SmellyAF ago

Could you condense that into one small paragraph?

ledbetter ago

Much here, much very worthwhile. Too much to hope for all to agree with. Perhaps if presented in parcels, we could reach a consensus on some elements. Perhaps 3 or 4 parcels initially, but it would demonstrate agreement on those 3 or 4. Then we might tackle another 2 or 3 seeking consensus on just those. Some compromise might be suggested to reach agreement. Say we got 6. Now we have a basis to determine what else we might agree upon. This would be a long process because so many are involved, and we may never reach agreement on everything. The group is too diverse and all opinions are demonstrably not shared. But it's a good effort and it's a start. What can we gain with some goats simply posting potshots at others, particularly in the anonymous areas. Opinions aren't facts, and everyone in the world seems to have a different opinion about everything. Are we any different?

Parity ago

how danger is your hair mam?

CognitiveDissident5 ago

What you are trying to do is commendable. The lack of leadership by the site owners is what makes it necessary. Shame you have to do their job for them.

kestrel9 ago

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.)

kestrel9 ago

I was wondering if you decided to post publicly after I posted a criticism. Also whether you consider leaving out critical responses to your pm an indirect form of tone policing. Had you posted your discussion on PV from the beginning, ALL responses would be available for people to read i.e.

I however just received the feedback from a couple of the users I sent the message too including a couple of dismissals from two of them that clearly won't have the will to work together at this point.

For the sake of transparency, shouldn't all the responses you received be made public? Shouldn't people get to read ALL comments in response to your inquiry? I thought that's exactly what PV fights for every second of every day, to make sure that ALL comments are visible, not just the ones that you feel are appropriate for what you're trying to accomplish. If I responded 1990 ten or twenty times, shouldn't that commentary be respected as well and included in your full disclosure that you are engaging in on two subverses?

"But all seriousness aside" /s Glad to see you were out having some lulz while you were working on your 'can't we all just get along project'. /s https://voat.co/v/SoapboxBanhammer/3276975/19172176/10#19172176

@Crensch @Vindicator

sguevar ago

For the sake of transparency, shouldn't all the responses you received be made public?

Sure I can do that however the couple of dismissals were in fact yours and u/Crensch and tried to avoid them because of the fact that you are not willing to work together and were unproductive. Plus I was trying to avoid you two making a fool of yourselfs but sure. I can certainly posts the screencaps of your two responses:

u/Crensch: https://i.imgtc.ws/QbhlMDY.png

u/kestrel9: https://i.imgtc.ws/ZeAwSX3.png

Shouldn't people get to read ALL comments in response to your inquiry?

As your group failed to character assassinate me and your attempt seems to be directed to the same intent you are still avoiding the fact that the ones I posted were actually constructive criticism. For example: u/PeaceSeeker wasn't fully onboard with this proposal and u/Dismember also thought it would be better if I brought it in public but wasn't sure if it was too soon given all the drama around it.

Even u/virge that I truly dislike propose a constructive criticism but you two didn't you gave arrogant dismissals over the fact that your group couldn't attack nor my honesty, my consistency nor my character. Even though you so vehemently tried and apparently keep trying. So there is that.

"But all seriousness aside" /s Glad to see you were out having some lulz while you were working on your 'can't we all just get along project'. /s https://voat.co/v/SoapboxBanhammer/3276975/19172176/10#19172176

So because I am working on something serious I can't laugh at something funny? Or should I deshonestly make a "shitposting alt" because of fear of people like you so dishonestly taking a comment out of the context it was made on? I mean. Nice poor attempt with your /s to try to attack once again the seriousness I put on this but was kind of closed minded and superficial to say the least.

Here I tell uMadWorld that an user shouldn't have to create an alt account to shitpost (or comment on a shitposting subverse for that matter):

Post in question: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3244180

Comment Mad made: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3244180/18852452 and I quote:

In this drama, I think the reason for the use of alts to shitpost was to separate the main accounts that have to uphold their integrity and the perception of certain public image, and the alts that can be used to fully express themselves without damaging the image of the main accounts.

Which is exactly what you are trying to do here (laughable to say the least)

And my response: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3244180/18853114 and i quote:

I disagree with you here. Even if your description of their intent is correct, context is everything. Shitposting with the same account on a context in which shitposting is in order should not inflict in an account's credibility. and @srayzie and @shizy should be entitled to shitpost as to post credible posts in their subs and others with the same account.

Those that take the content out of context can easily be proven full of shit afterwards and actually builds up an account's credibility.

So as your leader the "typhoon" put it... consistency.... thanks for giving me another chance at proving mine own.

Enjoy your day.

PuttitoutIsGone ago

You're kinda gay, aren't ya? Anyways, I do like the jist of the message you are trying to send here.

followthemoney ago

There are only two sides.

  1. Pro Free Speech.

  2. Anti Free Speech.

If you think people who say bad things shouldn't be allowed to say them, then you are on team 2. Free speech is literally the right to offend.

Crensch is Team 2. Team 2 is actively engaged in running false flags on Voat against free speech to get permanent rules against free speech in place.

Team 1 is able to ignore drama recognizing shooting is part of free speech. Team 1 has 'emotional resilience' whereas Team 2 is unable to handle criticism and levity directed at them. This is why the free speech hating (((users))) of Voat are unable to do anything other than stir drama because they have no options left to justify banning people for no good reson. Note that their justification is because people said mean words, free speech should be limited.

Make voting public, even if it has to wait until the thread is archived and I plement a script or code that undies vote brigading from the dozens of @srayzie and whiteknight alts that magically appeared after @srayzie and @shizy self deleted because the pile of fake accusations finally toppled back onto the accusers. Their game became too obvious because they falsely accused legitimate users of being shills. It's called 'projection'.

brandon816 ago

This. Please make voting public. Dissenter already does this out of the box, and it seems to be working fine.

Hand_of_Node ago

Free speech is literally the right to offend.

Unfettered free speech is literally the right to wage verbal war. We're seeing the results of that in our society, after decades of our enemies using "free verbal attacks" against us. They've been free to promote degeneracy, to convert our children to their side, and to demonize us to all and sundry. We've allowed them the freedom to undermine our society, and now it looks like they've almost gained complete control.

How do we know they're on the verge of winning? Having used the weapon of free speech against us for decades, they recognize the dangers of that weapon, so they're moving to eliminate it to prevent counter attacks.

IMCHAD ago

@thewebofslime Stop using your cousins account nigger

sguevar ago

Hmm in Costa Rica we have a saying here: "una mosca hablando de higiene". Translates to "a fly talking about hygiene".

Like a ring on the finger for this comment you are making.

IMCHAD ago

Here’s a Bible Verse you should read Brufver.

followthemoney ago

I will just as soon as you stop downvote brigading all my comments and submissions.

IMCHAD ago

I don’t. Stop trying to spread lies you Consensus Cracking cock sucker.

HollaKost ago

Niggaz are so poor they gotta share a free voat account!

IMCHAD ago

Sheeeit das rite

followthemoney ago

Projection much? The downvotes on my submissions speak for themselves. When I outpaced your ability to downvote, I was able to calculate how much CCP you and the alts have.

Even better, when I outpace your ability to downvote, it means other stuff is NOT getting those downvotes.

It's a good system. Downvoters reveal themselves AND they miss out on burying important information. Kind of a win win for me,

IMCHAD ago

Look at my CCP. I don’t have much. I don’t waste it on you. You aren’t someone that concerns me much. You talk shit and spread the same lies but I have bigger fish to fry than you.

followthemoney ago

I'm talking about your other accounts, obviously.

IMCHAD ago

Not me

followthemoney ago

'dindu nuffin'

Thyhorrorcosmic103 ago

Go fuck yourself.

Caveman_in_a_suit ago

Youngblood, you have good intentions yet surely you know the road to Hell is thereby paved

Freedom comes with messiness. Your attempt to justify order / governance on the expressions and thoughts of others, leads to Reddit-type bullshittery

The fact is, this community rises or falls on the overall quality mix of the participants. Your idea would damage and corrupt freedom of expression. You attempt to indirectly, subtly, control the thoughts acts and deeds of others.

Stop it. Instead, continue to add positive quality content. Encourage others to do so. And attempt, possibly, to gently nudge the "negative" content creators towards a more positive bent - yet with recognition that shit negativity is their right and is part of a healthy freedom-based community.

Parity ago

Many of these things are aspects of the internet people need to learn themselves. Much like the idea that the news should be unbiased, free speech being cleaned up is naive. People need to realize they themselves must learn to decide what they will consider or filter, to think critically, and it's harder in person. You can look at the media and feel that they should change to make it easier for you, but in doing so you only weaken yourself. You can do the same with all the free speech platforms on the internet and think the same, but they're much more fragile and in short supply.

virge ago

I'll modernize good old Jefferson and simply say I'd rather have the problems of too much freedom.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. -Thomas Jefferson

Caveman_in_a_suit ago

Hear, here

also, you & I agree on something - interesting

virge ago

also, you & I agree on something - interesting

Probably not. Put simply, with too much freedom then good men do not hesitate to act against their oppressors.

Caveman_in_a_suit ago

Too much E-prime in my diet, man

In my reality tunnel, ape-men recreate modern versions of tribes. Hoot, holler, beat their chests - all forms of basic tribalism. We good, them bad. The US, founded on the Declaration of Independence, with some good basic decent ideals laid down - in the end, a great experiment in exploring individual freedom and liberty. And yet, in the end, this too shall pass.

All you really own and control: what's in your head and heart, plus what you can carry in both arms at a quick pace. All else, constitutes illusions - shared and personal alike.

So: fuck it, mind as well have as many lulz as possible while counting the breaths, with other good humored folks, and poke a stick in everyone else's eye if they don't like it

virge ago

And yet, in the end, this too shall pass.

I believe the fourth touring is upon us.

All you really own and control: what's in your head and heart

All fine and good wisdom, until you have a serious conversation about the technical automation of the heart or the input-problem that is the mind. Don't even get me started about even the most barney basics here being plain for all to see; what you can read with fidelity, you can write.

There is always another threat on the horizon, this is the way of life. Technology has simply accelerated it.

So: fuck it, mind as well have as many lulz as possible while counting the breaths, with other good humored folks, and poke a stick in everyone else's eye if they don't like it

And this is where our ideology parts ways. I am completely abhorrent to the very idea of wasting my time with disingenuous people when I am making it clear that I am genuine. It is this hazy or otherwise blurred areas that separate any two conversations (and can even juxtapose within, demonstrably) that my personal boundaries are set.

Isn't it fair to at least recognize how that could be a problem?

Caveman_in_a_suit ago

Is is is... Hey, relax man. All those negative vibes!

So we stand near the ever approaching brink of destruction - I ask, huh says you and when have we not? As a species?

The last human will die someday. Maybe that's tomorrow. Maybe in 10 years, perhaps 100,000. Maybe it will be you, maybe me, though likely someone else and probably related to both of us.

But we will each and all arrive at the end of our time, deceased. I am now an old fuck, and perceive though limited wit and reason and ignorance and foolishness, "purpose" "meaning" "reasons" - all word ideas we invented. In our grief, we embrace vices. For some,liquor. For others, golf cars gambling drugs. And for many, anger fear or whatnot.

For me: humor. My chosen vice. That you care not for mine, well, I respect your right to choose, dude.

I laugh at both of us

awwisnotafarmpromise ago

We all came to Voat because we were looking for a place in which we could express ourselves without the fear of unlawful censorship being applied to us.

Since that will never happen, better to eat popcorn and watch this shithole burn to the ground laughing my ass off.

sguevar ago

u/Dismemeber:

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.

IMCHAD ago

This is as simple as a woman using men to get her way or get some revenge.

You speak of positive comments, yet here you show that you’re believing the lies that Kevdude spread. @Vindicator describes the truth here.

sguevar ago

I am not interested in engaging with an alt.

However you are misdirecting your comment because I didn't said that. If you had read the previous comments you will see that it was the input u/Dismember gave not me... (G.G)

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).

expose ago

your genuine and disingenuous thing is super true some dudes here you try to talk to em they just shit on you can't hash stuff out like that i got a question though what if a sub got no rules and you get banned cause you don't got liberal opinions cause mrpingping does that.

sguevar ago

That is u/virge approach and I also think is valid.

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