Posted automatically (#46661) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
Posted automatically (#46620) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
Posted automatically (#45691) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
Posted automatically (#45630) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
We arent dealing with just shitposters though. These people are clever and are now using our own rules against us. because thats what they do. If they destroy the subs that they don't like then isn't that essentially destroying Voat itself or neutering it? If we can't be home to the pizzagate community or Q community then what is Voat good for? Think back to v/linux, v/gaming and v/aww. Why were those targeted in particular? Did they legitimize Voat in a way they saw as dangerous?
I'm thinking the same as you. In fact I'm fairly certain that this current blowup is rooted in some skullduggery that went on in v/Pizzagate about 9 months back. At least that is where some of the bad blood stems from.
Note how the top comment pings one of the primary people involved in this mess and then links to a picture of another and then to top it off signs it someone else?
I'm not talking about you and I'm not sure they are either. It's just that you are the biggest obstacle they think in removing those other users. Rightly or wrongly.
Except we haven't been using it on the trolls. In fact it has been the opposite. I don't know whose been deciding to sticky what throughout this entire ordeal but I do know that it has been completely one-sided. I haven't taken a single mod action throughout this entire process because I wanted to understand the full extent of what is going on. All I have seen is you and @sguevar making excuses not to go after the trolls and deflecting everything back onto @srayzie as being a bad mod which simply is not true. Oh she doxed herself it's her fault. She sent titty pics. It's her fault. Yeah, she may have done those things but none of this is her fault.
You know full well where I am coming from. I have made no secret that all I want is for Voat to succeed both publicly and privately. Voat cannot succeed so long as a small group of trolls are allowed to terrorize moderators of subverses that they do not like. That is what I have seen throughout all of this.
We just keep in mind that what we use on trolls today we censor everyone with tomorrow.
So we just let the trolls do whatever the fuck they want and Voat today is the same as the Voat of 3 years ago. The same it will be three years from now. That sounds like a pretty shitty fucking plan.
I have stickied some posts I have made regarding the Enough is Enough to put some light on the false premise that srayzie was doxxed here at voat.
The post denouncing the ban hammer on GA needed to be stickied because it is an enormous sub that untill now hadn't engage in such behavior. We need to prioritize but we certainly need more mods on PV to be more effective and decentralize.
All I have seen is you and sguevar making excuses not to go after the trolls and deflecting everything back onto srayzie
Now this is something I completely disagree. I am not about to corrupt our cause to conveniently help a friend with false claims. If you find that to be excuses and deflections then I am sorry you look at it like that but I am certainly not sorry for standing with the truth.
as being a bad mod which simply is not true.
Neither kev nor I have ever said she was a bad mod. We have actually stated the opposite and I have specifically express my regret to her friends and publicly regarding her departure. But as stated to one user in GA,there is no bad thing that doesn't happen for a good reason. So there is a chance we can work on this together to prevent from happening again.
Yeah, she may have done those things but none of this is her fault.
Actually yes. She has accountability on what she did that aided her enemies to attack her. I am sorry for what she went through and I stood with her but that doesn't removed her accountability on her actions. Just because she was victimized by a group of users that we all dislike and that she allow herself to be victimized.
Voat cannot succeed so long as a small group of trolls are allowed to terrorize moderators of subverses that they do not like. That is what I have seen throughout all of this.
I stand with kev on the fact that trolls and shills only get the power you give them. If we start censoring their speech then we would have compromised on FREEDOM OF SPEECH and I am not for it.
So we just let the trolls do whatever the fuck they want and Voat today is the same as the Voat of 3 years ago. The same it will be three years from now. That sounds like a pretty shitty fucking plan.
No, we take a different approach and get the community informed so they can fight against them without feeding them.
From my part i put everything on hold as i am in the hospital with my wife. I will address ypur comment after as i need to read all of what yoi are talking about.
That's not what she was claiming. She's gone now so we'll probably never get her side of the story. As for zyklon, what would be the point in me doing that? It wouldn't accomplish anything. Others with far more street cred than I have tried and what did it result in? Two mods getting run off the site for no real reason other than some people decided that Q is a 'jew op' and should be destroyed. It's funny because the very people claiming this employed every single jew trick in the book. Or are they SJW tricks? Hard to tell the difference.
Why haven't you gone after them you're a PV mod?
Why haven't you? Why hasn't anyone other than a small handful of people that recognize what this is all about? It's never been about srayzie; it's been about Q and politics. She was just a convenient attack vector. I don't even follow Q or know what the fuck is going on with it but if a bunch of people want to get together and dig into corruption I think that is a good thing.
I'm not interested in assignments. All I'm interested in is what is best for Voat. All of Voat. It's either free speech for all or free speech for some as far as I can see. Right now it's clear to me that it's free speech for some and that ain't good enough.
I do find it extremely interesting that I have had various people message me insinuating that I should look into @virge because he seems 'shady'. From what I have seen out of that guy all he really wants is some actual transparency. If we had some transparency a lot of these problems would go away. I'm pretty sure that I don't agree with the guy politically but he's absolutely right.
@Crensch doesn't need my help. He's never asked for it. He's doing what he thinks is right and I understand why he is doing it. I agree with him in that there is something very wrong with Voat. A small group of users are manipulating the rules to push their agenda and silence anyone who opposes them. They have been doing it for a long time. Anyone that dared point it out was vilified and run off the site. Either you are enabling them or you are complicit. It doesn't even really matter because the end result is the same. It's still continuing today. @Vindicator has been targeted. @theoldones has been targeted. Who is next on the chopping block? @think-?
I'm tired of this shit. It's not right. Good people have been vilified for no real reason other than they disagreed with a small number of users and refused to play ball. All the people bitching about the bans and the ban warnings are the same people who have been causing most of the problems here. Hopefully @PuttItOut can come to a decision that will preserve free speech and punish those that ultimately seek to silence it through their actions and the selective cooperation of PV. If not then this place is truly lost.
I am hereby resigning my mod position. I never wanted to mod anything in the first place. I only accepted it under the premise that it's mission was rooted in good faith and that it's purpose was to benefit ALL of Voat. I no longer believe that to be the case.
Posted automatically (#46628) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
I'm not interested in assignments. All I'm interested in is what is best for Voat. All of Voat. It's either free speech for all or free speech for some as far as I can see. Right now it's clear to me that it's free speech for some and that ain't good enough.
I agree with this. It isn't enough but we need to also rely on the proactivity and awareness of our users. We need to be informers in order to provide them with the tools they need to fight against them without feeding them.
I do find it extremely interesting that I have had various people message me insinuating that I should look into @virge because he seems 'shady'. From what I have seen out of that guy all he really wants is some actual transparency. If we had some transparency a lot of these problems would go away. I'm pretty sure that I don't agree with the guy politically but he's absolutely right.
I am one of those that pinged you on archiving any interaction with him because he is one that looks for "transparency for thee but not for me". He is pushing the public vote system in which we can see what users vote for what which means that it could promote brigading of users that do not vote for their ideas and hence he continue at describing them as destroyers. He is manipulative and when you get him into a corner arguing with him, he resorts into false claims and slanders, I should know he has made them against me, and ad hominem and tantrums, also made quite a few against me like calling me a spic etc (As if that was going to trigger ne or something).
So I don't agree with you saying he's right because he is currently taking advantage of what is happening on Voat to manipulate people. How is it that a user that wants transparency, purges his content and comments constantly? Is that transparent to you?
I agree with him in that there is something very wrong with Voat.
I agree with him there too. His approach is what I do not agree with.
A small group of users are manipulating the rules to push their agenda and silence anyone who opposes them.
That are using clear tactics to do so.Tactics that most of the users here at Voat do not know about and that are not aware that can be fought back if we work together.
They have been doing it for a long time. Anyone that dared point it out was vilified and run off the site.
Only if they think it is a lost cause. I don't think it is and that is why I stand in the middle to prioritize a more effective effort in getting things right from now on and then address them accordingly.
Either you are enabling them or you are complicit.
This is the approach I don't agree with: guilty by association. I will put it differently: Either we compromise on FREEDOM OF SPEECH or we don't. I stand with the don't.
It's still continuing today. @Vindicator has been targeted. @theoldones has been targeted. Who is next on the chopping block? @think-?
Haven't you noticed that they target them individually, separately and that instead of finding a way to all work together we have reach a point in which they have managed to put us all against each other?
I'm tired of this shit. It's not right.
We all are.
Good people have been vilified for no real reason other than they disagreed with a small number of users and refused to play ball.
However most of those people have played their game and even corrupted their cause by using their same tactics. This is what I am trying to avoid from happening.
Hopefully @PuttItOut can come to a decision that will preserve free speech and punish those that ultimately seek to silence it through their actions and the selective cooperation of PV. If not then this place is truly lost.
At this point we need to help him. He can't really stand alone just because he is the admin. And we can't compromise on FREEDOM OF SPEECH just to conveniently having some faggots shut down. We need to inform people of what they can do and how to better approach them. We need to show them how to fight back without falling for their schemes. PV can't stand alone either. We need the users to help us. We need to work together.
I am hereby resigning my mod position. I never wanted to mod anything in the first place. I only accepted it under the premise that it's mission was rooted in good faith and that it's purpose was to benefit ALL of Voat. I no longer believe that to be the case.
I would please ask you to reconsider and help us find a middle ground on which we can all work together to get this done. If you resign you will be giving up and hence another victory for the same people you fight against.
How is it that a user that wants transparency, purges his content and comments constantly? Is that transparent to you?
Transparency with the voting would go a long way towards stopping a lot of the manipulation and gaslighting. I don't how anyone would get any more upset knowing that someone downvoted something it's no different that leaving a comment that opposed the post or comment. As for clearing his history I suspect that probably has more to do with serial brigades on his ccp than anything. You can still see his history in searchvote, no? I'm assuming he angered some people over something but I don't know what that might have been so I can't speak to that. I am a fan of transparency in the voting system though.
also made quite a few against me like calling me a spic etc (As if that was going to trigger ne or something).
I don't recall that. The rest of what you said is just your opinion and it's still false, but you'll never change your mind because you're too entrenched in your imagination - but this certainly is questionable, I don't think I've ever called someone a spic. You may have me confused here, I don't usually resort to anything involving race unless it's purely satirical because I think most people are stupid regardless of race and thus I discriminate against stupidity equally.
To date our only real disagreement is that you're convinced I'm someone I'm not and that I'm part of some grand conspiracy, when I'm just me and my only agenda is being me.
Posted automatically (#50720) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@virge: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @sguevar)
but this certainly is questionable, I don't think I've ever called someone a spic.
Well you deleted the comment before i archive it. No poot in going there anymore.
However i don't trust someone that pushes for transparency and shows very little of it.
My imagination? You can look st it as you want. You have always try to conveniently change the argument to make yourself look like the victim. I couldn't care much for your opinion even if i wanted to.
Well you deleted the comment before i archive it. No poot in going there anymore.
And we both know the comment is still on SearchVoat.co. If you don't want to do the search, that's fine - but it's also disguise to present it as if you can't find my posts if you wanted to. That's my only real beef with you. For whatever reason, you'd prefer to ignore logic and reason and repeatedly present this false narrative to your own ends. You're not alone, so I'm used to this.
However i don't trust someone that pushes for transparency and shows very little of it.
Because voting transparency and post history have what connection, exactly?
My imagination? You can look st it as you want. You have always try to conveniently change the argument to make yourself look like the victim.
Your opinion. Like I said, I've already tried to change it and I gave up long ago because you don't actually want to change this opinion. It's either convenient for you (for whatever reason), or you're unwilling to open your eyes and look around and realize that with some exceptions most people who shared this opinion have changed their mind. Even @kevdude, if I were a betting man - but I don't want to speak for kev, so to be clear that's just my opinion.
I couldn't care much for your opinion even if i wanted to.
Pretty much the crux of the issue, honestly. I realized this when we first interacted and I actually tried to get you to have a serious conversation, but then you went all parody and religious and it was pretty clear you were playing a character (that I notice you no longer play). You've already admitted you've made up your mind about me and are unwilling to change it. Thats why I don't waste time on trying to talk to you for the most part.
It's pretty funny to me to see you go from frothing at the mouth @WhiteRonin style (no dig WR, I enjoy your comments for the entertainment value, intended or otherwise is irrelevant) to super-serious and then watch you expect everyone who observes both sides of you to come to their opinions confused when you act like it's unjustified.
Like I said. It's the Internet. We all do stupid shit, all the time, intentionally or otherwise. I treated you, and others like WR, with kid-gloves for a long time because I thought it was all fun and games and nothing serious. Over time, I actually realized many people, like you (I think) actually take this extremely seriously. In hindsight, that probably contributes to the friction between us because in my opinion it was all just a misunderstanding, but you're so convinced I'm something I don't think I am we can never find common ground.
If we can never find common ground, there is no point. So I generally abstain from talking to you. This is one of those few rare times when I probe to see if I'm still talking to the troll sguevar I've observed over a long period of time, or if you're actually serious for once. I still can't tell.
Transparency, as used in science, engineering, business, the humanities and in other social contexts, implies openness, communication, and accountability. Transparency is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed. It has been defined simply as "the perceived quality of intentionally shared information from a sender".
Would you agree that deleting posts and comments not go against this definition?
I caught @virge deleting his comments when replying to me.
He/she lost control of the conversation and went splerging all over the place. It was quite quaint actually! She also deleted all her pings for her brigade army.
I told Virge that she were to stop I would leave her alone. But typical woman does what she wants and easily forgets what she agreed to.
See, I enjoy this moron posting in gun topics which barely get any votes or copy pasting attacks on users which she deletes at a later date.
So guys, wouldn’t you say it’s a psychopath who records your interactions in excel? They do this because they delete “inconvenient” exchanges with people like you. They correct the record to leave no trace of their “temporary internet stupid shit”. Yet, this person, Virge, who continuously deletes unwanted information left for the public to verify.
One thing you can count on, is that, Virge, will reply back as a condescending ass who verified facts about you via their excel notes.
I really have no idea what is going on with @virge. I don't know who they are or what, if any, ulterior motives they might have beyond their stated purpose of bringing more transparency to Voat. I do think it's pretty weird that they track all that stuff. And it is also hypocritical to call for transparency while at the same time scrubbing comments. I've always just assumed it was an effort to protect their ccp from being drained and their account set to limited state because of it. Why do you think they are female exactly? I can see that as being gamma male behavior just as easily.
They do this because they delete “inconvenient” exchanges with people like you. They correct the record to leave no trace of their “temporary internet stupid shit”. Yet, this person, Virge, who continuously deletes unwanted information left for the public to verify.
Wouldn't that show up in searchVoat though? If not then surely people will have grabbed archives of this happening.
Voat seems to have a problem with people behind the scenes manipulating the users into actions that are harmful to Voat and prevent it from growing. When u/Stonetoss, someone who should have fit in quite nicely, came over he was run off. I tried to prevent that from happening and he had even reversed his initial position on power-modding within about 45 minutes of taking that stance but it was too late and he was run off. This keeps happening over and over again. @srayzie and @shizy are just the latest examples of this.
I don't see how knowing who is upvoting or downvoting you is a bad thing. I haven't looked into the pros and cons of it all that much due to all this meta bullshit so on it's surface it appears to be a positive thing. @Virge's actions notwithstanding a little more transparency surrounding who is voting which way would solve a lot of problems around here. One thing I have noticed is that several people, including yourself, who received bans or ban warnings for vote manipulation appear to be really keen on avoiding any sort transparency. I'd be real interested in seeing the full list of those who received said warnings and I think in the interest of transparency @PutItOut should publish it. It is also not lost on me that a number of those individuals also happen to mod v/Beatlestrollarmy. So call me skeptical about your intentions in all of this.
Please beg Virge to buy me out! I give you full transparency at his expense.
Me? Against transparency? Of fuck NO! I am all for retroactive transparency even! I posted in Virge’s transparency post and had better ideas that wouldn’t need much code changes.
See, I did mention that Putt would never do it. Because if he were to open up retroactive vote histories and anon post histories he’d fuck voat over real hard. It’s suicide.
Sure, let’s see who votes much like slack does! Add in Virge’s idea of setting at in the future with full disclosure. Fuck yeah! My imaginary points will only go up! No more fucking brigades and I will know who is being a dick to me. Fuck, make it simple and add in a dash board to see who up or down votes you the most.
Virge on the other hand. Just talks. Why does he delete his comments? How is that a builder mentality for transparency?
As for that sub, sure I joined! Beats is a real life friend. Are you gonna say you wouldn’t join a sub if a friend invited you?
I have used that sub to call out Virge! Yes I have!
As for search voat, I do believe you can scrub that too. Something called GDPR might require that.
Please beg Virge to buy me out! I give you full transparency at his expense.
That's the difference between you and me. My honesty comes free of charge.
Virge on the other hand. Just talks. Why does he delete his comments? How is that a builder mentality for transparency?
That's a fair point.
As for that sub, sure I joined! Beats is a real life friend. Are you gonna say you wouldn’t join a sub if a friend invited you?
I don't remain friends with people who choose to do shitty things to other people because they think it's fun.
As for search voat, I do believe you can scrub that too. Something called GDPR might require that.
I saw him say something about @searchVoat agreeing to let him delete some stuff or something along those lines. I have no idea how any of that shit works. Like I said, I don't know all the details about the history or his character as I've not interacted with him much at all.
I hope @PuttItOut chooses the path of more transparency. It would reduce a lot of the confusion and infighting that happens here. I don't even care if it's retroactive or not.
I was honest in the bait of Virge comment. Sure I helped my other alt a bit but it having less than 100ccp it needed. Honestly and baiting someone is a different thing.
We all have done shitty things to people. Many times you do shitty things instead of looking the other way. Nobody is a saint!
GDPR is the EU probably law that requires companies with websites to remove user data and informs people of that website’s cookie policy. I’m sure you have noticed those annoying cookie agreements. That’s GDPR.
The only way transparency will happen is if it’s in the future and if Putt wants to change the voting dynamics. Right now it’s a system that can be abused.
We all have done shitty things to people. Many times you do shitty things instead of looking the other way. Nobody is a saint!
Agreed. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar or Saint Theres....a liar.
GDPR is the EU probably law that requires companies with websites to remove user data and informs people of that website’s cookie policy. I’m sure you have noticed those annoying cookie agreements. That’s GDPR.
Ah, ok. I know what you mean now. At the current rate of insanity the poor lads in the EU will be forced to mail their memes to each other on postcards before much longer. I imagine they will then be reduced to some sort of underground meme railroad involving dead drops at bus depots not long after that.
The only way transparency will happen is if it’s in the future and if Putt wants to change the voting dynamics. Right now it’s a system that can be abused.
And is for a number of different reasons. It's the biggest chink in Voat's armor and it has been exploited time and time again to the detriment of the platform. It's a shame because most people here, I think, agree on a great number of things to one degree or another. The only people capable of killing Voat are goats.
I do think it's pretty weird that they track all that stuff.
Why? I've kept spreadsheets of every purchase I've made since the mid-90's - using actual paper spread sheets before excel became an easier method of tracking. Even better, excel spreadsheets can be encrypted with a password making them something I'm OK with putting private info on in an over-abundance (when within multiple layers of encryption already, of course).
I like data. I'm a data guy. Because I have data on my own behavior. It's my behavior, so the data is mine to do with as I see fit, to be dictated by no other. I vehemently protest how data is packaged and sold, and have first-hand experience on how over the past 20 years or so it has shifted the way the Internet works.
I only post things online I want other people to see, period, because I have had Internet OpSec as part of my list of every-day skills having witnessed what we now call "doxxing" happening on ICQ, AOL-AIM, and then on (including the Usenest and Arpanet iterations, but that was so prior to good data availability that it was more like two people in the same network, group, or club outing someone elses behavior and was generally good for the community and thus promoted. Times have changed, as we now witness today.
Think critically. What are some effective ways of dealing with people who, because they do not know they've interacted with you for a long time due to a lack of comment history for them to refer to, but you've observed them over a very long period of time and have, because you like data, simply recorded your own observations of their actions throughout the years from the lense of someone who's seen this kind of behavior evolve on the Internet for over 25 years? Come to your own conclusions.
And it is also hypocritical to call for transparency while at the same time scrubbing comments.
Why? In my opinion, you are now discussing two very separate, although somewhat inter-connected ideas; privacy and transparency.
To be clear, privacy is a choice everyone makes, and in my opinion because I choose to post everything very specifically to begin with, I can also choose to remove that content just as specifically if I so desire. It harms no one else, it is no one elses decision to make and thus I simply do not care that someone else finds this a problem unless they are providing me a very specific rule-based or even moral-based reason as to what their complaint is. Most importantly, everyone else has this right so by exercising it while others abstain I am harming no one. It is no more different than deciding what color tooth brush or what brand toilet paper one uses - and it is also very conveniently a great thing to manipulate by an intelligent person to an otherwise un-informed observer who does not know my stance on this, by making wild and baseless accusations involving spamming multiple submissions a day with my name in it to accuse me of what this person thinks, when their very bio says they are a satire account and everything is a performance.
Transparency is an entirely different idea. Transparency involves some form of verifying that someone is being genuine or disingenuine, because in my opinion the real "divide" you see on places like Voat are just the somewhat comical battles of "good vs. evil", which is a juxtaposed position derived almost entirely upon if someone is genuine, or if someone is not genuine. I opted to use voting transparency as merely a suggestion if the "low hanging fruit" that could show relatively easily if this situation is the case, and if Voat is full of individuals who use their intelligence for "evil", but are at the same time diametrically opposed to a group of individuals who also use their intelligence for "evil", but who think the other guys are not their evil. Super-impose "evil" for "good" on any part of that argument and it still accurately reflects the high-level idea I'm attempting to convey.
Bottom line is there are much more complicated ways to accomplish the objective of identifying genuine from disingenuine, but it involves people actually acknowledging this problem to begin with and it just feels like everyone is beyond the point of caring and has entrenched in their respective positions.
Wouldn't that show up in searchVoat though?
This has proven interesting. @SearchVoat may be best inquired here, because him and I had some confusing dialogue, and to be candid I think I was the one who misunderstood. At one point, I actually had to go onto SearchVoat.co and remove my comments, because even when removed from Voat.co, they were still on SearchVoat.co. So, being the helpful guy he is, SearchVoat messaged me and gave me permissions to delete my posts. This was the day of the first, or maybe second "What you missed on Voat", and the only reason I was even doing it was that I had accidentally posted the thread early, as a reply to a random comment. I was using the Voat reply box for formatting so I could copy and paste later to the 8PM submission time, and SearchVoatBot caught all of my posts and submitted links to the threads before I could delete the comment from SearchVoat.
Nothing spooky or nefarious there, and prior to that I had never deleted off SearchVoat.co either. I was simply deleting the comments because thats what I had chosen to do. It's worth noting that this makes certain types of intentional subversive behavior highly annoyed, while simultaneously gives fuel for the attention-seeking fire of different, probably unrelated types of subversive behavior. Observable fact.
One thing I have noticed is that several people, including yourself, who received bans or ban warnings for vote manipulation appear to be really keen on avoiding any sort transparency.
Not only that, but the same individuals are also prone to going extremely out of their way to distract the conversation away from this topic. It's anathema to them because it demonstrates too much, ironically, transparency in their motivation for "the show to go on" to the target audience, so to speak. This is just my opinion, to be clear. You're welcome to disagree and I won't think negatively of you, but hope you give serious consideration to the possibility at least and are not just disregarding the idea entirely.
My two cents. Thanks for your feedback. Hope you're willing to give more.
So, being the helpful guy he is, SearchVoat messaged me and gave me permissions to delete my posts.
Anyone can delete their posts. You don't need my permission.
The favour I did you was to delete all the @SearchVoatBot crosslink notifications generated by your premature draft, which you had deleted.
I then did you another favour by updating the SV database to hide the 178 submissions and 3,374 comments you have deleted from Voat, to save you the trouble of doing it yourself.
Posted automatically (#49192) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@SearchVoat: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @C_Corax)
Posted automatically (#46550) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
The favour I did you was to delete all the @SearchVoatBot crosslink notifications generated by your premature draft, which you had deleted.
I then did you another favour by updating the SV database to hide the 178 submissions and 3,374 comments you have deleted from Voat, to save you the trouble of doing it yourself.
Checks out, I see where I misunderstood pretty clearly at this point.
I like data. I'm a data guy. Because I have data on my own behavior. It's my behavior, so the data is mine to do with as I see fit, to be dictated by no other. I vehemently protest how data is packaged and sold, and have first-hand experience on how over the past 20 years or so it has shifted the way the Internet works.
Fair enough. I'm with you on the commercialization of people's data.
What are some effective ways of dealing with people who, because they do not know they've interacted with you for a long time due to a lack of comment history for them to refer to, but you've observed them over a very long period of time and have, because you like data, simply recorded your own observations of their actions throughout the years from the lense of someone who's seen this kind of behavior evolve on the Internet for over 25 years?
Make up lies about them and repeatedly slandering them seems to be the go to method based on my observations. Of course that only works if the people doing it do not realize that past interactions have been recorded and that their positions are constantly shifting. I hope that I get to see the data at some point because it would shed a whole lot of light about what is and has been occurring on Voat for a long time.
Bottom line is there are much more complicated ways to accomplish the objective of identifying genuine from disingenuine, but it involves people actually acknowledging this problem to begin with and it just feels like everyone is beyond the point of caring and has entrenched in their respective positions.
I'm beginning to come to the same conclusions. All I want is a place where I can speak freely with other genuine people in a transparent manner while at the same time preserving the maximum amount of privacy and anonymity. In it's current state Voat is not it. Even a little transparency like your 'low hanging fruit' would be a large improvement.
Nothing spooky or nefarious there, and prior to that I had never deleted off SearchVoat.co either. I was simply deleting the comments because thats what I had chosen to do. It's worth noting that this makes certain types of intentional subversive behavior highly annoyed, while simultaneously gives fuel for the attention-seeking fire of different, probably unrelated types of subversive behavior. Observable fact.
Hopefully @SearchVoat will chime in and clarify. And yes, I have noticed incidences of both types reacting to it.
Not only that, but the same individuals are also prone to going extremely out of their way to distract the conversation away from this topic. It's anathema to them because it demonstrates too much, ironically, transparency in their motivation for "the show to go on" to the target audience, so to speak. This is just my opinion, to be clear.
I'll just nod to all your replies without objection and point out you now know exactly where I am with WhiteRonin, and you can draw your own conclusions. The only thing preventing either of us from being able to 100% prove what we think is.. dun, dun dun.. voting transparency!
Thus the rub. Ronin got so desperate I actually caught him thinking he could get ahead of the narrative at one point by going on the offensive. It's one of a dozen times I've caught Ronin directly in a lie and he skips over it without a beat and just pretends he never said the lie instead of addressing it.
Deflection and directing attention towards his opponents behavior in ways that make sense if someone knows the person but otherwise are phrased specifically to paint them in a negative light. Ronin, and others who use similar tactics are basically trying to direct a spotlight.
Ronin doesn't remember our first run-around, but I have it well-documented and that isn't working to his advantage because he repeats the same script to the point where I could make a flow chart with a pretty good degree of accuracy. He's also a mobile fag, but that's just my own personal bias.
I don't really take any interaction with him serious, because he has demonstrated that he's disingenuous. If I'm genuine, then him and I are simply oil to water.
Put simply, every time I interact with a genuine person, I'm genuine. Every time I interact with a disingenuous person, I can choose to be either genuine or disingenuine. So I will.
No, you have good questions. If I thought I could discuss them with you my reply would be different.
Last I checked we were no longer fighting. I'm still there, you appear to have changed your mind. If not disingenuous, then not sure how I can address your expectations realistically so I've stopped trying.
Ah, girl. You have been deflecting while I’ve been asking.
You say you can’t discuss things because it’s just a way to avoid.
You can easily address my expectations by addressing them in a transparent and direct fashion. Trust me! It’s easy. Some people would even tell you to just answer the fucking question! See! Not so difficult.
Girl, you might use lots of big words but my simple little male mind understands clearly what you are doing. I’m such a simple animal.
You can easily address my expectations by addressing them in a transparent and direct fashion. Trust me! It’s easy. Some people would even tell you to just answer the fucking question! See! Not so difficult.
I've highlighted the part you've demonstrated I cannot do.
Answer the fucking question!
What question? So far you've just been blubbering random words.
I'm not going to continue to answer things I've already told you, because continuing to ask them shows you aren't looking for a dialogue.
I'm not wasting time with you further when you post four topics on me in a single day to try and summon me for your downvote brigades, but will happy have a real conversation with you in PM's if you ever change your mind.
Posted automatically (#46513) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
SearchVoat isn't an archive service. As you - of all people! - know, deleted posts and comments can easily be deleted from SearchVoat.
His accusation is that I delete everything. I don't bother to purge off SearchVoat but once every few months, because deleting my comment history on Voat is merely hygiene.
If I deleted everything, I would delete from SearchVoat at the same frequency. You can very well confirm it has at this point been weeks since my last deletion at SearchVoat, which will validate what I am saying is true - I have not selectively hidden anything individually and only ever bulk delete at regular intervals.
Someone sure took an interest in punishing the moderator of v/TRUMPTWEETSDECODED when @SallyWuffs was censoring that tiny little Q sub according to the modmail. How about you explain that discrepancy? It's ok when zyklon and his crew do it but not that user?
None of that changes the truth of your modlog in v/greatawakening. And that truth is you think you know better than the thousands of users in your sub and have started censoring legitimate discussion by deleting comments based on speech content, and banning users who have not broken subverse rules.
And
You know he's cancer. I would suggest starting your own sub and inviting the other four people in there with you and zyklon to spout autism and waste time with you in your sub instead.
I find this to be inconsistent to the extreme. Either Voat is anti-censorship or it's not. There is no middle ground. If this is your stance then we have a fundamental disagreement about free speech. It's bad enough that faggots like zyklon are able to abuse their free speech in order to force mods of subs that they don't like to react and consequently get punished/run off Voat for censorship. It's a whole other level of hypocrisy to ignore it when the people like zyklon do the very thing (censorship/removing comments) that they use stir up witchhunts against people/subs and use PV as a tool to accomplish their goal.
I have a very serious fundamental fucking problem with that. If this is what PV stands for then I will have absolutely no part in it. What the fuck? Really?
As @argosciv pointed out, the User Agreement of Voat suggests a 'Confederacy' approach
individual subs are at liberty to enforce a culture - such as we have on Great Awakening - that Freedom of Speech can be balanced against Right to Peaceable Assembly - which an extremist Freedom of Speech approach betrays
if you want a Sub on the same topic but with a Freedom of Speech absolutist approach, you are at absolute liberty to create one and invite the known pedo accounts to come play
The purpose of PV is an uncensored forum, a bulletin board of sorts, where users can talk about censorship they encounter. We confront it in big subs because it is unreasonable for thousands to have to leave for one mod. In a sub of 10-20 people it is easy for one of the users to start a similar theme, so that is the most effective way to deal with it.
So what exactly are you saying here? It's ok for small subs to censor because members can just leave and start a new sub?
Much of what ProtectVoat achieved in the past against rogue mods and up until now, has been organizing the respective communities of each sub involved to fight back against abusive mods. So we had a huge amount of success in the default/system subs and were eventually able to convince the admins that those places should have minimal moderation. Thats how the idea of Janitors having limited powers came to be. But that hasn't always worked out for us either. A big sub here called v/ fatpeoplehate basically told us to go fuck ourselves and their users backed them on it. So we had to go fuck ourselves. With other subs like the v/thepedes we were able to convince users to go to other alternate subs so the original sub basically died.
It's a ongoing battle we don't always win and sometimes we aren't even all on the same page as far as which fights we should be fighting. Right now I think we are in the middle of a back and forth that might be deciding who is the bigger monster here.
The best way for this site to work is let mods evenly enforce community approved submission guidelines and let users moderate comments.
Flooding by shitposters derails the effectiveness of those rational policies, and contrary to waiting it out, no merely waiting it out is a failed theory in this particular case. It seems that two common outcomes are, over engagement, too many start lording it over everyone else with an 'everyone is shill' approach and the atmosphere changes to the detriment of the sub, (people may self censor to avoid being accused to be a shill; secondly, there's the 'nothing that can be done' outcome, we have to accept that shitposters can and will out maneuver, out last, out vote (they don't care about votes, they have alts in the wings) and people just stop engaging as they should be entitled to engage, just as those subs without mod rules, the shitpost subs have no issue carrying out the purpose of their sub, the porn subs have no issue carrying out the purpose of their sub, yet research sub policy has not yet been fleshed out. It can't de facto be assumed that the PV policy of preemptive intervention when they largely are not researchers is the most effective or most representative solution.
Like it or not, @crensch's actions made a difference and the board is operating to the best I've seen it since before the migration. I don't think much banning will be necessary when policies are in place to preserve the spirit of targeted research focused subs, from shitposting brigades who have no rules to speak of within their own subs, and who's purpose for flooding is to disrupt and to shitpost.
"When mods overstep", when mods overstep how are users affected? Do they lose a voice? yes they do in theory, but clearly the rule of PV law didn't fit with the GA situation (complex yes), an intervention was needed, I would say there was a net gain for users in the sub, based on those bans, because they were shitposters or their friends, off topic, aimed for creating forum slides and disruption. Policy needs to be worked out to the favor of the broad user base in line with the focus of the sub.
You say the risks of not tapping down hard on mods who delete a comment for any reason whatsoever, under any conditions whatsoever, will eventually cause large groups of people to leave. Yet there is no proof to substantiate that claim other than theory developed by PV mods. In the case of GA that premise is proven false, you will not lose large groups of regular users based on the ban of shitposters and shills. Should censorship ensue? No, but setting policies to enable the sub to functions is not censorship, regardless of how PV policies dictate. People are more free now then before, sans shills. Sometimes a festering wound needs the damn band aid ripped off. PV was the band aid that keep fresh air out.
IMO PV interfered far too much in the weeks prior to @crensch banning submissions and yes some comments (in a post that is no longer stickied and their banned comments are much easier to find and much more accessible than the original thread itself for anyone interested in reading them). Their presence, your presence there, appeared to create a shill magnet rather than ameliorating the under lying problems. You seemed to think it was because users didn't' down vote enough, in this case I believe that is incorrect. Downvoting seemed to make things worse, especially when one shit poster put out a challenge to go to GA, get down voted and get banned. Unbanning can also cause people to believe that there's little point in it.
The purpose of PV is an uncensored forum, a bulletin board of sorts
I believe it would be helpful that in subs that are research focused, PV discussion of mod abuse in those subs should happen here, and not have the powermod brigade create large distractions that end up appearing no different then forum sliding in far to many instances (speaking of GA and PG specifically). Perhaps not all the PV mods are aware of this issue, it is something to be considered imo when setting new policies for PV. PV also should have metrics of efficacy, merely justifying action by a consensus of a few PV mods removed from the subs in question based on not much more than "because reddit" or "because xyz will happen' yet not waiting for indications of xyz happening'.
Well documented (already done really) shitposters and their alts should not be part of measuring PV's defense intervention in research subs, there is the appearance of conflict of interest, (shippost subs have no restrictions on mods) and PV has never claimed to have any or need any accountability in distinguishing between 'prevention of reddit style mods' with 'unwarranted or subjective meddling' based on opinion and subjective viewpoints. Even the flair "meta-drama" on PV can be construed as meaning that the PV mods have passed judgment already. Contrary to current public introspection from PV mods, there is the appearance of an echo chamber effect where dissent finds itself facing a circle the wagons mentality.
Personally I think there needs to be language in the TOS that states that a Mod that deletes comments for speech content should be automatically demodded, regardless of the sub.
and
We eliminated joke/shitposting/satire subs like v/soapboxbanhammer, v/nojewsallowed, etc. Where people shitpost or the purpose of the sub is satire and deletions/bans are part of the joke. These are very similar to circlejerk subs except that they are more chaotic and random, but, in the final analysis, moderators are expected to abuse their powers as part of the culture of the sub.
We also eliminated any NSFW subs because they are basically mini-porn sites and focus around image submission.
Two categories that have focus and no PV oversight on mods, and they are not accountable to the broader community.
(Update) The addition of v/pizzagate to Voat has required a new category to be created. The "investigative sub". A sub dedicated to investigating something may make submission requirements to keep the sub on track and allow for removal of shills looking to derail the effort and/or forum slide.
Derailing and forum sliding can effectively happen, both in submission and comments. Shills may submit a topic well with the rules, and then turn the comment section into an subversive attack on the researchers. I believe research subs warrant an op out of PV involvement provided a system is in place to prevent out right censorship of subscribers involved in research and the discussions they have on the veracity of sources and conclusions derived from those sources. Mere opinionated insults from known habitual shitposters should be on the table for removal if it disrupts conversations between researchers speaking in good faith. IMO
It would be helpful to have some metrics yes, another area of discussion for ideas. There have been positives for the sub imo, such as removing stickies that detracted from the average user's attention on the research based focus of the sub. There's a balance to be had imo between mods giving the support needed to the users and user involvement. Users in a research based sup shouldn't have to be spending more time worried about policing each other to confront a sustained flood of shitposting (notwithstanding the number of mitigating conditions in this case, making that point less cut and dry).
I mean I'm sure if you keeps it up over time you'll see participation shift.
I don't think in the case of GA that thousands of people will leave based on the bans seen so far. The rate of bans spiked and then dropped dramatically. Removing the stickies let the users move forward out of the sustained drama, so unless those who research and support Q (the purpose of the sub) are banned, I would predict little impact over time from today.
The purpose of PV is an uncensored forum, a bulletin board of sorts, where users can talk about censorship they encounter. We confront it in big subs because it is unreasonable for thousands to have to leave for one mod.
Who left GA besides @srayzie and @shizy? Was there an exodus to other Q subs following your advice to leave GA and move to QRV? @puttitout
@zyklon_b can you please unban me from BEATLESTROLLARMY (quality sub) ?
Aren't you the andrew jackson cuck by the way?
So when it comes to saying something about your woman @Gothamgirl (who has me blocked cause I 'offended her' with words) then it's okay to block someone?
Interesting in your attempt to divert. From the real problem here you claimed that ZB banned you from his subverse without actually checking who actually banned you from this sub... A user that if you check my post history you would see that I reported for power moderation and vote manipulation and that also harassed me after i did that... Isn't it funny?
So you are asking me to repprt it again for the same thing I reported him for before?
Poor attempt to attack my credibility and consistency. But sure I am making the request now:
I unbanned your friend here, Señor, but he was very quickly rebanned for using foul language. I apologize for this inconvenience. Anyways I do not support free speech, so perhaps you are barking up the wrong tree?
A user that if you check my post history you would see that I reported for power moderation and vote manipulation and that also harassed me after i did that
Yeah this is why I'm asking you in particular, I know you are 'no respecter of persons' when it comes to Voat and that Voat and freedom of speech is the most important thing for you.
If Voat was run by you, or if you had your own subverse, and were allowed to ban certain very very unchristian comments, would you do it? Would you remain true to your Christian faith? If you had such an opportunity? Think about it.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Same knife that cuts the butter cuts the throat.
Same vessel that shipped the whiskey shipped the Bibles.
I have a sub. I have expressed already my positions on power modding and was infact harassed by andrew jackson on my sub and didn't even deleted his post nor comments... So...
My Chridtian faith looks to rebuke with the Word of God as I did with when you tried to use the Word at convenirnce of your point and took a verse out of contexte for an erroneous interpretation.
And it doesn look to impose my faith on others. It looks to share it. But you are free to deny it if you like and so It foretold that Christians would be slandered by the world. Much like what you do i some of your comments.
And finally, I am true to my faith and I stand by the truth.
You give all kinds of reasons for not making your own post about this when you made a post about mine. I don't think anyone is buying your delineations anymore. Well, not anyone that isn't already marching in lockstep.
Either all subs are the same or there is no reason for every sub not to be a shitposting sub
Weigh this as you will. I think, if nothing else, you should be aware that (for better or worse) @zyklon_b stripped mod rights from the person that deleted my posts.
No problem thats what friends is for. if dude come and pms me ans is truly sincere bout not behaving that way then after i consult with the victim bein u maybe he can regain his former glory
A reminder that you still have a ban put in place by the user you stripped of mod rights.
They've since added that they thought I was a srayzie alt. Well, they've clearly shown their not very good at detecting alts. The ban that is in place is them accusing someone of being an alt, which we know is not a trustable conclusion.
Copy/Pasted:
HollaKost Rule Violation in v/BEATLESTROLLARMY: def to srayzie; Description: desperate alt is desperate ItWasMeAllThisTime 3 days ago
I'd submit that their a shitty judge. They thought I was an alt, which is kinda retarded. It's not like the verbiage used doesn't clearly indicate it was me. They're just REALLY bad at thinking and reaching logical conclusions.
If that's what you want banning and deleting comments, you can do anything you want. It's your sub and I'll not be the one to tell you how to run it.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/ProtectGoats comment by @PeaceSeeker.
Posted automatically (#46661) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/ProtectGoats submission by @Crensch.
Posted automatically (#46620) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
SearchVoatBot ago
This submission was linked from this v/BEATLESTROLLARMY submission.
Posted automatically (#45691) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/argosciv comment by @argosciv.
Posted automatically (#45630) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
Dismember ago
We arent dealing with just shitposters though. These people are clever and are now using our own rules against us. because thats what they do. If they destroy the subs that they don't like then isn't that essentially destroying Voat itself or neutering it? If we can't be home to the pizzagate community or Q community then what is Voat good for? Think back to v/linux, v/gaming and v/aww. Why were those targeted in particular? Did they legitimize Voat in a way they saw as dangerous?
SandHog ago
I'm thinking the same as you. In fact I'm fairly certain that this current blowup is rooted in some skullduggery that went on in v/Pizzagate about 9 months back. At least that is where some of the bad blood stems from.
Note how the top comment pings one of the primary people involved in this mess and then links to a picture of another and then to top it off signs it someone else?
Dismember ago
I don't think they can touch the system subs here.
Dismember ago
I'm not talking about you and I'm not sure they are either. It's just that you are the biggest obstacle they think in removing those other users. Rightly or wrongly.
Dismember ago
more and more I'm thinking some people believe that a handful of people do control the site now and that is their issue.
SandHog ago
Says the guy who hasn't done shit but enable that behavior.
SandHog ago
Except we haven't been using it on the trolls. In fact it has been the opposite. I don't know whose been deciding to sticky what throughout this entire ordeal but I do know that it has been completely one-sided. I haven't taken a single mod action throughout this entire process because I wanted to understand the full extent of what is going on. All I have seen is you and @sguevar making excuses not to go after the trolls and deflecting everything back onto @srayzie as being a bad mod which simply is not true. Oh she doxed herself it's her fault. She sent titty pics. It's her fault. Yeah, she may have done those things but none of this is her fault.
You know full well where I am coming from. I have made no secret that all I want is for Voat to succeed both publicly and privately. Voat cannot succeed so long as a small group of trolls are allowed to terrorize moderators of subverses that they do not like. That is what I have seen throughout all of this.
So we just let the trolls do whatever the fuck they want and Voat today is the same as the Voat of 3 years ago. The same it will be three years from now. That sounds like a pretty shitty fucking plan.
sguevar ago
Yet.
So it seems.
I have stickied some posts I have made regarding the Enough is Enough to put some light on the false premise that srayzie was doxxed here at voat.
The post denouncing the ban hammer on GA needed to be stickied because it is an enormous sub that untill now hadn't engage in such behavior. We need to prioritize but we certainly need more mods on PV to be more effective and decentralize.
Now this is something I completely disagree. I am not about to corrupt our cause to conveniently help a friend with false claims. If you find that to be excuses and deflections then I am sorry you look at it like that but I am certainly not sorry for standing with the truth.
Neither kev nor I have ever said she was a bad mod. We have actually stated the opposite and I have specifically express my regret to her friends and publicly regarding her departure. But as stated to one user in GA,there is no bad thing that doesn't happen for a good reason. So there is a chance we can work on this together to prevent from happening again.
Actually yes. She has accountability on what she did that aided her enemies to attack her. I am sorry for what she went through and I stood with her but that doesn't removed her accountability on her actions. Just because she was victimized by a group of users that we all dislike and that she allow herself to be victimized.
I stand with kev on the fact that trolls and shills only get the power you give them. If we start censoring their speech then we would have compromised on FREEDOM OF SPEECH and I am not for it.
No, we take a different approach and get the community informed so they can fight against them without feeding them.
sguevar ago
From my part i put everything on hold as i am in the hospital with my wife. I will address ypur comment after as i need to read all of what yoi are talking about.
virge ago
Just a side note, hope she recovers swiftly and is well. Fuck our medical system, its so hard to find a non-diversity doctor even in the Free States.
SandHog ago
Fair enough. I hope that it isn't serious and that she recovers completely from her ailment.
Hospital time is the worst.
sguevar ago
Thanks I will read your comments and respond accordingly and probably will make a post on the fucking NHS of Costa Rica that pisses me off later.
HollaKost ago
Seems less people are respecting your authority around here
http://magaimg.net/img/84rg.png
Maybe if you keep telling lies, and cover them with some more lies, you can regain control before everyone realizes your game Kev!
Hurry, tell some more....
Crensch ago
It really is the lies, isn't it?
HollaKost ago
layers upon layers.
Hellary_Clinton ago
YOU
SandHog ago
That's not what she was claiming. She's gone now so we'll probably never get her side of the story. As for zyklon, what would be the point in me doing that? It wouldn't accomplish anything. Others with far more street cred than I have tried and what did it result in? Two mods getting run off the site for no real reason other than some people decided that Q is a 'jew op' and should be destroyed. It's funny because the very people claiming this employed every single jew trick in the book. Or are they SJW tricks? Hard to tell the difference.
Why haven't you? Why hasn't anyone other than a small handful of people that recognize what this is all about? It's never been about srayzie; it's been about Q and politics. She was just a convenient attack vector. I don't even follow Q or know what the fuck is going on with it but if a bunch of people want to get together and dig into corruption I think that is a good thing.
I'm not interested in assignments. All I'm interested in is what is best for Voat. All of Voat. It's either free speech for all or free speech for some as far as I can see. Right now it's clear to me that it's free speech for some and that ain't good enough.
I do find it extremely interesting that I have had various people message me insinuating that I should look into @virge because he seems 'shady'. From what I have seen out of that guy all he really wants is some actual transparency. If we had some transparency a lot of these problems would go away. I'm pretty sure that I don't agree with the guy politically but he's absolutely right.
@Crensch doesn't need my help. He's never asked for it. He's doing what he thinks is right and I understand why he is doing it. I agree with him in that there is something very wrong with Voat. A small group of users are manipulating the rules to push their agenda and silence anyone who opposes them. They have been doing it for a long time. Anyone that dared point it out was vilified and run off the site. Either you are enabling them or you are complicit. It doesn't even really matter because the end result is the same. It's still continuing today. @Vindicator has been targeted. @theoldones has been targeted. Who is next on the chopping block? @think-?
I'm tired of this shit. It's not right. Good people have been vilified for no real reason other than they disagreed with a small number of users and refused to play ball. All the people bitching about the bans and the ban warnings are the same people who have been causing most of the problems here. Hopefully @PuttItOut can come to a decision that will preserve free speech and punish those that ultimately seek to silence it through their actions and the selective cooperation of PV. If not then this place is truly lost.
I am hereby resigning my mod position. I never wanted to mod anything in the first place. I only accepted it under the premise that it's mission was rooted in good faith and that it's purpose was to benefit ALL of Voat. I no longer believe that to be the case.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/ProtectGoats submission by @Crensch.
Posted automatically (#46628) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
sguevar ago
I agree with this. It isn't enough but we need to also rely on the proactivity and awareness of our users. We need to be informers in order to provide them with the tools they need to fight against them without feeding them.
I am one of those that pinged you on archiving any interaction with him because he is one that looks for "transparency for thee but not for me". He is pushing the public vote system in which we can see what users vote for what which means that it could promote brigading of users that do not vote for their ideas and hence he continue at describing them as destroyers. He is manipulative and when you get him into a corner arguing with him, he resorts into false claims and slanders, I should know he has made them against me, and ad hominem and tantrums, also made quite a few against me like calling me a spic etc (As if that was going to trigger ne or something).
So I don't agree with you saying he's right because he is currently taking advantage of what is happening on Voat to manipulate people. How is it that a user that wants transparency, purges his content and comments constantly? Is that transparent to you?
I agree with him there too. His approach is what I do not agree with.
That are using clear tactics to do so.Tactics that most of the users here at Voat do not know about and that are not aware that can be fought back if we work together.
Only if they think it is a lost cause. I don't think it is and that is why I stand in the middle to prioritize a more effective effort in getting things right from now on and then address them accordingly.
This is the approach I don't agree with: guilty by association. I will put it differently: Either we compromise on FREEDOM OF SPEECH or we don't. I stand with the don't.
Haven't you noticed that they target them individually, separately and that instead of finding a way to all work together we have reach a point in which they have managed to put us all against each other?
We all are.
However most of those people have played their game and even corrupted their cause by using their same tactics. This is what I am trying to avoid from happening.
At this point we need to help him. He can't really stand alone just because he is the admin. And we can't compromise on FREEDOM OF SPEECH just to conveniently having some faggots shut down. We need to inform people of what they can do and how to better approach them. We need to show them how to fight back without falling for their schemes. PV can't stand alone either. We need the users to help us. We need to work together.
I would please ask you to reconsider and help us find a middle ground on which we can all work together to get this done. If you resign you will be giving up and hence another victory for the same people you fight against.
SandHog ago
Transparency with the voting would go a long way towards stopping a lot of the manipulation and gaslighting. I don't how anyone would get any more upset knowing that someone downvoted something it's no different that leaving a comment that opposed the post or comment. As for clearing his history I suspect that probably has more to do with serial brigades on his ccp than anything. You can still see his history in searchvote, no? I'm assuming he angered some people over something but I don't know what that might have been so I can't speak to that. I am a fan of transparency in the voting system though.
virge ago
I don't recall that. The rest of what you said is just your opinion and it's still false, but you'll never change your mind because you're too entrenched in your imagination - but this certainly is questionable, I don't think I've ever called someone a spic. You may have me confused here, I don't usually resort to anything involving race unless it's purely satirical because I think most people are stupid regardless of race and thus I discriminate against stupidity equally.
To date our only real disagreement is that you're convinced I'm someone I'm not and that I'm part of some grand conspiracy, when I'm just me and my only agenda is being me.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/ProtectVoat submission by @sguevar.
Posted automatically (#50720) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@virge: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @sguevar)
sguevar ago
Well you deleted the comment before i archive it. No poot in going there anymore.
However i don't trust someone that pushes for transparency and shows very little of it.
My imagination? You can look st it as you want. You have always try to conveniently change the argument to make yourself look like the victim. I couldn't care much for your opinion even if i wanted to.
virge ago
And we both know the comment is still on SearchVoat.co. If you don't want to do the search, that's fine - but it's also disguise to present it as if you can't find my posts if you wanted to. That's my only real beef with you. For whatever reason, you'd prefer to ignore logic and reason and repeatedly present this false narrative to your own ends. You're not alone, so I'm used to this.
Because voting transparency and post history have what connection, exactly?
Your opinion. Like I said, I've already tried to change it and I gave up long ago because you don't actually want to change this opinion. It's either convenient for you (for whatever reason), or you're unwilling to open your eyes and look around and realize that with some exceptions most people who shared this opinion have changed their mind. Even @kevdude, if I were a betting man - but I don't want to speak for kev, so to be clear that's just my opinion.
Pretty much the crux of the issue, honestly. I realized this when we first interacted and I actually tried to get you to have a serious conversation, but then you went all parody and religious and it was pretty clear you were playing a character (that I notice you no longer play). You've already admitted you've made up your mind about me and are unwilling to change it. Thats why I don't waste time on trying to talk to you for the most part.
It's pretty funny to me to see you go from frothing at the mouth @WhiteRonin style (no dig WR, I enjoy your comments for the entertainment value, intended or otherwise is irrelevant) to super-serious and then watch you expect everyone who observes both sides of you to come to their opinions confused when you act like it's unjustified.
Like I said. It's the Internet. We all do stupid shit, all the time, intentionally or otherwise. I treated you, and others like WR, with kid-gloves for a long time because I thought it was all fun and games and nothing serious. Over time, I actually realized many people, like you (I think) actually take this extremely seriously. In hindsight, that probably contributes to the friction between us because in my opinion it was all just a misunderstanding, but you're so convinced I'm something I don't think I am we can never find common ground.
If we can never find common ground, there is no point. So I generally abstain from talking to you. This is one of those few rare times when I probe to see if I'm still talking to the troll sguevar I've observed over a long period of time, or if you're actually serious for once. I still can't tell.
WhiteRonin ago
@sguevar and @sandhog please clarify transparency. @virge is practicing newspeak.
Would you agree that deleting posts and comments not go against this definition?
I caught @virge deleting his comments when replying to me.
He/she lost control of the conversation and went splerging all over the place. It was quite quaint actually! She also deleted all her pings for her brigade army.
I told Virge that she were to stop I would leave her alone. But typical woman does what she wants and easily forgets what she agreed to.
See, I enjoy this moron posting in gun topics which barely get any votes or copy pasting attacks on users which she deletes at a later date.
So guys, wouldn’t you say it’s a psychopath who records your interactions in excel? They do this because they delete “inconvenient” exchanges with people like you. They correct the record to leave no trace of their “temporary internet stupid shit”. Yet, this person, Virge, who continuously deletes unwanted information left for the public to verify.
One thing you can count on, is that, Virge, will reply back as a condescending ass who verified facts about you via their excel notes.
What say you @sandhog?
SandHog ago
I really have no idea what is going on with @virge. I don't know who they are or what, if any, ulterior motives they might have beyond their stated purpose of bringing more transparency to Voat. I do think it's pretty weird that they track all that stuff. And it is also hypocritical to call for transparency while at the same time scrubbing comments. I've always just assumed it was an effort to protect their ccp from being drained and their account set to limited state because of it. Why do you think they are female exactly? I can see that as being gamma male behavior just as easily.
Wouldn't that show up in searchVoat though? If not then surely people will have grabbed archives of this happening.
Voat seems to have a problem with people behind the scenes manipulating the users into actions that are harmful to Voat and prevent it from growing. When u/Stonetoss, someone who should have fit in quite nicely, came over he was run off. I tried to prevent that from happening and he had even reversed his initial position on power-modding within about 45 minutes of taking that stance but it was too late and he was run off. This keeps happening over and over again. @srayzie and @shizy are just the latest examples of this.
I don't see how knowing who is upvoting or downvoting you is a bad thing. I haven't looked into the pros and cons of it all that much due to all this meta bullshit so on it's surface it appears to be a positive thing. @Virge's actions notwithstanding a little more transparency surrounding who is voting which way would solve a lot of problems around here. One thing I have noticed is that several people, including yourself, who received bans or ban warnings for vote manipulation appear to be really keen on avoiding any sort transparency. I'd be real interested in seeing the full list of those who received said warnings and I think in the interest of transparency @PutItOut should publish it. It is also not lost on me that a number of those individuals also happen to mod v/Beatlestrollarmy. So call me skeptical about your intentions in all of this.
WhiteRonin ago
Here is how I have avoided transparency.
https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/3265983
Please beg Virge to buy me out! I give you full transparency at his expense.
Me? Against transparency? Of fuck NO! I am all for retroactive transparency even! I posted in Virge’s transparency post and had better ideas that wouldn’t need much code changes.
See, I did mention that Putt would never do it. Because if he were to open up retroactive vote histories and anon post histories he’d fuck voat over real hard. It’s suicide.
Sure, let’s see who votes much like slack does! Add in Virge’s idea of setting at in the future with full disclosure. Fuck yeah! My imaginary points will only go up! No more fucking brigades and I will know who is being a dick to me. Fuck, make it simple and add in a dash board to see who up or down votes you the most.
Virge on the other hand. Just talks. Why does he delete his comments? How is that a builder mentality for transparency?
As for that sub, sure I joined! Beats is a real life friend. Are you gonna say you wouldn’t join a sub if a friend invited you?
I have used that sub to call out Virge! Yes I have!
As for search voat, I do believe you can scrub that too. Something called GDPR might require that.
SandHog ago
That's the difference between you and me. My honesty comes free of charge.
That's a fair point.
I don't remain friends with people who choose to do shitty things to other people because they think it's fun.
I saw him say something about @searchVoat agreeing to let him delete some stuff or something along those lines. I have no idea how any of that shit works. Like I said, I don't know all the details about the history or his character as I've not interacted with him much at all.
I hope @PuttItOut chooses the path of more transparency. It would reduce a lot of the confusion and infighting that happens here. I don't even care if it's retroactive or not.
WhiteRonin ago
I was honest in the bait of Virge comment. Sure I helped my other alt a bit but it having less than 100ccp it needed. Honestly and baiting someone is a different thing.
We all have done shitty things to people. Many times you do shitty things instead of looking the other way. Nobody is a saint!
GDPR is the EU probably law that requires companies with websites to remove user data and informs people of that website’s cookie policy. I’m sure you have noticed those annoying cookie agreements. That’s GDPR.
The only way transparency will happen is if it’s in the future and if Putt wants to change the voting dynamics. Right now it’s a system that can be abused.
SandHog ago
Agreed. Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar or Saint Theres....a liar.
Ah, ok. I know what you mean now. At the current rate of insanity the poor lads in the EU will be forced to mail their memes to each other on postcards before much longer. I imagine they will then be reduced to some sort of underground meme railroad involving dead drops at bus depots not long after that.
And is for a number of different reasons. It's the biggest chink in Voat's armor and it has been exploited time and time again to the detriment of the platform. It's a shame because most people here, I think, agree on a great number of things to one degree or another. The only people capable of killing Voat are goats.
virge ago
Thanks for a well-thought reply.
Why? I've kept spreadsheets of every purchase I've made since the mid-90's - using actual paper spread sheets before excel became an easier method of tracking. Even better, excel spreadsheets can be encrypted with a password making them something I'm OK with putting private info on in an over-abundance (when within multiple layers of encryption already, of course).
I like data. I'm a data guy. Because I have data on my own behavior. It's my behavior, so the data is mine to do with as I see fit, to be dictated by no other. I vehemently protest how data is packaged and sold, and have first-hand experience on how over the past 20 years or so it has shifted the way the Internet works.
I only post things online I want other people to see, period, because I have had Internet OpSec as part of my list of every-day skills having witnessed what we now call "doxxing" happening on ICQ, AOL-AIM, and then on (including the Usenest and Arpanet iterations, but that was so prior to good data availability that it was more like two people in the same network, group, or club outing someone elses behavior and was generally good for the community and thus promoted. Times have changed, as we now witness today.
Think critically. What are some effective ways of dealing with people who, because they do not know they've interacted with you for a long time due to a lack of comment history for them to refer to, but you've observed them over a very long period of time and have, because you like data, simply recorded your own observations of their actions throughout the years from the lense of someone who's seen this kind of behavior evolve on the Internet for over 25 years? Come to your own conclusions.
Why? In my opinion, you are now discussing two very separate, although somewhat inter-connected ideas; privacy and transparency.
To be clear, privacy is a choice everyone makes, and in my opinion because I choose to post everything very specifically to begin with, I can also choose to remove that content just as specifically if I so desire. It harms no one else, it is no one elses decision to make and thus I simply do not care that someone else finds this a problem unless they are providing me a very specific rule-based or even moral-based reason as to what their complaint is. Most importantly, everyone else has this right so by exercising it while others abstain I am harming no one. It is no more different than deciding what color tooth brush or what brand toilet paper one uses - and it is also very conveniently a great thing to manipulate by an intelligent person to an otherwise un-informed observer who does not know my stance on this, by making wild and baseless accusations involving spamming multiple submissions a day with my name in it to accuse me of what this person thinks, when their very bio says they are a satire account and everything is a performance.
Transparency is an entirely different idea. Transparency involves some form of verifying that someone is being genuine or disingenuine, because in my opinion the real "divide" you see on places like Voat are just the somewhat comical battles of "good vs. evil", which is a juxtaposed position derived almost entirely upon if someone is genuine, or if someone is not genuine. I opted to use voting transparency as merely a suggestion if the "low hanging fruit" that could show relatively easily if this situation is the case, and if Voat is full of individuals who use their intelligence for "evil", but are at the same time diametrically opposed to a group of individuals who also use their intelligence for "evil", but who think the other guys are not their evil. Super-impose "evil" for "good" on any part of that argument and it still accurately reflects the high-level idea I'm attempting to convey.
Bottom line is there are much more complicated ways to accomplish the objective of identifying genuine from disingenuine, but it involves people actually acknowledging this problem to begin with and it just feels like everyone is beyond the point of caring and has entrenched in their respective positions.
This has proven interesting. @SearchVoat may be best inquired here, because him and I had some confusing dialogue, and to be candid I think I was the one who misunderstood. At one point, I actually had to go onto SearchVoat.co and remove my comments, because even when removed from Voat.co, they were still on SearchVoat.co. So, being the helpful guy he is, SearchVoat messaged me and gave me permissions to delete my posts. This was the day of the first, or maybe second "What you missed on Voat", and the only reason I was even doing it was that I had accidentally posted the thread early, as a reply to a random comment. I was using the Voat reply box for formatting so I could copy and paste later to the 8PM submission time, and SearchVoatBot caught all of my posts and submitted links to the threads before I could delete the comment from SearchVoat.
Nothing spooky or nefarious there, and prior to that I had never deleted off SearchVoat.co either. I was simply deleting the comments because thats what I had chosen to do. It's worth noting that this makes certain types of intentional subversive behavior highly annoyed, while simultaneously gives fuel for the attention-seeking fire of different, probably unrelated types of subversive behavior. Observable fact.
Not only that, but the same individuals are also prone to going extremely out of their way to distract the conversation away from this topic. It's anathema to them because it demonstrates too much, ironically, transparency in their motivation for "the show to go on" to the target audience, so to speak. This is just my opinion, to be clear. You're welcome to disagree and I won't think negatively of you, but hope you give serious consideration to the possibility at least and are not just disregarding the idea entirely.
My two cents. Thanks for your feedback. Hope you're willing to give more.
SearchVoat ago
Anyone can delete their posts. You don't need my permission.
The favour I did you was to delete all the @SearchVoatBot crosslink notifications generated by your premature draft, which you had deleted.
I then did you another favour by updating the SV database to hide the 178 submissions and 3,374 comments you have deleted from Voat, to save you the trouble of doing it yourself.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/SoapboxBanhammer comment by @C_Corax.
Posted automatically (#49192) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@SearchVoat: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @C_Corax)
MadWorld ago
:-) I am counting a lot more than your numbers.
:-) He is like @bob333's #2 guy. https://archive.fo/PbdTJ
You are the best thing on Voat, providing the most invaluable search features. People should appreciate you more, not taking everything for granted.
:-) Thank you!
SearchVoat ago
It's very kind of you to say so. Thank you!
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/ProtectVoat comment by @C_Corax.
Posted automatically (#46550) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
virge ago
Checks out, I see where I misunderstood pretty clearly at this point.
SandHog ago
Fair enough. I'm with you on the commercialization of people's data.
Make up lies about them and repeatedly slandering them seems to be the go to method based on my observations. Of course that only works if the people doing it do not realize that past interactions have been recorded and that their positions are constantly shifting. I hope that I get to see the data at some point because it would shed a whole lot of light about what is and has been occurring on Voat for a long time.
I'm beginning to come to the same conclusions. All I want is a place where I can speak freely with other genuine people in a transparent manner while at the same time preserving the maximum amount of privacy and anonymity. In it's current state Voat is not it. Even a little transparency like your 'low hanging fruit' would be a large improvement.
Hopefully @SearchVoat will chime in and clarify. And yes, I have noticed incidences of both types reacting to it.
I share your opinion in this.
virge ago
I'll just nod to all your replies without objection and point out you now know exactly where I am with WhiteRonin, and you can draw your own conclusions. The only thing preventing either of us from being able to 100% prove what we think is.. dun, dun dun.. voting transparency!
Thus the rub. Ronin got so desperate I actually caught him thinking he could get ahead of the narrative at one point by going on the offensive. It's one of a dozen times I've caught Ronin directly in a lie and he skips over it without a beat and just pretends he never said the lie instead of addressing it.
Deflection and directing attention towards his opponents behavior in ways that make sense if someone knows the person but otherwise are phrased specifically to paint them in a negative light. Ronin, and others who use similar tactics are basically trying to direct a spotlight.
Ronin doesn't remember our first run-around, but I have it well-documented and that isn't working to his advantage because he repeats the same script to the point where I could make a flow chart with a pretty good degree of accuracy. He's also a mobile fag, but that's just my own personal bias.
I don't really take any interaction with him serious, because he has demonstrated that he's disingenuous. If I'm genuine, then him and I are simply oil to water.
Put simply, every time I interact with a genuine person, I'm genuine. Every time I interact with a disingenuous person, I can choose to be either genuine or disingenuine. So I will.
virge ago
All good questions, all good questions. Hopefully when pursued you find the truth of the matter.
WhiteRonin ago
Deflecting much?
Enjoy your day!
virge ago
No, you have good questions. If I thought I could discuss them with you my reply would be different.
Last I checked we were no longer fighting. I'm still there, you appear to have changed your mind. If not disingenuous, then not sure how I can address your expectations realistically so I've stopped trying.
WhiteRonin ago
Ah, girl. You have been deflecting while I’ve been asking.
You say you can’t discuss things because it’s just a way to avoid.
You can easily address my expectations by addressing them in a transparent and direct fashion. Trust me! It’s easy. Some people would even tell you to just answer the fucking question! See! Not so difficult.
Girl, you might use lots of big words but my simple little male mind understands clearly what you are doing. I’m such a simple animal.
So keep it simple!
Answer the fucking question!
virge ago
I've highlighted the part you've demonstrated I cannot do.
What question? So far you've just been blubbering random words.
WhiteRonin ago
Oh oh!
Another comment that you will delete!
The questions: What is transparency? Why do you delete posts and comments and say that is still being transparent.
I simplified it for you.
Oh! That grammarly extension is cute but it doesn’t make you intelligent.
virge ago
I'm not going to continue to answer things I've already told you, because continuing to ask them shows you aren't looking for a dialogue.
I'm not wasting time with you further when you post four topics on me in a single day to try and summon me for your downvote brigades, but will happy have a real conversation with you in PM's if you ever change your mind.
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/ProtectVoat submission by @WhiteRonin.
Posted automatically (#46513) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
WhiteRonin ago
Oh? PMs? Where things are behind closed doors?
That’s how transparency works now does it?
Sure, PM me! I don’t care.
Dialogue: questions, answers, facts and opinions. 4 elements that make up a dialogue.
You only use 1 element: opinion
So I do agree with you that you can’t have a dialogue with people.
virge ago
I rest my case, you're just performing an act for an audience and I won't participate in that any longer. Feel free to keep doing your thing, though.
WhiteRonin ago
Evade and deflect.
I’m on to your game!
SearchVoat ago
SearchVoat isn't an archive service. As you - of all people! - know, deleted posts and comments can easily be deleted from SearchVoat.
@sguevar
virge ago
His accusation is that I delete everything. I don't bother to purge off SearchVoat but once every few months, because deleting my comment history on Voat is merely hygiene.
If I deleted everything, I would delete from SearchVoat at the same frequency. You can very well confirm it has at this point been weeks since my last deletion at SearchVoat, which will validate what I am saying is true - I have not selectively hidden anything individually and only ever bulk delete at regular intervals.
theoldones ago
their latest trick seems to be aiming one honest user at each other by passing shady evidence via PM
SandHog ago
Yep.
virge ago
I've felt this one personally.
SandHog ago
Someone sure took an interest in punishing the moderator of v/TRUMPTWEETSDECODED when @SallyWuffs was censoring that tiny little Q sub according to the modmail. How about you explain that discrepancy? It's ok when zyklon and his crew do it but not that user?
Crensch ago
I think you know the answer.
SandHog ago
From your comment farther up:
And
I find this to be inconsistent to the extreme. Either Voat is anti-censorship or it's not. There is no middle ground. If this is your stance then we have a fundamental disagreement about free speech. It's bad enough that faggots like zyklon are able to abuse their free speech in order to force mods of subs that they don't like to react and consequently get punished/run off Voat for censorship. It's a whole other level of hypocrisy to ignore it when the people like zyklon do the very thing (censorship/removing comments) that they use stir up witchhunts against people/subs and use PV as a tool to accomplish their goal.
I have a very serious fundamental fucking problem with that. If this is what PV stands for then I will have absolutely no part in it. What the fuck? Really?
@PeaceSeeker @Dismember @sguevar @bopper @Rainy-Day-Dream
MolochHunter ago
As @argosciv pointed out, the User Agreement of Voat suggests a 'Confederacy' approach
individual subs are at liberty to enforce a culture - such as we have on Great Awakening - that Freedom of Speech can be balanced against Right to Peaceable Assembly - which an extremist Freedom of Speech approach betrays
if you want a Sub on the same topic but with a Freedom of Speech absolutist approach, you are at absolute liberty to create one and invite the known pedo accounts to come play
SandHog ago
So what exactly are you saying here? It's ok for small subs to censor because members can just leave and start a new sub?
Dismember ago
Much of what ProtectVoat achieved in the past against rogue mods and up until now, has been organizing the respective communities of each sub involved to fight back against abusive mods. So we had a huge amount of success in the default/system subs and were eventually able to convince the admins that those places should have minimal moderation. Thats how the idea of Janitors having limited powers came to be. But that hasn't always worked out for us either. A big sub here called v/ fatpeoplehate basically told us to go fuck ourselves and their users backed them on it. So we had to go fuck ourselves. With other subs like the v/thepedes we were able to convince users to go to other alternate subs so the original sub basically died.
It's a ongoing battle we don't always win and sometimes we aren't even all on the same page as far as which fights we should be fighting. Right now I think we are in the middle of a back and forth that might be deciding who is the bigger monster here.
kestrel9 ago
Flooding by shitposters derails the effectiveness of those rational policies, and contrary to waiting it out, no merely waiting it out is a failed theory in this particular case. It seems that two common outcomes are, over engagement, too many start lording it over everyone else with an 'everyone is shill' approach and the atmosphere changes to the detriment of the sub, (people may self censor to avoid being accused to be a shill; secondly, there's the 'nothing that can be done' outcome, we have to accept that shitposters can and will out maneuver, out last, out vote (they don't care about votes, they have alts in the wings) and people just stop engaging as they should be entitled to engage, just as those subs without mod rules, the shitpost subs have no issue carrying out the purpose of their sub, the porn subs have no issue carrying out the purpose of their sub, yet research sub policy has not yet been fleshed out. It can't de facto be assumed that the PV policy of preemptive intervention when they largely are not researchers is the most effective or most representative solution.
Like it or not, @crensch's actions made a difference and the board is operating to the best I've seen it since before the migration. I don't think much banning will be necessary when policies are in place to preserve the spirit of targeted research focused subs, from shitposting brigades who have no rules to speak of within their own subs, and who's purpose for flooding is to disrupt and to shitpost.
"When mods overstep", when mods overstep how are users affected? Do they lose a voice? yes they do in theory, but clearly the rule of PV law didn't fit with the GA situation (complex yes), an intervention was needed, I would say there was a net gain for users in the sub, based on those bans, because they were shitposters or their friends, off topic, aimed for creating forum slides and disruption. Policy needs to be worked out to the favor of the broad user base in line with the focus of the sub.
You say the risks of not tapping down hard on mods who delete a comment for any reason whatsoever, under any conditions whatsoever, will eventually cause large groups of people to leave. Yet there is no proof to substantiate that claim other than theory developed by PV mods. In the case of GA that premise is proven false, you will not lose large groups of regular users based on the ban of shitposters and shills. Should censorship ensue? No, but setting policies to enable the sub to functions is not censorship, regardless of how PV policies dictate. People are more free now then before, sans shills. Sometimes a festering wound needs the damn band aid ripped off. PV was the band aid that keep fresh air out.
IMO PV interfered far too much in the weeks prior to @crensch banning submissions and yes some comments (in a post that is no longer stickied and their banned comments are much easier to find and much more accessible than the original thread itself for anyone interested in reading them). Their presence, your presence there, appeared to create a shill magnet rather than ameliorating the under lying problems. You seemed to think it was because users didn't' down vote enough, in this case I believe that is incorrect. Downvoting seemed to make things worse, especially when one shit poster put out a challenge to go to GA, get down voted and get banned. Unbanning can also cause people to believe that there's little point in it.
kestrel9 ago
I believe it would be helpful that in subs that are research focused, PV discussion of mod abuse in those subs should happen here, and not have the powermod brigade create large distractions that end up appearing no different then forum sliding in far to many instances (speaking of GA and PG specifically). Perhaps not all the PV mods are aware of this issue, it is something to be considered imo when setting new policies for PV. PV also should have metrics of efficacy, merely justifying action by a consensus of a few PV mods removed from the subs in question based on not much more than "because reddit" or "because xyz will happen' yet not waiting for indications of xyz happening'.
Well documented (already done really) shitposters and their alts should not be part of measuring PV's defense intervention in research subs, there is the appearance of conflict of interest, (shippost subs have no restrictions on mods) and PV has never claimed to have any or need any accountability in distinguishing between 'prevention of reddit style mods' with 'unwarranted or subjective meddling' based on opinion and subjective viewpoints. Even the flair "meta-drama" on PV can be construed as meaning that the PV mods have passed judgment already. Contrary to current public introspection from PV mods, there is the appearance of an echo chamber effect where dissent finds itself facing a circle the wagons mentality.
kestrel9 ago
and
Two categories that have focus and no PV oversight on mods, and they are not accountable to the broader community.
Derailing and forum sliding can effectively happen, both in submission and comments. Shills may submit a topic well with the rules, and then turn the comment section into an subversive attack on the researchers. I believe research subs warrant an op out of PV involvement provided a system is in place to prevent out right censorship of subscribers involved in research and the discussions they have on the veracity of sources and conclusions derived from those sources. Mere opinionated insults from known habitual shitposters should be on the table for removal if it disrupts conversations between researchers speaking in good faith. IMO
kestrel9 ago
It would be helpful to have some metrics yes, another area of discussion for ideas. There have been positives for the sub imo, such as removing stickies that detracted from the average user's attention on the research based focus of the sub. There's a balance to be had imo between mods giving the support needed to the users and user involvement. Users in a research based sup shouldn't have to be spending more time worried about policing each other to confront a sustained flood of shitposting (notwithstanding the number of mitigating conditions in this case, making that point less cut and dry).
I don't think in the case of GA that thousands of people will leave based on the bans seen so far. The rate of bans spiked and then dropped dramatically. Removing the stickies let the users move forward out of the sustained drama, so unless those who research and support Q (the purpose of the sub) are banned, I would predict little impact over time from today.
CerealBrain ago
It's not in keeping with Voat rules for the pussy to ban me.
Crensch ago
so the voices of your buddies that I kept out of my sub are more important than the voices of the people band from your buddy sub?
CerealBrain ago
@zyklon_b banned me from BEATLESTROLLARMY can you help me out?
kestrel9 ago
Who left GA besides @srayzie and @shizy? Was there an exodus to other Q subs following your advice to leave GA and move to QRV? @puttitout
CerealBrain ago
@zyklon_b can you please unban me from BEATLESTROLLARMY (quality sub) ?
Aren't you the andrew jackson cuck by the way?
So when it comes to saying something about your woman @Gothamgirl (who has me blocked cause I 'offended her' with words) then it's okay to block someone?
This is straight up flaming cuckery is it not?
CerealBrain ago
@sguevar can you tell that Zyklon faggot to unban me from the beatles army based upon what you said here?
sguevar ago
Interesting in your attempt to divert. From the real problem here you claimed that ZB banned you from his subverse without actually checking who actually banned you from this sub... A user that if you check my post history you would see that I reported for power moderation and vote manipulation and that also harassed me after i did that... Isn't it funny?
So you are asking me to repprt it again for the same thing I reported him for before?
Poor attempt to attack my credibility and consistency. But sure I am making the request now:
@andrew_jackson please do not engage in power moderation.
andrew_jackson ago
I unbanned your friend here, Señor, but he was very quickly rebanned for using foul language. I apologize for this inconvenience. Anyways I do not support free speech, so perhaps you are barking up the wrong tree?
CerealBrain ago
Yeah this is why I'm asking you in particular, I know you are 'no respecter of persons' when it comes to Voat and that Voat and freedom of speech is the most important thing for you.
sguevar ago
No respecter of persons? Meaning?
CerealBrain ago
Meaning you make no judgment calls when it comes to freedom of speech.
You defend everyone fair and square.
sguevar ago
I try to yes.
CerealBrain ago
If Voat was run by you, or if you had your own subverse, and were allowed to ban certain very very unchristian comments, would you do it? Would you remain true to your Christian faith? If you had such an opportunity? Think about it.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Same knife that cuts the butter cuts the throat.
Same vessel that shipped the whiskey shipped the Bibles.
sguevar ago
I have a sub. I have expressed already my positions on power modding and was infact harassed by andrew jackson on my sub and didn't even deleted his post nor comments... So...
My Chridtian faith looks to rebuke with the Word of God as I did with when you tried to use the Word at convenirnce of your point and took a verse out of contexte for an erroneous interpretation.
And it doesn look to impose my faith on others. It looks to share it. But you are free to deny it if you like and so It foretold that Christians would be slandered by the world. Much like what you do i some of your comments.
And finally, I am true to my faith and I stand by the truth.
CerealBrain ago
@sguevar thanks man.
I think that @andrew_jackson pussy is the Zyklon porn poster. Is it okay to say that?
Since you vehemently stand up for Zykgag and Trigglypoof I thought you might do the same for me, I'm harmless.
Also, I am interested in stealing the @Gothamgirl from her man but she blocked me, these are the 'free speech' people?
SMH
andrew_jackson ago
....and rebanned
CerealBrain ago
@sguevar Why do these guys keep banning unbanning me?
ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago
SHeeit u dindu nuffin 1985
andrew_jackson ago
You just insulted me above, meanwhile I don't even know you. Maybe ask @Dortex to unban you?
1990
sguevar ago
Proof? Since you are willing to ignore when I have stood up against him...
She was falsely accused of doxxing by many users including the one you currently support.
On our past interactions you have proved to lack objectivity to pursue the censorship of users you deem immoral and yet you behave immorally yourself.
And somehow you call yourself harmless when you seem to profit from the discord in Voat to become relevant.
Any other false accusations or slanders you want to extend?
CerealBrain ago
Did you get me unblocked?
Crensch ago
You give all kinds of reasons for not making your own post about this when you made a post about mine. I don't think anyone is buying your delineations anymore. Well, not anyone that isn't already marching in lockstep.
Either all subs are the same or there is no reason for every sub not to be a shitposting sub
Crensch ago
Could you unban hojuruku one more time for old times' sake?
CerealBrain ago
Yeah he banned me the other day, he's a cuck.
TheBuddha ago
Amusingly, I just started addressing those with zyklon.
They have a censorship happy cancer mod that thinks this is reddit.
Those are (probably obvious by writing style) my comments.
Crensch ago
It's okay, it's a shitposting sub verse! That means they can do anything they want! Just ask Kev
TheBuddha ago
I suppose someone has to win the gold medal for mental gymnastics.
Crensch ago
Yeah? Why did he make his own submission for my deletions but won't do it here?
TheBuddha ago
You misread or I wasn't clear.
He's the one winning the mental gymnastics competition.
Crensch ago
Forgive me. I did misunderstand.
Please disregard.
TheBuddha ago
No need to be sorry, as I share culpability for having not been entirely clear with a sensitive subject that should leave no ambiguity.
Crensch ago
Cheers to that.
TheBuddha ago
Weigh this as you will. I think, if nothing else, you should be aware that (for better or worse) @zyklon_b stripped mod rights from the person that deleted my posts.
zyklon_b ago
any infringement by anyone will NOT be tolerated unlezz content is illegal then will be deleted
TheBuddha ago
Yes. I felt he should be aware, given the context of this thread and given my participation in this thread.
Do you know what's actually pretty cool?
You didn't even ask me for a shard of proof. (I'd have taken screenshots.) I am fortunate in that you trust me. Thank you.
zyklon_b ago
No problem thats what friends is for. if dude come and pms me ans is truly sincere bout not behaving that way then after i consult with the victim bein u maybe he can regain his former glory
TheBuddha ago
A reminder that you still have a ban put in place by the user you stripped of mod rights.
They've since added that they thought I was a srayzie alt. Well, they've clearly shown their not very good at detecting alts. The ban that is in place is them accusing someone of being an alt, which we know is not a trustable conclusion.
Copy/Pasted:
HollaKost Rule Violation in v/BEATLESTROLLARMY: def to srayzie; Description: desperate alt is desperate ItWasMeAllThisTime 3 days ago
zyklon_b ago
hollakost is to be perrmabanned
HollaKost ago
Jew! Censoring muh free speech ain't cool beetch!
TheBuddha ago
I didn't even use it as an excuse to cause drama. I probably should have. That'd have been pretty funny.
ZYKLON ENDORSES CENSORHSHIP!!!
zyklon_b ago
He just pm me and explained how and why and i re modded as he claims was innocent mistake? is that cool with you he did apologize and seemed sincere.
TheBuddha ago
I'd submit that their a shitty judge. They thought I was an alt, which is kinda retarded. It's not like the verbiage used doesn't clearly indicate it was me. They're just REALLY bad at thinking and reaching logical conclusions.
If that's what you want banning and deleting comments, you can do anything you want. It's your sub and I'll not be the one to tell you how to run it.
zyklon_b ago
i am just tryin give erryone fair chance. bro.
Crensch ago
Oh wait, it's a shitposting stub so you guys don't care because reasons.
But somehow my totally legit declaration that GA is a shitposting and circle jerk sub somehow doesn't absolve me of any crimes.
ifuckdolphinseverday ago
Keep crying faggot and go back to mashing your mattress.
zyklon_b ago
hahhq