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?
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.