Everybody has modded that sub. @heygeorge, @oiseaulibre is upset that he hasn't gotten to mod SBBH. Can you send him an invite so he stops crying?
George invited me via PM before, but I do not want to be associated with you.
Hang on... Just posted "niggerfaggot" in chat and no one deleted it. What censorship are you talking about?
A spammer spammed chat for months and the people who used chat found a way around it by running our own user blocking script. SBBH repeatedly bitched about the spammer instead of using the script and then praised Putt for all of his changes. The censorship includes: 5 message limit per 25 seconds, not sending the same message twice, and 100 CCP requirements. Of course the spammer got around all of these. And the CCP requirement was used to brigade users out of chat (THIS IS THE PART THAT IS CENSORSHIP). Oddly enough the spammer never spams while SBBH is in chat, only when me or other user's who regularly used chat were there would he bot-spam. This is highly suspicious.
You mean the site that asks for your email and then occasionally demands that you verify with your phone number?
I used a fake throw away email and they haven't asked me for shit.
And are you talking about the chat where people routinely get banned?
To my knowledge the only people banned have been the accounts created by the voat-chat spammer. He repeatedly spammed the discord with scat porn as he did on voat chat when there were pictures in chat.
What I will never fully understand about you is that while you seem reasonably funny & intelligent at times and incredibly retarded at others, I do not think your internal experience matches the external.
Maybe you are very young and that's why you are sometimes able to so seriously spout about dumb shit when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Do you not agree that brigading users out of chat should not be able to happen? SBBH routinely cheered for Putt when he made restrictions, even the CCP one.
I thought the block script was fine, although I never personally ran it.
Who wrote it? I forget.
I have a lot of thoughts about chat etc. Mainly, I think it sucks that some asshole or assholes ruined it for everyone. I don't think it's the people I associate with on the regular, unless they have split personalities, and in that case it's not the side of their personality I associate with.
I think that Putt gets bitched at constantly from many angles. So I tend toward being supportive because I like it here and am thankful for Voat. I can't speak for anyone else just because they post in SBBH. (As for "but they were mods" argument, I spent weeks inviting almost everyone who posted a couple times, or old users I recognized that posted or commented, lol, it's sort of part of the charm of the place to be a disaster with far too many mods.)
I have a lot of thoughts about chat etc. Mainly, I think it sucks that some asshole or assholes ruined it for everyone. I don't think it's the people I associate with on the regular, unless they have split personalities, and in that case it's not the side of their personality I associate with.
Beatle repeatedly acted happy about the spammer, restrictions, and brigading of MYG. Now, this doesn't reflect completely on sbbh, but if he was the one behind the brigade he likely needed help from some other users, which would likely have came from his sbbh buddies.
I think that Putt gets bitched at constantly from many angles.
I defended him against MYG and sane repeatedly until he lied to the users and lost my trust. Up until that comment any criticisms I had were constructive.
it's sort of part of the charm of the place to be a disaster with far too many mods
I don't know if you've noticed, but Beatle (RIP?) liked to take credit for all sorts of shit. I think, if anything, he disliked myg so that would be his motivation to gloat.
I don't know what you mean about Putt lying? About what part of that? The donation? I saw Sane bitching recently about his donor badge because he claims he never gave a cent.
I think the times would remain simple if you see Voat how it most likely (Occam's razor) is. One overworked dude trying to hold the place together while a bunch of people post whatever is on their mind.
When you have idiots like your friend myg trying to suck the life out of the place (while bitching about it yet not leaving)... It takes enjoyment away from the few people who actually work in front of and behind the scenes to make Voat better.
That is one of the worst and most subversive things someone could do to Voat.
He called MYG sane. You know that's no true and he should too.
think the times would remain simple if you see Voat how it most likely (Occam's razor) is. One overworked dude trying to hold the place together while a bunch of people post whatever is on their mind.
I saw it this way for a long time. Until chat got ruined over the last few months.
When you have idiots like your friend myg trying to suck the life out of the place (while bitching about it yet not leaving)... It takes enjoyment away from the few people who actually work in front of and behind the scenes to make Voat better.
I totally agree that myg and grif harass him about dumb shit.
That is one of the worst and most subversive things someone could do to Voat.
It would also be subversive if a group of people saw that one over worked guy was running the site and knew that he would not be able to pay attention to everything, so then this group would manipulate this unknowing admin and take advantage of him. That would be the most subversive thing.
For example, lets say someone started spamming voat chat and this group continuously bothered putt for changes, then would praise his changes that always turned out to be useless and harmful to the users. That would be very subversive and manipulative. Especially if these changes ended up censoring users. But, no group could do this right?
He called MYG sane. You know that's no true and he should too.
I know you're not going to like this answer, but I really don't know for sure. I do know myg has max alts and repeats a lot of the same horseshit claims as sane. Putts isn't really "on" Voat as much as many of us are, either, so it's certainly possible he could be confusing the two of them.
As for your last statement, it's not Occam's razor compatible. It hardly makes sense and there's no motive except for fantasy.
If I were investigating a group with the tech knowledge to harm Voat(& chat) and the vaguely malicious motive, I would look at phuks.co, essentially created by voaters not keen on the vitriol here (more or less sdbh, I believe) and I would wager that @kevdude has likely entertained this thought as well. I imagine we've both entertained the thought that they were behind insane, too.
Last: You really think that every change Putts has made to this site has turned out to be "useless and harmful to the users"? That's objectively untrue.
Not every change to the site. I was talking specifically about chat changes. The spammer always got around all the restrictions including the CCP requirements. Phuks is definitely a possibility, sane always talked about them as well.
My idea was that the motive was to control chat, since unlike subs, chat can not be moderated. Chat was anarchy and SRS-like groups aim to control information. The chat was the wild west back in January. The spammer only stopped after people stopped using chat to discuss SRS. Chat after the spammer and restrictions is not even close to as active as it used to be. I believe the spammer accomplished their goal. I believe their goal was for control.
view the rest of the comments →
oiseaulibre ago
George invited me via PM before, but I do not want to be associated with you.
A spammer spammed chat for months and the people who used chat found a way around it by running our own user blocking script. SBBH repeatedly bitched about the spammer instead of using the script and then praised Putt for all of his changes. The censorship includes: 5 message limit per 25 seconds, not sending the same message twice, and 100 CCP requirements. Of course the spammer got around all of these. And the CCP requirement was used to brigade users out of chat (THIS IS THE PART THAT IS CENSORSHIP). Oddly enough the spammer never spams while SBBH is in chat, only when me or other user's who regularly used chat were there would he bot-spam. This is highly suspicious.
I used a fake throw away email and they haven't asked me for shit.
To my knowledge the only people banned have been the accounts created by the voat-chat spammer. He repeatedly spammed the discord with scat porn as he did on voat chat when there were pictures in chat.
heygeorge ago
What I will never fully understand about you is that while you seem reasonably funny & intelligent at times and incredibly retarded at others, I do not think your internal experience matches the external.
Maybe you are very young and that's why you are sometimes able to so seriously spout about dumb shit when you have no idea what you're talking about.
oiseaulibre ago
All I asked was for chat to not be censored. SBBH could not allowed that to be the case.
heygeorge ago
Lol! Please see the following:
https://voat.co/v/admin/2003449/9874540#
oiseaulibre ago
Do you not agree that brigading users out of chat should not be able to happen? SBBH routinely cheered for Putt when he made restrictions, even the CCP one.
heygeorge ago
I thought the block script was fine, although I never personally ran it.
Who wrote it? I forget.
I have a lot of thoughts about chat etc. Mainly, I think it sucks that some asshole or assholes ruined it for everyone. I don't think it's the people I associate with on the regular, unless they have split personalities, and in that case it's not the side of their personality I associate with.
I think that Putt gets bitched at constantly from many angles. So I tend toward being supportive because I like it here and am thankful for Voat. I can't speak for anyone else just because they post in SBBH. (As for "but they were mods" argument, I spent weeks inviting almost everyone who posted a couple times, or old users I recognized that posted or commented, lol, it's sort of part of the charm of the place to be a disaster with far too many mods.)
oiseaulibre ago
Engel wrote it.
Beatle repeatedly acted happy about the spammer, restrictions, and brigading of MYG. Now, this doesn't reflect completely on sbbh, but if he was the one behind the brigade he likely needed help from some other users, which would likely have came from his sbbh buddies.
I defended him against MYG and sane repeatedly until he lied to the users and lost my trust. Up until that comment any criticisms I had were constructive.
like /v/ccsat. those were simpler times.
heygeorge ago
I don't know if you've noticed, but Beatle (RIP?) liked to take credit for all sorts of shit. I think, if anything, he disliked myg so that would be his motivation to gloat.
I don't know what you mean about Putt lying? About what part of that? The donation? I saw Sane bitching recently about his donor badge because he claims he never gave a cent.
I think the times would remain simple if you see Voat how it most likely (Occam's razor) is. One overworked dude trying to hold the place together while a bunch of people post whatever is on their mind.
When you have idiots like your friend myg trying to suck the life out of the place (while bitching about it yet not leaving)... It takes enjoyment away from the few people who actually work in front of and behind the scenes to make Voat better.
That is one of the worst and most subversive things someone could do to Voat.
oiseaulibre ago
He called MYG sane. You know that's no true and he should too.
I saw it this way for a long time. Until chat got ruined over the last few months.
I totally agree that myg and grif harass him about dumb shit.
It would also be subversive if a group of people saw that one over worked guy was running the site and knew that he would not be able to pay attention to everything, so then this group would manipulate this unknowing admin and take advantage of him. That would be the most subversive thing.
For example, lets say someone started spamming voat chat and this group continuously bothered putt for changes, then would praise his changes that always turned out to be useless and harmful to the users. That would be very subversive and manipulative. Especially if these changes ended up censoring users. But, no group could do this right?
heygeorge ago
I know you're not going to like this answer, but I really don't know for sure. I do know myg has max alts and repeats a lot of the same horseshit claims as sane. Putts isn't really "on" Voat as much as many of us are, either, so it's certainly possible he could be confusing the two of them.
As for your last statement, it's not Occam's razor compatible. It hardly makes sense and there's no motive except for fantasy.
If I were investigating a group with the tech knowledge to harm Voat(& chat) and the vaguely malicious motive, I would look at phuks.co, essentially created by voaters not keen on the vitriol here (more or less sdbh, I believe) and I would wager that @kevdude has likely entertained this thought as well. I imagine we've both entertained the thought that they were behind insane, too.
Last: You really think that every change Putts has made to this site has turned out to be "useless and harmful to the users"? That's objectively untrue.
oiseaulibre ago
Not every change to the site. I was talking specifically about chat changes. The spammer always got around all the restrictions including the CCP requirements. Phuks is definitely a possibility, sane always talked about them as well.
My idea was that the motive was to control chat, since unlike subs, chat can not be moderated. Chat was anarchy and SRS-like groups aim to control information. The chat was the wild west back in January. The spammer only stopped after people stopped using chat to discuss SRS. Chat after the spammer and restrictions is not even close to as active as it used to be. I believe the spammer accomplished their goal. I believe their goal was for control.