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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

I am amazed you are making this argument.

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.

A) No one is advocating banning for "alleged" doxxing.

Yes doxxing never occur. She doxxed herself.

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.

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.

A ban clearly communicates that.

As long as is justified.

A sitewide username flair of shame might also satisfy justice. But being chased by schoolmarms shaking fingers and frowning is not justice.

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.

These people are shameless.

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.

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.

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.

Otherwise, only the evil ones will have freedom.

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.

kestrel9 ago

so your objective is to become shameless like them to obtain what you want?

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

one by one is too fast for you? LOL

And yes I equate using the tools of your enemies to pursue your victory over them in the same manner.

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

And yes I equate using the tools of your enemies to pursue your victory over them in the same manner.

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

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?

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'm a Christian too. But I don't my invoke my faith to try to appear I'm morally superior.

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.

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.

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)?

kestrel9 ago

In no part of our conversation i have engaged on nothing more than reasoning and applicable logic.

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.

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote 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.

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

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

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

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.

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.