Well, imo mods are also users ;-), so I think 'no discussions about mods' is already covered by 'no discussions about other users'.
But you're right, it might be good to add an additional rule 'no meta-discussions'.
Maybe the GA folks could have a rules discussion at some point. But as someone who isn't into Q, I can only throw in my two cents from a distance, it would be the GA users and mods who should initiate a rules discussion, not us outsiders.
It really is a good idea. Currently since there's no meta discussion allowed and the GA people likely only visit that sub then there's virtually no input from the real community. What going to be difficult for you guys is deciding what real community means and who to apply it to. It's very hard to be subjective on things like that when the user seems like they are attacking you, by attacking the rules you've made. If you have the real members input on rules with you guys as the gatekeepers of that then it might work.
I am not sure if those initial pieces weren't the toe in the water.
I don't think so. As I said, there were reasons why you created, and always defended the 'no meta-discussions' rule on v/pizzagate. I think you were even more strict regarding the necessity of instant deletions of meta-discussions per rule 4 than the mod team.
The problem I see is that unlike the Pizzagate community, the GA community hasn't got a place where meta-discussions can be posted.
TL;DR - submission deletions based on previously defined sub rules are ok, and aren't censorship imo.
This might be true. I think the best thing you can do is to actually involve the GA community in a dicussion about rules. Like the rules discussions we had on v/pizzagate.
Have a rules discussion, write or amend rules, and act accordingly as mod and O.
I think random comment deletions may have led to less support in general than you could have had if you had followed the steps I mentioned above. Just my 2 cents.
As I just wrote in my comment below, it might be a good idea to create a new sub specifically for discussing meta concerns of the GA community, where posts like the one OP submitted could go.
It has been my understanding that in general meta discussions about other users are not allowed on GA, 'drama' or not.
It was @kevdude who helped writing and enforcing the v/pizzagate rules, and discussed them with the community. I'm not a Q follower, but as far as I know he also helped srayzie when she wrote rules for GA.
So not sure what your issue is with submissions that get deleted according to sidebar rules in GA.
My point was that this wasn't an arbitrary deletion, but that you posted a submission that didn't adhere to the GA rules. Nobody targeted you specifically, or exceeded his mod powers.
But as someone who is not into Q, and only occasionally reads stuff on GA, I don't feel like starting a discussion about it. This would be a decision the GA community would have to make.
It appears to be in response to this: which was posted 5.7 hours ago, and @DarkRaven's post 6.1 hours ago.
Pizzagate researcher @gothamgirl mods another voat sub where the picture of a murdered child was posted yesterday. Still not removed. by EmeraldRoses in ProtectGoats
[–]kestrel9 0 points (+0|-0) 5.7 hours ago
I hear ya, it's just an awkward example to run with given the history of, well, everything lol.
It's a simple example that is easy to see and easy to understand how it places @kevdude of actively choosing winners and losers as far as subs go. Based on other people's comments over a history of PV, including it's founder, about their overreaching and lack of oversight, it's a safe assumption that this behavior is the norm. We have examples about individuals under attack from shitposters, the details get lengthy and many people may not want to read the bulk of it. Some may benefit for this example as just am sample of misguided, or corrupt, or inept, or power tripping actions coming under the auspices of protecting Voat.
Now zyklon_b has lulz with pics of murdered little girls so he can continue to taunt @srayzie about killing her kids, even after she stepped down from v/GreatAwakening She isn't doing the work of building up a great subverse for the benefit of her nearly 14,000 subscribers (see the sidebar of contributions she made), but Voat, under the protection of PV, still ensures that zyklon_b continues to get his lulz. Ain't free speech grand?! That's what we're fighting for!! /s
Why can't an owner of a sub just focus on healing and leadership?
So it's more than coincidence the question he asked related to my comment about @srayzie, just happening to come out what, less than 20 mins after I posted it?
So why can't a shitposter who @kevdude asked to troll another sub other than @srayzie be continuing on taunting her about killing her kids http://archive.is/hMre8 be acknowledged by PV as playing a role in @crensch taking over GA?
And why isn't the issue with downvoting mods, as was described here, https://voat.co/v/ProtectGoats/3267140 taken into account as part of the answer to concern troll questions about @crensch as an owner of GA? He's familiar with how the game works. If someone who is not part SBBH or PV and is aware of this game run by SBBH and PV, would they in their right mind consider becoming a Mod of such target subs like GA if there is not ability to run it as @DarkRaven only now bemoans, in the spirit of 'healing and leadership'?
No, what you expect is to not reap what you sow. There are consequences to your actions. You purposely acted a certain way to elicit a reaction so you can pretend to be a victim. You'll gain no sympathy from me for it.
think- ago
Well, imo mods are also users ;-), so I think 'no discussions about mods' is already covered by 'no discussions about other users'.
But you're right, it might be good to add an additional rule 'no meta-discussions'.
Maybe the GA folks could have a rules discussion at some point. But as someone who isn't into Q, I can only throw in my two cents from a distance, it would be the GA users and mods who should initiate a rules discussion, not us outsiders.
@Crensch @bopper @kestrel9
bopper ago
That was a joke of course (think)..
bopper ago
Good idea @think- !
Dismember ago
It really is a good idea. Currently since there's no meta discussion allowed and the GA people likely only visit that sub then there's virtually no input from the real community. What going to be difficult for you guys is deciding what real community means and who to apply it to. It's very hard to be subjective on things like that when the user seems like they are attacking you, by attacking the rules you've made. If you have the real members input on rules with you guys as the gatekeepers of that then it might work.
think- ago
I don't think so. As I said, there were reasons why you created, and always defended the 'no meta-discussions' rule on v/pizzagate. I think you were even more strict regarding the necessity of instant deletions of meta-discussions per rule 4 than the mod team.
The problem I see is that unlike the Pizzagate community, the GA community hasn't got a place where meta-discussions can be posted.
TL;DR - submission deletions based on previously defined sub rules are ok, and aren't censorship imo.
Crensch ago
They complain when I banned for no rules. They complain when I ban for rules. Same with removals.
The result will always be the same, and the shitposters will never ever be held it to account for anyting.
think- ago
This might be true. I think the best thing you can do is to actually involve the GA community in a dicussion about rules. Like the rules discussions we had on v/pizzagate.
Have a rules discussion, write or amend rules, and act accordingly as mod and O.
I think random comment deletions may have led to less support in general than you could have had if you had followed the steps I mentioned above. Just my 2 cents.
think- ago
As I just wrote in my comment below, it might be a good idea to create a new sub specifically for discussing meta concerns of the GA community, where posts like the one OP submitted could go.
It has been my understanding that in general meta discussions about other users are not allowed on GA, 'drama' or not.
I think the rule is quite clear tbh.
@Crensch @bopper @kestrel9 @SandHog
IMCHAD ago
http://magaimg.net/img/86cw.jpg
You have so much fat pad that your little dick is like 2 inches KEK
IMCHAD ago
Srayzie has your little dick pics. LITTLE. You had to take a Viagra limp dick!
DarkRaven ago
Thus why he needs to be called out for bad deletions. Obviously, some content deserves it.
HollaKost ago
Always love some faux outrage in the morning.
HollaKost ago
http://magaimg.net/img/86fj.jpg
Cuck!
CheeseboogerHimself ago
You mean all of the rules she imposed as I kicked her fucking ass? ah ah ah
DarkRaven ago
I shall quote @molochHunter, “no posts about other users”.
Welcome to Communist China and North Korea.
think- ago
It's a rule in the GA sidebar -
We have a similar rule on v/pizzagate. Posts about mods go to v/pizzagatemods, meta-discussions should be posted to other subs like v/pizzagatewhatever. (Rule 4)
It was @kevdude who helped writing and enforcing the v/pizzagate rules, and discussed them with the community. I'm not a Q follower, but as far as I know he also helped srayzie when she wrote rules for GA.
So not sure what your issue is with submissions that get deleted according to sidebar rules in GA.
DarkRaven ago
When does that become censorship of dissenting opinions?
I called @Crensch a power mod, posted his off the wall pm and got banned. Proof of my accusations.
I was not slandering him not providing doxing material.
He power mods to keep himself clean.
@molochHunter
https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/3269035
Proof is in their control.
think- ago
My point was that this wasn't an arbitrary deletion, but that you posted a submission that didn't adhere to the GA rules. Nobody targeted you specifically, or exceeded his mod powers.
The GA community might want to create a v/GreatAwakeningMods sub where meta issues could be discussed, like we have done on v/pizzagate by creating v/pizzagatemods.
But as someone who is not into Q, and only occasionally reads stuff on GA, I don't feel like starting a discussion about it. This would be a decision the GA community would have to make.
@Crensch @bopper @kestrel9
DarkRaven ago
A community like GA needs to be informed. It’s qbout research and weeding out deep state and other paid operatives.
Why is a Dissenting opinion a problem?
Don’t avoid the topic and spin it the way you want.
Crensch ago
All of voat is apparently a place to whine about me.
think- ago
U surprised? :-P grin
offender ago
Is this the latest installment in the ongoing Shills vs SBBH vs Qtard war?
kestrel9 ago
It appears to be in response to this: which was posted 5.7 hours ago, and @DarkRaven's post 6.1 hours ago.
Read entire comment exchange: https://voat.co/v/ProtectGoats/3267140/19102448/10#19102448
@DarkRaven said shortly after I posted that:
Why can't an owner of a sub just focus on healing and leadership?
So it's more than coincidence the question he asked related to my comment about @srayzie, just happening to come out what, less than 20 mins after I posted it?
So why can't a shitposter who @kevdude asked to troll another sub other than @srayzie be continuing on taunting her about killing her kids http://archive.is/hMre8 be acknowledged by PV as playing a role in @crensch taking over GA?
And why isn't the issue with downvoting mods, as was described here, https://voat.co/v/ProtectGoats/3267140 taken into account as part of the answer to concern troll questions about @crensch as an owner of GA? He's familiar with how the game works. If someone who is not part SBBH or PV and is aware of this game run by SBBH and PV, would they in their right mind consider becoming a Mod of such target subs like GA if there is not ability to run it as @DarkRaven only now bemoans, in the spirit of 'healing and leadership'?
@crensch
HollaKost ago
DarkRaven appears to be a smartly placed and disguised SBBH alt.
Good work faggots!
DarkRaven ago
Wrong: all wrong! Nice try and good try at disinformation.
I posted because of this:
https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/3269042
kneo24 ago
I read this as:
What do people expect?
ThisIsMyRealName ago
We expect to be able to have our say.
kneo24 ago
No, what you expect is to not reap what you sow. There are consequences to your actions. You purposely acted a certain way to elicit a reaction so you can pretend to be a victim. You'll gain no sympathy from me for it.
TheAntiZealot ago
Appreciated!
TheAntiZealot ago
Context?