StarAnon ago

Is there a hierarchy at Voat, or is this discussion regarding rules for this sub? Thanks.

kestrel9 ago

Please see my questions over omissions as a form of tone policing https://voat.co/v/Voat/3279799/19207156/10#19207156

And this one too, which I had not yet showed up in my comments section:

In addition to my other comment, do you think the two users you told

(yes I am also giving you the consideration despite the fact that I truly dislike you)

may have decided not to respond based on that remark? We can't know so I guess only they know. Perhaps using that isn't such a great idea in trying to bridge gaps.

You're comment here was bizarre as well:

I hope that you give a little consideration and we can work together even if some of you don't like me and viceversa (yes I am talking to you -----). Maybe we can achieve something great for all.

Hope to hear back from all of you. (yes even you -------- ugh... it even leaves a bad taste in my mouth)

If I may ask, why do you believe yourself to be a lead on drafting a "Constitution" when you omit such comments once you decided to go public? (That is, after receiving criticism over engaging in drafting something for the community, without actually taking into account initial input from the community.)

WhiteRonin ago

Hey nigger bitch!

Why you wanna start shit with me?

Go suck some @crensch dick because he know you like it too!

sguevar ago

And the dodge continues... I will leave you to your convenience as you couldn't argue further your superficial accusations... Have a goof night.

kestrel9 ago

There's no dodge. I can counter your response. Whether I decide to or not I don't know yet, since you consistently miss the salient points, what sense is there in beating a dead horse?

virge ago

Don't bother. WhiteRonin (who has various alts) is a disingenuous account. Everything he types is the equivalent of a retarded toddler waving their hands in the air screaming LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME, and he's only happy if he can get attention from genuine users.

Quite simply, if you ignore WhiteRonin, he spergs out and follows you around which is hilarious but he becomes extremely harmless.

WhiteRonin ago

Keep running fag!

@kestrel9 look how this fag can’t even respond to me.

But he’ll say it’s the high road but he is sneaky talking smack about me without a ping.

He gay!

He chicken!

zyklon_b ago

@whiteronin will destroy u

kestrel9 ago

Thanks for the advice. BTW, your point regarding genuine vs disingenuous users gets to the heart of the problem, i.e. the fabled "impasse".

virge ago

Thanks for the advice. BTW, your point regarding genuine vs disingenuous users gets to the heart of the problem, i.e. the fabled "impasse".

Confusion over genuine vs. disingenuous is the fundamental breakdown. Disingenuous accounts come in all shapes and sizes, but the biggest bunch of them feed off trolling genuine accounts, which makes them vampires of sorts. It only works when they hide in the darkness and don't get exposed to the light, because once you start ignoring the ones like WhiteRonin that only exist to feed off trolling genuine (while of course, often pretending to be genuine) they get bored pretty quickly.

Catch 22 for the "uninundated" genuine accounts who don't realize this, because their very nature leads them to try and communicate in a serious fashion with the disingenuous accounts.

sguevar ago

may have decided not to respond based on that remark? We can't know so I guess only they know. Perhaps using that isn't such a great idea in trying to bridge gaps.

That was actually directed at u/virge.

For example see here, I said exactly the same thing to him when he asked me this:

https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3274898/19164067 and I quote:

Serious question, what was pot like 15 years ago before we had 20%+ THC strains?

Which then I answered this: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3274898/19164138 and I quote again:

serious answer, to a serious question despite I seriously dislike you:

Any more poor attempts from your part? You keep proving my consistency here.

If I may ask, why do you believe yourself to be a lead on drafting a "Constitution" when you omit such comments once you decided to go public? (That is, after receiving criticism over engaging in drafting something for the community, without actually taking into account initial input from the community.)

Again, the user you so conveniently removed from there was u/virge. He knows I dislike him and I have shown that many times specially after his attempts to do exactly what you are doing, trying to character assassinate me, pull comments conveniently out of context and in his situation, stating that u/WhiteRonin and I were sock puppet accounts (even though he dismisses now he had said it and post about it and then remove his comments and content to avoid once again being on the spot)

Nice try u/kestrel9 but you might want to improve your attacks if you really want to attack me.

Have a nice day!

sguevar ago

u/Dismember:

I agree with peaceseeker here, in that you should be involving all of voat in this. At the end of the day I don't even think negotiations will help at all. This is as simple as a woman using men to get her way or get some revenge.

I can only speak for myself as far as protectvoat goes. So you will have to sell the idea to everyone else. Personally I think this is way too soon as people are still processing the drama and trying to make sense of Crensch's turnaround.

COPY

sguevar ago

u/PeaceSeeker:

While I appreciate the sentiment of getting people to talk things out and try to come to an understanding, I don't think a discussion like this ought to take place in private. For one, attempting to draft a "constitution-like" document in private and then sharing it with the userbase seems clique-ish and manipulative (why not just start publicly to begin with?); and secondly it is an inefficient way to communicate with Voat's current infrastructure.

From Voat's User Agreement Rules and Moderators sections:

Subverses may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement. You agree that Voat is not responsible for the actions taken or not taken by moderators.

Moderating a subverse is an unofficial, voluntary position. We reserve the right to revoke that position for any user at any time. You may not perform moderation actions in return for any form of compensation or favor from third-parties. When you receive notice that there is content that violates this user agreement on subverses you moderate, you agree to remove it.

The first paragraph demonstrates that Voat's stance is not that of /u/kevdude's, where subverses should not have the right to enforce their own rules if they deviate from his opinion about what rules are acceptable; Voat plainly states that any rules that comply with Voat's User Agreement are acceptable to enforce.

The second paragraph reminds us that Voat can remove any moderator for any reason, and Voat has a history of doing so when Voat believes the moderators are abusing their moderator privileges or are acting contrary to the interests of the communities they represent, which /u/Crensch can keep in mind in the event that he decides to use the power the /v/GreatAwakening community has granted him to act contrary to /v/GreatAwakening's expressed interests (and the first section also reminds /u/Crensch that he should probably create the rules before he enforces them, but I digress).

COPY

sguevar ago

u/kevdude:

maybe add some exceptions from the list outlined in the Pizzagate sub. I put this up to community discussion and no one seemed to have a problem with these points:

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1541871

(2) Comments are to be Off Limits to Moderation, With The following exceptions:

  • illegal content (CP, direct specific threats against IRL entities, anything that you could be criminally charged for in US court)
  • comments that dox users
  • adspam (advertisement links - it happens)
  • copypasta within the same thread - the mod will leave the first instance and remove the rest
  • NSFW content (images, etc) that has not been appropriately labeled as such (v/pizzagate is not an "adult" subverse)
  • hyperlinks to malicious urls

COPY

sguevar ago

u/virge:

immediate feedback is that "positive" and "negative" comments can be far more accurately described as "genuine" or "disingenuous", because someone can be genuine and impetus of their comment being "positive" or "negative" is in the eye of the beholder (same applies to disingenuous).

Put simply, the most important thing when engaging with someone is not how positive or negative you believe their statement to be, but if the user is genuine or disingenuous. Two genuine people can agree to disagree based on ideology (kev and I are examples of this). Disingenuous people are just chaotic and not serious by nature, making them like oil to water for engaging with genuine people.

Opinions and expression without censorship are the keystones of free speech. Disingenuous people are only interested in eliciting a specific reaction from others with their behavior, and the reasons behind that are somewhat irrelevant if you cannot establish this first. Motivations don't even matter until you have established what side of this dichotomy each party is a member of.

NOTE: I don't disagree with his input and I think that the initial writing could be added in a way that doesn't affect the form. But I am adding it like this in order for you all to see what you agree with and don't and what you all would like to add or not.