I prefer not engaging u/theoldones on this because he has a limited view on the matter. He conveniently ignores the fact that u/srayzie doxxed herself and then omitted that due to convenience to accuse u/trigglypuff of doxxing her. Which got u/trigglypuff unjustly banned.
When I showed proof that it was a unjust ban then in that regard the ban was reversed and she then decided to "leave" the site because of the reversal of the ban.
When u/theoldones thinks he is in the right side of the argument he will basically go ahead and ignore facts to conveniently fit his narrative. For example he will defend and justify the doxx on u/GothamGirl with the argument "they did it first" instead of taking an objective position and state both behaviors are disgusting.
He even witnessed doxxing done by the party that he joined and never said anything about it. Why? Because again, he needs the argument to be on his side. This is why I prefer to ignore his denunciations in many cases. For example: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3311363/19528911/10#19528911 you will see on his reply to that comment he states "I don't care what you saw nigger"
If you check his history you will see that he had run a "test bot" - (according to him) to detect bots on Voat that were harassing him and brigading him. So he pinged constantly multiple users asking them "not to downvote if you are not a bot", forgetting completely that the users annoyed by his questionable campaigned will automatically downvote anything he pinged them on. So he considered that a positive on his test.
He attacked another user, u/Obrez, regarding that and after him and I interacted I started to see an objective and reasonable character reacting to u/theoldones harassment. Reason why I made a post on PV about that: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3043374
When u/MadWorld made a post with verifiable evidence that suspicious links were being shared on Voat and u/theoldones name showed up he completely freaked out and started harassing u/MadWorld, even after my interactions with him I showed him that he did posted suspicious links but did it without knowing so that he didn't have intent in doing so. But that was quite an episode.
u/theoldones has applied power moderation also and complained of it being applied to him. u/thebuddah can attest for that if you ask him because u/theoldones started making posts about u/thebuddah questioning his hypocrisy.
The only campaign I support of his, is his constant hunt for pedophiles and honestly I think he should stick with that instead of playing a moral high ground person of reference because he ignored the defense that v/ProtectVoat gave to u/srayzie (after all he came late to the issue) and then united with u/Crensch on his campaign to attack v/ProtectVoat because we didn't supported his power moderation and then his alleged coordinated attempts with the users recently that got banned from which one of them u/hollacost was an alt of u/shizy (u/shizie).
At this moment the only party that has defended users from being doxxed has been v/ProtectVoat. Which is one of the reasons why I stick with it and returned to being a mod/owner of it.
@virge and you were correct in that @theoldones wasn't worth engaging with. It was interesting to note that, despite a great number of opportunities to give a straight answer @theoldones refused to be honest, refused to make cohesive arguments and continued to evade reasonable questions.
I think there has been a concerted effort by many to confuse the issue of what actually constitutes "doxx" as there is no clear definition, though intent seems to play a large role in the eyes of the law. Everyone is supposed to automatically hop on board with "doxx is bad" which leaves the matter of Wikileaks diametrically opposed to anyone who subscribes to a blanket ban against doxx.
If I write a news article and submit it, using public information from the court, that is not doxx. We should be allowed to do that to any public figure. @srazyie made herself a public figure and I did not doxx any private information and it had no use as any form of "harassment". There is literally no harm in posting someone's criminal history because the harm was already caused by the criminal and that is why it is public.
It was interesting to note that, despite a great number of opportunities to give a straight answer @theoldones refused to be honest, refused to make cohesive arguments and continued to evade reasonable questions.
Only interesting if you haven't observed him long enough to know that's the account's modus operandi.
I think there has been a concerted effort by many to confuse the issue of what actually constitutes "doxx"
Remove the words doxx and replace with just about any other word you can think of and you're starting to see the bigger picture.
Posted automatically (#62359) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@thewebofslime: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)
view the rest of the comments →
sguevar ago
I prefer not engaging u/theoldones on this because he has a limited view on the matter. He conveniently ignores the fact that u/srayzie doxxed herself and then omitted that due to convenience to accuse u/trigglypuff of doxxing her. Which got u/trigglypuff unjustly banned.
When I showed proof that it was a unjust ban then in that regard the ban was reversed and she then decided to "leave" the site because of the reversal of the ban.
When u/theoldones thinks he is in the right side of the argument he will basically go ahead and ignore facts to conveniently fit his narrative. For example he will defend and justify the doxx on u/GothamGirl with the argument "they did it first" instead of taking an objective position and state both behaviors are disgusting.
He even witnessed doxxing done by the party that he joined and never said anything about it. Why? Because again, he needs the argument to be on his side. This is why I prefer to ignore his denunciations in many cases. For example: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3311363/19528911/10#19528911 you will see on his reply to that comment he states "I don't care what you saw nigger"
If you check his history you will see that he had run a "test bot" - (according to him) to detect bots on Voat that were harassing him and brigading him. So he pinged constantly multiple users asking them "not to downvote if you are not a bot", forgetting completely that the users annoyed by his questionable campaigned will automatically downvote anything he pinged them on. So he considered that a positive on his test.
He attacked another user, u/Obrez, regarding that and after him and I interacted I started to see an objective and reasonable character reacting to u/theoldones harassment. Reason why I made a post on PV about that: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3043374
When u/MadWorld made a post with verifiable evidence that suspicious links were being shared on Voat and u/theoldones name showed up he completely freaked out and started harassing u/MadWorld, even after my interactions with him I showed him that he did posted suspicious links but did it without knowing so that he didn't have intent in doing so. But that was quite an episode.
u/theoldones has applied power moderation also and complained of it being applied to him. u/thebuddah can attest for that if you ask him because u/theoldones started making posts about u/thebuddah questioning his hypocrisy.
The only campaign I support of his, is his constant hunt for pedophiles and honestly I think he should stick with that instead of playing a moral high ground person of reference because he ignored the defense that v/ProtectVoat gave to u/srayzie (after all he came late to the issue) and then united with u/Crensch on his campaign to attack v/ProtectVoat because we didn't supported his power moderation and then his alleged coordinated attempts with the users recently that got banned from which one of them u/hollacost was an alt of u/shizy (u/shizie).
At this moment the only party that has defended users from being doxxed has been v/ProtectVoat. Which is one of the reasons why I stick with it and returned to being a mod/owner of it.
thewebofslime ago
@virge and you were correct in that @theoldones wasn't worth engaging with. It was interesting to note that, despite a great number of opportunities to give a straight answer @theoldones refused to be honest, refused to make cohesive arguments and continued to evade reasonable questions.
I think there has been a concerted effort by many to confuse the issue of what actually constitutes "doxx" as there is no clear definition, though intent seems to play a large role in the eyes of the law. Everyone is supposed to automatically hop on board with "doxx is bad" which leaves the matter of Wikileaks diametrically opposed to anyone who subscribes to a blanket ban against doxx.
If I write a news article and submit it, using public information from the court, that is not doxx. We should be allowed to do that to any public figure. @srazyie made herself a public figure and I did not doxx any private information and it had no use as any form of "harassment". There is literally no harm in posting someone's criminal history because the harm was already caused by the criminal and that is why it is public.
virge ago
Only interesting if you haven't observed him long enough to know that's the account's modus operandi.
Remove the words doxx and replace with just about any other word you can think of and you're starting to see the bigger picture.
@sguevar
theoldones ago
virge, i defend people who i see get harrassed. you're talking a lot of shit and what happened to srayzie was bad.
virge ago
Well thats complete horseshit, you've defended me a total of one time ever.
It's the Internet you goddamn Boomer, that isn't shit-talk that's just dialogue.
I'm still convinced most of the srayzie drama is made up by SBBH.
theoldones ago
m8, i dont see hide nor hair of you anywhere becuase im not there to see it. i dont know what the fuck you're on about.
srayzies kids got threatened, dont you fucking dare call that just "shit-talk". member when their picture got posted and some pedos likely got pinged?
thewebofslime ago
Do you have any proof that @srayzie was really the one behind the account?
SearchVoatBot ago
This comment was linked from this v/GreatAwakeningMeta comment by @Crensch.
Posted automatically (#62359) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@thewebofslime: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Crensch)