claims she has proven i am lying; has not proven this at all; lacks source
so you admit you made a mistake when deleting this?
deleting what? i'm talking about comments, shill.
you are clearly accusing me of being a shill
i have proven you are and you have yet to refute the claims directly nor even answer simple questions about what you do on coding voat and talking to the admins off voat.
without any proof
sorry i have posted much proof above and you have failed to refute any of it.
in the links provided earlier, there's a comment where YOU link to a post and within is more shilling by you.
shill-ception.
fuzzy you're coming on awfuly shilly here.
you made claims i was reddit cancer modding.
the two ops whose posts were in question were a. found to be lies and shitposts, admitted by that op, and b. shown to be breaking the title rule, rule 3, and in simply evenly enforcing the community-created post title rule, i deleted after talking to the user, and asking them to resubmit with correct titles and factual posts. in both instances even though one turned out to be lies and shitposting, i had still attempted to work with the user.
you claim that is reddit cancer modding.
while at the SAME TIME @lockeproposal was found to be deleting comments selectively in and out of his private sub's comment deletion rules. some off topic comments were not deleted, some were with a rule on the sub "all off-topic comments will be deleted." but mine were after many others were not. a similar comment to mine with less vitriol but still off topic was still up after days. it showed that @lockeproposal was deleting comments because of hurt fee-fees not on rules. which is ACTUAL reddit cancer modding.
your attacks on me were to divert voat's attention away from locke actually being a cancer reddit mod. the v/historyanecdotes mod deletion logs compared to the rules and (at that time) remaining comparitive rule-breaking comments are the evidence.
/wrecked.
@kevdude shill fuzzywords super wrecked and shown to be a shill shilling to divert attention away from an actual sjw cancer mod. that's literally the definition of someone shilling for a censorship and silence agenda against voat. this user is the most prolific non-dev coder of voat code this past year.
@atko@puttitout at this juncture i would formally request that @fuzzywords not be allowed to code voat on the basis she has malicious intent towards it.
Yeah, and I figure (not having been a real Reddit guy beofre) that it's a Reddit thing more than it ever was Voat ... because, as I said, I don't think I ever saw it more than a time or two before pizzagate ... now suddenly everyone's a shill or whining about shills taking over - LOL.
i provided evidence. feel free to refute the claims based on the evidence.
wildly screaming i'm wrong proves me right.
you make accusations and claims as fact without evidence maliciously to harm my reputation, to defame me in publication.
you're a shill promoting censorship and silence on voat.
your post sources my claims and (a very very small amount) of the evidence i have.
but here let me tellyou how much of an explination i owe you internet stranger:
from atko:
i don't owe anyone anything.
i've shown you openly blatantly shilling for my silence during a 2000 downvoat 40 post 800 comment 36 hour continuous attack on my character and reputation on voat.
To me, and just speaking for me, the term shill is a phrase used by those who are bothered that someone disagrees with them. Again, just from my perspective, it is a term I rarely, if ever heard on Voat before the great pizzagate influx, after which it has become a common way to attempt to invalidate any point of view someone doesn't like, or an act they disagree with. Now, when I see the term throw out, I'm immediately turned off and in my mind, have decided that I no longer need to read further, no matter what the complaint. If there is a legitimate definition of the word ... shill ... I'd like to know what it is ... but otherwise, to me it's just a lazy man's way of arguing that someone else's point must be invalid.
SelfReferenceParadox ago
You can't handle the invisible truth m8.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
deleting what? i'm talking about comments, shill.
i have proven you are and you have yet to refute the claims directly nor even answer simple questions about what you do on coding voat and talking to the admins off voat.
sorry i have posted much proof above and you have failed to refute any of it.
that's libel.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
i will point out youa re now spamming the sub with libel.
no deletes for shillbait. let all the voat see your shillbaiting libelous defamatory comments.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
you are lying through your teeth.
in the links provided earlier, there's a comment where YOU link to a post and within is more shilling by you.
shill-ception.
fuzzy you're coming on awfuly shilly here.
you made claims i was reddit cancer modding.
the two ops whose posts were in question were a. found to be lies and shitposts, admitted by that op, and b. shown to be breaking the title rule, rule 3, and in simply evenly enforcing the community-created post title rule, i deleted after talking to the user, and asking them to resubmit with correct titles and factual posts. in both instances even though one turned out to be lies and shitposting, i had still attempted to work with the user.
you claim that is reddit cancer modding.
while at the SAME TIME @lockeproposal was found to be deleting comments selectively in and out of his private sub's comment deletion rules. some off topic comments were not deleted, some were with a rule on the sub "all off-topic comments will be deleted." but mine were after many others were not. a similar comment to mine with less vitriol but still off topic was still up after days. it showed that @lockeproposal was deleting comments because of hurt fee-fees not on rules. which is ACTUAL reddit cancer modding.
your attacks on me were to divert voat's attention away from locke actually being a cancer reddit mod. the v/historyanecdotes mod deletion logs compared to the rules and (at that time) remaining comparitive rule-breaking comments are the evidence.
/wrecked.
@kevdude shill fuzzywords super wrecked and shown to be a shill shilling to divert attention away from an actual sjw cancer mod. that's literally the definition of someone shilling for a censorship and silence agenda against voat. this user is the most prolific non-dev coder of voat code this past year.
@atko @puttitout at this juncture i would formally request that @fuzzywords not be allowed to code voat on the basis she has malicious intent towards it.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
let it be shown on fuzzywords' comment history that the resposne was to begin spamming false quotes attributed to me that i have never said.
user's official response to this comment was to shitpost with maliciously libelous shitposting.
Owlchemy ago
Yeah, and I figure (not having been a real Reddit guy beofre) that it's a Reddit thing more than it ever was Voat ... because, as I said, I don't think I ever saw it more than a time or two before pizzagate ... now suddenly everyone's a shill or whining about shills taking over - LOL.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
i provided evidence. feel free to refute the claims based on the evidence.
wildly screaming i'm wrong proves me right.
you make accusations and claims as fact without evidence maliciously to harm my reputation, to defame me in publication.
you're a shill promoting censorship and silence on voat.
your post sources my claims and (a very very small amount) of the evidence i have.
but here let me tellyou how much of an explination i owe you internet stranger:
from atko:
i've shown you openly blatantly shilling for my silence during a 2000 downvoat 40 post 800 comment 36 hour continuous attack on my character and reputation on voat.
refute the proof, shill.
Owlchemy ago
To me, and just speaking for me, the term shill is a phrase used by those who are bothered that someone disagrees with them. Again, just from my perspective, it is a term I rarely, if ever heard on Voat before the great pizzagate influx, after which it has become a common way to attempt to invalidate any point of view someone doesn't like, or an act they disagree with. Now, when I see the term throw out, I'm immediately turned off and in my mind, have decided that I no longer need to read further, no matter what the complaint. If there is a legitimate definition of the word ... shill ... I'd like to know what it is ... but otherwise, to me it's just a lazy man's way of arguing that someone else's point must be invalid.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
Definition of shill
since i know the definition of the word shill, op is breaking rule 3. title must be congruent with the link.
also this is shill bait.
op @fuzzywords will now attempt to use this to SCREAM REEEEEE CANCER MOD
when in reality @lockeproposal is the actual cancer mod actually deleting COMMENTS AND POSTS IN A PRIVATE SUB BASED ON FEE FEESS
where as i do not delete comments at all and i only follow the rules for post curation.
the ONLY reason this post is deleted is because it is factually incorrect.
fuzzywords acts as a promoter of a malicious agenda against voat, ie fuzzywords is a shill.
Mick ago
TiL that this post hasn't been deleted yet.
brandon816 ago
I'm starting to believe he wants to see just how fast he can zero out his points. Social experiment or something.