.
I just put the recognition where it must be.
But seriously man, can't we find a way to work together to achieve what you want that can accommodate to all? Or at least to most?
This is my point. You invested so much on GA and I heard on PG also. I know you have what it takes even when people say you are a one man army. If you did a lot of those things alone. Why can you see what you could do with all of us in the same ship? - Sorry for my philosophical vomit but I like writing, I spent a lot of my teenage years writing so... you are going to have to swallow it. (isn't that nice?)
bopper ago
We're already back on track. We're just gonna be like the pizzagate sub, we won't delete comments unless it's porn or gore but spam POSTS will be removed and after maybe three warnings there will be a ban on repeat spammers. Crensch is agreeable to that, I've private messaged him.
sguevar ago
I know you are but we need to have this discussion for all of Voat not just for one sub in particular. We need to make it so it is for the Community to give their feedback and we need to set an objective and due process in which we can handle with the situations of harassment in a promtp matter and making less drama out of it.
bopper ago
Oh, gotcha.
sguevar ago
I would of said I was proud of your post but I got myself banned btw... so congrats on that one.
bopper ago
Thanks. Are you still banned? Is he gonna unban you?
sguevar ago
I don't know and to be honest I don't care. I made a post that had nothing to do with Q. Hahahaha.
My main goal is that we sit down on the "table" and get through this together so our inmune system gets even stronger and we have more tools to defend our community.
bopper ago
Okay, thanks. Agreed.
sguevar ago
I don’t disagree for banning users when they break subverse rules. That is up to the subverse how they want to handle their rules. So that council you are referring to would be one that has to be accorded by the members of that subverse. Nonetheless you can’t ban a user for posting a comment you don’t like. Nor delete his comment because you don’t like either. @Crensch help creating that Voat policy more than 3 years ago. So what you are praising here is just a betrayal of his believes at convenience of “defeating his enemies”. Cause is corrupted now. Bravo! I agree that giving attention to the trolls feeds them, so why not downvote and move on? You really think you are that desired as a community to bug that they will keep posting on and on and on because you downvote only or because you ignore them also? Is that really hard for you to see? For example, if I decided to not continue with this conversation and just moved on, then that is it. You won’t keep talking to yourself and probably will feel some type of arrogant realization that “I won the debate”. The only reason I keep reasoning with you is because I agree with you that there are voids and I know this is an important discussion that needs to be spoken. We need to work together, not against each other and point fingers at each other when we can work this out. This is my view. But one thing is unnegotiable – we don’t compromise on Free Speech. Period.
What, that we remain true to ourselves by not compromising the main goal here that is Free Speech? Thanks, I mean I know it comes from a sarcastic view of yours trying to accommodate to your previous statement but you don’t realize that it is in fact a good way to describe the reason why we are all here at Voat.
I agree that is up to each subverse to define their rules but Comment deletion and banning because you don’t like what they said is not amongst those. That is against Free Speech and you are engaging in a Twitter MO which is quite frowned upon here at Voat. Crensch knows this. I know he is just venting his frustration. But not in a healthy way I might add. Well Let me see, @bopper is a mod on PV, so is @argosciv, @Sandhog they all like Q. Myself I don’t follow Q though I find your subs publications interesting I don’t trust it but you have never saw me slandering the Q movement. I have always maintained an opened mind to your movement. But my faith remains where it must, Jesus Christ. So I don’t know of what bias are you talking about. If anything there is more risk of the bias being in favor of the GA subverse than anything else. We don’t want your sub to die, we don’t want you guys to go. I mean some at Voat may, but that is not up to them to decide. That is up to you whether you keep the sub running and yourselves here at Voat. I work as a mere middle man to avoid conflict as much as we can, but can we prevent all conflicts? No. We try to deal with them accordingly. And you betting on the alts matter is jumping into a hypothetical that I am not going to engage. Bring me proof of that and I will stand with you. I don’t like the use of alts. Period. I don’t like dishonest behavior. That is why so many hate me. I am not hypocrite that they can work on. I have no prize. I only put Jesus before my decisions and opinions. Even if they are more mocked at than anything.
It was important for me. That is why I review the comments deleted and the people that got banned. None broke any rule of posting nor anything like that. I for example defended the ban that Zyklon B got for his bullshit and coward move to encourage a brigading effort against your sub and posting porn. So there is that. I was there calling him out. Look at all the history if you are going to state something. It is up to the members of the sub to understand that they don’t get to censor no one’s speech as they didn’t want theirs censored either. That is what it takes when you marry to the idea of Free Speech. If no illegal behavior took place then no deletion must happen and no ban must happen unless that a post rule was broken after a warning or an illegal behavior took place. But none did. This is why I agree with bopper’s post. Is up to you to engage on your community. If you spot a chill you downvote it and move on. Don’t feed it with replies. You guys were not doing that you were simply crying like a bunch of fags “daddy mod do something”. No, engage, it is your sub, not the mods’.
PART 1 because it is a long reply.
kestrel9 ago
You sincerely equate the motives of @Vindicator with that of shitposters in question?
sguevar ago
So you seriously can't make 1 comment trying to debate all of what I said you have to go ahead and do it one by one?
And yes I equate using the tools of your enemies to pursue your victory over them in the same manner. Why?
kestrel9 ago
Here's suggestion to keep you true to your principals. How about Voat not allow MODS to use alts at all, that would keep them on a level playing field and users can rest assured that MODS are not using the tools of the enemy over the enemies.
sguevar ago
Well if you checked my profile and post history you would know that I am against alts and have argued that many times. For everyone. Using alts it just opens the door to dishonest behavior.
So I am glad to see that we are reaching to some common ground here.
kestrel9 ago
one by one is too fast for you? LOL
And what does victory over them look like to you? honest question.
@Crensch
sguevar ago
Not compromising who you are and what you fought for even in defeat.
Jesus thought me that.
kestrel9 ago
Now that you've qualified your moral position by invoking Christ (nothing like shutting down a discussion there /s), let me ask this equally honest question. What do you think victory over the enemies of a subverse looks like to the members of that subverse who have been battling them?
sguevar ago
I can't speak for them sorry. I can only share the Truth of what the Word of God have thought me. Sorry if my faith is a disappointment for you, but not sorry either. Don't take it sarcastically either. Just the truth. I am sorry if that is the reason why we can't dialogue more.
kestrel9 ago
I'm a Christian too. But I don't my invoke my faith to try to appear I'm morally superior. I try to use applicable logic and reason when having discussions about things like trolls and how protect voat can best serve the overall community (besides sharing their faith in God). Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong representative of protect voat.
sguevar ago
I never said or implied I am morally superior. I am simply stating my motivation on my decisions. And yes they have to do with my faith.
In no part of our conversation i have engaged on nothing more than reasoning and applicable logic. So again you are misrepresenting my motivation for stating my faith. If you think I am the wrong representative, why don't you talk with @argosciv, @Sandhog or @bopper.
They all like Q more than I do. Maybe you can reach a better level of understanding with them.
I am glad we changed the tone through our conversation. I don't wish you ill not even to the people I don't like. I leave their choices between them and God. And me saying this is not because I am morally superior. To God's eyes we are all sinners. But I am saying it because God is really important for me. Not saying that more than to you but simply stating my side.
Hence a lot of users don't like that I put some preaching on v/whatever. Hey you can have @dontforgetaboutevil tell you that. He hates my preaching. Isn't that right son (XD)?
dontforgetaboutevil ago
Not as much as I hate being called son.
sguevar ago
hahaha fair enough.
kestrel9 ago
I'm interested to hear your logic about the issue over trolls who seek to be downvoted and banned on a sub, and then unbanned by appealing to protect voat. The zyklon_b case is interesting because people said the ban should have remained, yet there was goat pressure on the mod when the protect voat brigade showed up to overthink and overtalk the 'simple subject' that the ban should have remained but for the mod reacting to the incessant complaints of the one banned, which caused posts on the GA sub, making it a big extension of a protect voat shit show. IMHO troll banned WIN, troll unbanned WIN, shit show on sub on behalf of troll WIN. Subverse members, shut up and act like nothing is happening, down vote the next troll who wants down votes and wants to be banned.
SandHog ago
The argument currently raging on PV seems to hinge on the difference between the Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of the Law.
That is really the hang up in this entire mess and people are either on one side of it or the other. Both have valid points and it is the reason noone can come to an agreement about what is right and what is wrong. It's also the reason decisions are made in the Supreme Court and are used to set a precedent for future cases that are similar. Putt is the Supreme Court in this case.
As I see it the Letter of the Law has failed us here in it's current form. We need to refine the law for situations such as this. It probably should have been done a long time ago because I think Voat would be much healthier if it were addressed before now. Currently the Letter of the Law allows for rampant shitpost and trolling everywhere. It has also been abused by those shitposters and trolls to the detriment of Voat as a whole in that the current law has always favored them. They have been free to rampage and shit up subs as they please and any time a mod gets frustrated to the point of issuing bans because they feel that they are seeing their sub destroyed the shitposters run to ProtectVoat and cry foul. They abuse the shit out of it because they can and they enjoy causing headaches for other people simply for the entertainment value that they see in it. Something needs to change because as it stands the Letter of the Law is being upheld to the detriment of Voat.
Perhaps some of the particularly contentious subs could be flagged as shitposts being off-limits? People could still have their say so long as they respected the sub. Shitposts really aren't saying anything other than 'fuck you' anyway. Or maybe allow 1 day temp bans when people are really starting to become disruptive in certain subs? I dunno. Just two examples that sprung to mind and I'm sure there are flaws in both. The point being that the current Letter of the Law is failing Voat and what we should be discussing are ways to bring the letter of the law into closer alignment with the spirit of the law instead of people just arguing back and forth over the current interpretation.
@sguevar @kevdude @argosciv @Vindicator @Crensch
Vindicator ago
Here's a problem I see that is not addressed by the letter of the law in any way:
Trolls and attackers who only operate in Comments because they know they will be banned for shitposts that violate Submission Rules are untouchable, even when they have been proven and documented to be out to destroy the subverse, and the userbase wants them booted.
That is a common thread, not just with the most recent perps, but with the ones I've mentioned targeting v/pizzagate like ES.
SandHog ago
What about some sort of limited state option that mods could employ instead of a full block? Similar to how a brand new account is limited to 10 comments or whatever the number is. I think it's 10. So if someone is repeatedly being a pain in the ass you could restrict the number of comments they could make to x amount per day for x amount of time. They'd still get to have their say but just not as much of it as they would like. I don't see how that would be any different than the comment restriction for new accounts given that those are in place to prevent abuse (spam) as well.
Vindicator ago
Yeah...my point really is: at what point do people lose the right to have their say? The real crux of the conflict and bad feeling here is that users who abuse their free speech in Comments don't have to worry about it being taken away pretty much for any reason. ES should have lost his right to. Zyklon as well. That they haven't is a great injustice which is only growing larger by the day.
sguevar ago
How about if the subs are left with the ability to specifically put up a rule on shit-posting and low effort content. But that clearly states shit-posting. In that way each sub that has that rule the moment they see them they can remove with a warning . If the problem persists then ban is justified?
@SandHog?
I mean that way shitpost can remain on the subs that allow it. However, comments arre not to be removed unless they are illegal (CP, doxxing, inciting harm) Now we need to define clearly what doxxing and inciting harm and that is clarified on the rules also like for example if the faggot ZB tries to say is all satire and i want to kill you, one could say well even "even if you claim this is, we have no way to see how others would see it, so it is inciting harm."
What are your thoughts?
Vindicator ago
Outstanding summation, Sandhog.
SandHog ago
Thanks. @MolochHunter @bopper
Please see: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3250302/18941145/
sguevar ago
@cynoclast, @bopper. check all the discussion and also the following comments. This is important.
sguevar ago
I couldn't have said it better but I think that more users need to be brought to this conversation!
@MadWorld, @PeaceSeeker, @PuttitOut. @Cynabuns.
This is a discussion that we need to have and once something that we can agree on it has to be presented to the community so they can vote on it. This is what I have been trying to initiate for quite a few days now!
However we need to make sure that this new "letter of the law" doesn't affect their ability to shitpost either. Is just setting boundaries. That need to be agreed on by consensus.
theoldones ago
i'll raise the point that stealing poal.co's policy on CP and then following the rules may be enough to stop at least certain cliques of our problem cases
the "ride the line of the law with blatant loli shit" type, yaknow
sguevar ago
Stealing not fond of that term but maybe we can consult it and see what we can grab from it. I don't mind doing that either.
SandHog ago
Agreed. Maybe just make a post of the Letter vs the Sprirt of the law on PV?
theoldones ago
website ("federal") VS subverse ("state") law. define what each side can and cannot do, and to whom
add the ability so that a blocked users posts are collapsed, and we're golden, maybe?
sguevar ago
It has to go beyond PV. This post needs to be address by Putt. And needs to be prepared by all of us.
SandHog ago
Wherever it needs to go it should go there. It's pretty clear that this is an issue that really needs to be solved.
sguevar ago
That we can agree on.
SandHog ago
We probably agree on quite a lot, I suspect.
kestrel9 ago
What if that user kilt another user on the site?
@Vindicator @Crensch
sguevar ago
And so again with literal translation of the argument at hand...
Well have a good one with that.