I have returned as moderator/owner (ProtectVoat)

submitted ago by sguevar

It is clear that u/Crensch will still try to attack this sub that even as a simple user he thinks he can attack me as he did on this post: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3311363

It is clear that his motivations and his supporters are misguided.

I have accepted to return again because his arrogance doesn't let him see how much he has lost:

  • Credibility
  • His principles
  • His cause

So thanks for the invite again u/kevdude.

I stand with v/ProtectVoat all the way and hence I stand by Voat all the way.

My dear typhoon, keep whistling away.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

BraunF14 ago

This is a good addition to a strong and positive sub. @crensch just went ahead and built a pseudonym subverse called v/Protectgoats trying to act like he's a true goat himself. Despicable. At least we'll have open discussions and freedom of speech here, unlike any sub that's controlled by QRV, GA, or their third spammy board theawakening.

Let's open Voat's eyes to the censorship happening in those subs and work towards running the anti-free speech, paranoid Q worshippers out of our site.

sguevar ago

Let's open Voat's eyes to the censorship happening in those subs

Agreed

work towards running the anti-free speech, paranoid Q worshippers out of our site.

Disagree :)

They have a right to be here and express their opinions. So I will defend their right to do it.

But u/Crensch is requesting me to give hard proof that he coordinated that doxx team when he knows I can't. I based my statement on probable cause/motive and his past interactions with those users and defense he made for one of them.

Is like I posted here: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3269930

Does the user constantly denies the validity of your claims?

Despite all the evidence that you can bring to the table, they continue to contest the validity of your arguments. Usually they take information out of context to use conveniently in order to argue against the validity of certain aspect of your statements. They use this approach in a general way. For example: I personally don't trust (((Psychologists))) because their field is full of (((jews in the letter))) and as a Christian I don't trust the tools of the synagogue of Satan. This is my personal position on it. However some of their material can be interesting to read and yet somewhat relevant to a particular discussion. Nonetheless, a user engaging in trolling/shilling will probably use a more generic approach that doesn't express their position: Psychology is not a real science. Psychology is social engineering. The field of Psychology is full of jews. These statements all present a somewhat valid perspective and hence without stating their position right away they use generality to deny your position on a certain aspect.

They can also label your claims as rumors, start demanding proofs that would be impossible for you to acquire. As you can't proof your claims further then your position loses credibility. Additionally they can ask for you to propose a detail solution to the problem at hand. If you can't produce it then you don't know what you are talking about.

He is not that stupid to coordinate openly on Voat. There is also a just assumption that he has active communication with u/srayzie and u/shizy outside of Voat. And for that any coordination would have either happened outside of Voat or within PMs he has with the users banned that were posted on this post: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3311363.

The only way anyone can get hard evidence of it is that we accessed his communications with those users. But I will not push for that. I will push for him to change my mind about. He won't, he will redirect and keep on attacking me in order to try to attack my credibility... the one he lost a while back.

BraunF14 ago

Lol I don't even think he's the same guy anymore tbh. I find it fair you disagree with part of my comment. It's just my opinion. With all the seriousness of the majority of Voat's posts and discussions, it's difficult to watch GA subs "flourish" while spatting baby babble and conspiracy theories. Every post is tinfoil hat worthy. So much conspiracy theories. They're all essentially spam posts at this point. Nothing the GA subs put out have any weight in content. That's important and sad due to the very heavy weight they all carry above and below their waistlines there.

sguevar ago

Well I see where you are coming from.

I never trusted the movement but I do find their motivations and reading about it interesting.I can understand why in from the vaccum of leadership there was in the US and the corruption of the luciferian elite where this is coming from also.

I prefer to put my faith in the Lord (whether you agree with it or not) the rest is just entertainment. But as I will defend their right to share their opinions uncensored, I will with yours. That is it. You have a right to openly say what you want about their movement and you have a right to share it with whomever you want. They don't have a right to suppress your speech as you don't have the right to suppress theirs.

The problem is that u/Crensch thinks that he can suppress the right of speech of anyone he doesn't like and that is openly against the movement he defends. If the subscribers of that sub want to blindly accept his actions then that I will leave it be. But I will always be critical of them (his actions).

kestrel9 ago

The problem is that u/Crensch thinks that he can suppress the right of speech of anyone he doesn't like and that is openly against the movement he defends.

I don't think that's what he's been doing. (Though a private sub has different standards then system subs so if he can is different then if he should).

If someone has opposing views related to conclusions about research, even if that user is from shareblue, they can go and debate it. I had those type of discussions with a democrat on there many times. But groups of people popping in to just say a niglet statement like "1990" (for example) is not related to Q Research.

sguevar ago

Well my unjust ban hasn't been removed and as stated on this post: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3273683, when there is evidence of one unjust ban then there is enough basis to believe that his other bans should be reviewed.

There are several bans that he applied that were unjust, just because people express their mockery for u/srayzie's departure. He has also applied Guilty by association rules. So you tell me.

kestrel9 ago

Most people who are banned on voat seem to say that they've been unjustly banned. Is there really such a thing as an unjust ban on a private sub, when the ban is supported by that sub's community? And wouldn't threats from banned people to take over the sub, because they want to overturn those bans they disagree with within that private sub, wouldn't that essentially be an effort to take away the voice of those people within their private sub?

sguevar ago

Most people who are banned on voat seem to say that they've been unjustly banned. Is there really such a thing as an unjust ban on a private sub, when the ban is supported by that sub's community?

Multiple users from that community were appreciative of me and also expressed they hoped my ban to be reverted.

And wouldn't threats from banned people to take over the sub, because they want to overturn those bans they disagree with within that private sub, wouldn't that essentially be an effort to take away the voice of those people within their private sub?

If my ban was reverted I would probably make posts about the topics of the sub and comment on said topics. I have no interest on changing nor dividing the sub. They have, as you have expressed, voted to keep u/Crensch as a mod/owner. However I wouldn't stop being vocal about his power moderation when it is questioned by the same community, but those critics would mostly be held outside of that sub.

I was banned for showing proof on a false narrative. That is it. The ban was unjustified. But I have no interest in trying to subvert that sub.

kestrel9 ago

Are speaking of this? https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/3248084

sguevar ago

No I am speaking of this: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3250302

kestrel9 ago

I was about to mention the missing images. From the info that is in the post, the subject isn't Q related, it's srayzie and the dox controversy related. That post didn't belong on GA, so I don't consider removing it as being "unjust". It would belong more appropriately belong in GreatAwakeningMeta which is a forum for discussion like that (bans), or even on PV regarding the dox discussions. The spirit of the message does appear as an outside self professed 'authority' (PV) attempting to impose it's own will onto a private sub. You say it was in the best interest of voat, but PV isn't suppose to tell private subs how to run them.

sguevar ago

Well the ban was applied without a warning.

Hence it is unjustified. I had previously interacted and posted many things on that sub and in the end that was overlooked at convenience and the whim of the owner.

If you check the timeline, the meta sub was created after that ban. So there wasn't any way to proof the false narrative that was taking place without doing the post. Hence I reposted also on PV in case the mod team decided to remove it to hide that fact. Which indeed happened.

kestrel9 ago

The rules state that posts need to be Q related. They don't say you get a warning when you post a non Q related topic. That is not unreasonable or unjustified. You were able to more appropriately move that conversation so ultimately you were not silenced (in lieu on having GreatAwakeningMeta available, you still had a venue).

PV doesn't write the rules for private subs (I don't think it's up to them to approve them either), but for the sake of argument, if PV somehow was authorized to do so, then to be fair, the sidebar should state that the rules of the community will be superceded when PV decides invoke those rules onto the sub. Then their warnings of holding power jurisdiction over all of voat would be available for full disclosure.

kestrel9 ago

Okay I'll take a look.

sguevar ago

Appreciated.

kestrel9 ago

I won't be able to reply until later, will be away from computer.

sguevar ago

No problem, going to boxing training in a few mins. Take your time.

kestrel9 ago

The images you sent relate to srayzie and conversations about doxing/not dox that was taking place at that time. Since then there have been bans for doxing that you were satisfied were fair https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3311363 .

Given the extent that PV was involved in a private sub for some time, by the time crensch became owner the community was quite pleased to have the interference from PV be stopped, as such they didn't have to follow the mess that continued on until the recent dox bans. Continuing to drag this subject out isn't a positive for voat, but that's my opinion.

sguevar ago

That relate to my unfair banning. You fail to recognize, if you check the timeline that other users were banned for doxxing more of srayzie's info after I reported it. Those ones were fair to me too.

Now in what regard to my ban from GA, no defense that you give will change the fact that it waa unfair, that it was motivated by Crensch trying to hide the truth of a false narrative he was spreading at the time on GA. You are justifying my ban for the fact that I am a PV mod/owner only. Leaving aside all my interactions on that sub and even previous defenses I have done on that sub.

You can paint it as you want but it won't change the fact that my ban is clear sign of power moderation.

kestrel9 ago

What I'm addressing relates to PV's record of trying to lord it over private subs. If PV were authorized to override what the community wants in private subs, then your rules need to be clearly stated on every sub's side bar. Specifically how those community members and the sub are essentially accountable to a panel of users of a central office, some of whom are not supportive of Q in general and not interested in Q research (from all appearances), the very core purpose of having the sub. You yourself, if I recall, have repeatedly stated that you don't trust Q. Then I'd expect that a good portion of your posting history would be posts having to do with debunking it, backed up with facts and sources. But that's not really what you've appeared to be interested in. At any rate as it now stands, Crensch did create a sub specifically for that purpose, and a sub specifically for off topic issues and drama over the sub coming from some PV mods and some SBBH members.

You say your history on GA is clear, but the reality isn't as you've claimed, and at any rate you have other Q subs to participate in, which I don't believe you have taken advantage of doing so. So instead of presenting solid evidence of you being involved in the movement, whether from the stance of support, or from well informed debate on specific topics involving the news or events covered in Q drops, I don't find you to be missing out on the opportunity to exercise free speech on the subject of Q by not being on GA.

Some of your posts didn't meet the rules and yet were not banned, so you were never 'targeted' as an individual. But as a PV role as a mod/owner, you are trying to 'raise awareness' of your ban without full disclosure that PV does not have specific authority from admin to be the policeman of private subs that it has been involved in that all along the way leading up to your ban.

During that time there was no clear and specific disclosure of what the policing entails in the sub's sidebar. Does it involve putting pressure on the members or the mods by sending in troll police? Then say it instead of hiding behind subversive policing actions as if they are 'organic' users just out to practice free speech, say that you are fully deputized by @puttitout to use that method, if that is the case. If PV is Voat's repository of law over all of voat, then how you enact your will over subs should be clear to all. However, you have conceded that because that is not the case, PV will resign itself to essentially play an 'advisory role' for people unhappy with their mods on system subs. And the community on the private sub GA is not unhappy with their rules or with @crensch. They are quite relieved to have been given a break (on the whole) from the drama and to focus on the purpose of the sub.

sguevar ago

Well in the end I am in no interest of using v/ProtectVoat for power search. I am interested on using it as an informative subverse from which the community can rely and inform themselves about power moderation, suspicious activity and trends used by the shills and trolls to disrupt. The last call resides on the users.

The post deletion would have been justified according to your stance however the ban would not. That was my first offense after having interacted previously and repeatedly with that sub and it's subcribers. I was denied the possibility to interact with them within the boundaries of it's topic within the sub. Or specially voice my opinion on the vote that u/Crensch held when asking the users of that sub to decide whether he was to stay as an owner or not. That was a discussion that I as a user, subscriber and contributor on that sub was denied to participate. Why? Because of the whim of the owner.

That was an unjust ban and it should be reversed. But I see that you will hold your ground on it because I am a v/ProtectVoat moderator/owner and defender. Suit yourself.

You know perfectly well that the ban shouldn't have been made in the first place. But well, at this point all I have is to be critical of the power moderation of said owner. And inform the community.

Thanks for the conversation. Hope you have a great day. When I get home I will re upload the images so you can check them.