Step 4 to step 5 is a HUGE leap. Stop conflating loli porn and actual child porn as being the same thing or close to the same thing. They are not. In no way am I defending loli porn. Saying the two are even CLOSE to similar delegitimizes how bad child porn actually is. A real child is victimized and sexualized.
You know real child porn has been posted to Voat, right? It was deleted soon after it was posted, as it should be. This site is still up. Thinking that anyone would defend actual pornography of children is absolutely absurd.
You're provoking a mob into harassing Puttitout into banning someone for posting lewd lolis of gaming characters (unwritten rule), while begging me to post nude pics of kids...
Yeah, in v/gaming Aged has always posted depictions of older characters from a video game (always on topic) and none of them were nsfw though he did add the nsfw tag. At least from what I've looked through in his post history.
I understand the argument for why people want to ban him, but Voat already had a gigantic discussion about this just a couple weeks ago. Now OP is retreading the exact same ground.
The bottom line is that anyone should only be banned if they 1) break the rules of the sub or 2) are doing something obviously illegal. v/gaming discussed among themselves at some point (or so I was told) that what he was doing was within the rules for the sub, so #1 is out. #2 is illegal, period, and if he's ever done that, then yes, he should be banned. But no one has provided evidence of this.
Aged is obviously treading a line and doing so intentionally, and he's doing it SPECIFICALLY to trigger people like OP, proving that this D&C works on those like him who play into his hands and demanding certain users or speech be controlled (while ironically being such an arrogant faggot that claiming anyone who disagrees is immediately a shill because his objective correctness is so obviously divine). And as it's been said, any "plot" to take down Voat with CP is retarded, because it's been handled in the past, just like it's been handled every time 8ch.net got spammed with it. The site is still here, and it won't go anywhere even if some bad actors decide to spam illegal content.
yeah somehow that doesn't apply to you or this topic though, right?
his first ban was valid.
According to your subjective view of "I don't like him or what he posts." If you have to claim he deserved his ban for spam, you don't much have a leg to stand on. Is everyone who regularly posts in the sub a spammer?
porn is not gaming.
Uh, it is if it's gaming related. I thought it mentioned that right in the fucking rules. You don't like porn? Great, I don't either. I never view the stuff. It still doesn't break any rules and you're pulling shit out of your ass because you don't like it. This entire thread is full of your triggered autism and I genuinely think you have the inability to properly comprehend abstract concepts, an inability to separate two distinct things in your mind.
Is everyone who regularly posts in the sub a spammer?
In a months span, out of how many posts did he make in v/gaming, did they have a postive upvote score? If you bother to look, you probably won't find any. Why? Because the community of v/gaming has decided they didn't want that content here, so they downvoated it.
Here's the catch, Aged isn't going to stop doing it, he's going to rely on people at large to get tired of downvoating. He's been doing this for years.
At some point, you have to consider colloquial usage of spam. It looks entirely unwanted, and if you're doing it for a month straight, it fits that definition of spam easily. Let's take this one step further though. Where's his community engagement in those topics he posts? It's nearly non-existent. For someone who posts so much, they make so few comments. It looks even more like spam. It's not someone who wants to have discussion, which is what these types of places thrive upon.
All Aged is trying to do is destablize the platform, which Putt has banned people for sitewide before. Aged wants to see these types of fights, wants to see more draconian rules put in place.
Uh, it is if it's gaming related.
And I think this is where the murkyness of the rules gets stretched. "It's a gaming character, so therefore it's gaming." Intent matters here. The intent isn't post gaming related things, it's use the medium in a non-gaming aspect to spread other messages. It would be like someone going into v/cars and posting pictures of people making out in cars. Sure, those people are in a car, but what type of discussion is honestly going to be generated based on that criteria if someone did it on a regular basis? Let's change that though, what if the car was simply in the background for aesthetics and not the main focus of the picture? At some point it stops being about the car and about something else.
This is why considering intent matters. If you can show evidence of Aged having actual gaming related discussion on a regular basis, I'm all for changing my mind on the matter. I've looked and I just don't see it.
Because the community of v/gaming has decided they didn't want that content here, so they downvoated it.
Sure, and that's fine, but as I mentioned in another post, popularity vote isn't a rightful ban. Even if everyone agrees "we don't like thing," you don't censor someone just because it bothers you or you don't believe it belongs there. Again, as mentioned, someone should only be banned if 1) breaking rules or 2) posting illegal content. I understand nobody cares for the shit he posts, that's perfectly alright, but until everyone decides at a subverse to actually make a real rule against it, our hands are tied. Aged intentionally walks a fine line in order to annoy people. Add a new rule (like for example, no porn of anything in v/gaming) and see if he remains within those rules. If he does, you still cannot ban him.
At some point, you have to consider colloquial usage of spam
To me, spam isn't about whether I want it or don't, people just think of spam as stuff they don't like, but that's tangential; spam generally is one or two things presented over and over and over ad nauseam. For example if Aged is posting a specific category of submission constantly (for example, porn every 30 minutes), then I'd agree that's spam and deserves a ban. I understand this is a subjective view on what spam is, however, so you're going to need the community to agree "this is spam and against the rules," and NOT simply "we as a community don't like his content." I've read this entire thread, there are clearly people that don't like his shit or his actions, but strongly disagree that he's ever spammed the sub. I can't weigh in on whether that's true from my POV myself.
And I think this is where the murkyness of the rules gets stretched. "It's a gaming character, so therefore it's gaming."
Correct. I'm being technical about the rules because what choice do I have? Or anyone, for that matter? I agree with you, it gets gray, and the community needs to decide how to make that gray black and white, if at all; some prefer to have rules that remain gray for flexibility, but that doesn't work sometimes when you don't have a mod. Like I said, it is stretching it, and that's the whole motivation behind Aged's actions. That's still not quite far enough into "ban this account" territory.
This is why considering intent matters.
I respect your opinion on this but I'm inclined to disagree. We should have black and white rules for every sub that treat everyone the same. "Intent matters" is almost like saying "we need to take things on a case-by-case basis," and if I've learned anything in my time as a fraternity vice pres, it's that "case by case" means unequal, subjective repercussions for someone depending on their popularity or some other nebulous category. I don't disagree completely because I'm certain you could find hypotheticals in which I'd think intent does matter and factors into the judgment (manslaughter vs premeditated, as an example) but we need to consider the context.
I don't know why you've been downvoated, your arguments are reasonable from my standpoint and you're not arguing in bad faith. While it's safe to assume nobody cares for his content or his actions, we need to help do whatever necessary to avoid a slippery slope of mob opinion and/or compromising Voat's integrity via usage of censorship. Note I'm not saying all censorship is bad, but it needs to be extremely limited in its usage, and I don't think we've passed the threshold for this.
I actually agree with a lot of parts you wrote. The community of v/gaming should decide what they want the rules to look like. I think the rules should be defined more clearly to alleviate issues of gray areas.
I just disagree we should kowtow to every curmudgeon because some jackass wishes to stretch the rules as much as they can to force a point to subvert usage of the medium they're in. It's a matter of picking which slippery slope you wish to be a part of. Sanegoat, I think, is a good example of the other extreme of the slippery slope. There are people who still think he should have never been banned for more or less trying to destroy the platform in any way he could, because it wasn't strictly a site wide rule.
Though I think ultimately this points back to the grayness of the rules. One thing to consider is that the more rules you implement, and the more subsections you add to the rules, more caged people feel. I'm not sure a suitable balance can be struck.
view the rest of the comments →
CameraCode ago
Step 4 to step 5 is a HUGE leap. Stop conflating loli porn and actual child porn as being the same thing or close to the same thing. They are not. In no way am I defending loli porn. Saying the two are even CLOSE to similar delegitimizes how bad child porn actually is. A real child is victimized and sexualized.
You know real child porn has been posted to Voat, right? It was deleted soon after it was posted, as it should be. This site is still up. Thinking that anyone would defend actual pornography of children is absolutely absurd.
GoyimNose ago
Fuck no don't ban vpns ban kikes
theoldones ago
ban Aged.
Decidueye ago
You're provoking a mob into harassing Puttitout into banning someone for posting lewd lolis of gaming characters (unwritten rule), while begging me to post nude pics of kids...
Dortex ago
Not even. Find me a single lol he's posted on here.
CameraCode ago
Yeah, in v/gaming Aged has always posted depictions of older characters from a video game (always on topic) and none of them were nsfw though he did add the nsfw tag. At least from what I've looked through in his post history.
theoldones ago
i'm making you fucking walk down the road you are currently defending.
shrink ago
I understand the argument for why people want to ban him, but Voat already had a gigantic discussion about this just a couple weeks ago. Now OP is retreading the exact same ground.
The bottom line is that anyone should only be banned if they 1) break the rules of the sub or 2) are doing something obviously illegal. v/gaming discussed among themselves at some point (or so I was told) that what he was doing was within the rules for the sub, so #1 is out. #2 is illegal, period, and if he's ever done that, then yes, he should be banned. But no one has provided evidence of this.
Aged is obviously treading a line and doing so intentionally, and he's doing it SPECIFICALLY to trigger people like OP, proving that this D&C works on those like him who play into his hands and demanding certain users or speech be controlled (while ironically being such an arrogant faggot that claiming anyone who disagrees is immediately a shill because his objective correctness is so obviously divine). And as it's been said, any "plot" to take down Voat with CP is retarded, because it's been handled in the past, just like it's been handled every time 8ch.net got spammed with it. The site is still here, and it won't go anywhere even if some bad actors decide to spam illegal content.
theoldones ago
spam rules.
his first ban was valid.
porn is not gaming.
shrink ago
yeah somehow that doesn't apply to you or this topic though, right?
According to your subjective view of "I don't like him or what he posts." If you have to claim he deserved his ban for spam, you don't much have a leg to stand on. Is everyone who regularly posts in the sub a spammer?
Uh, it is if it's gaming related. I thought it mentioned that right in the fucking rules. You don't like porn? Great, I don't either. I never view the stuff. It still doesn't break any rules and you're pulling shit out of your ass because you don't like it. This entire thread is full of your triggered autism and I genuinely think you have the inability to properly comprehend abstract concepts, an inability to separate two distinct things in your mind.
kneo24 ago
In a months span, out of how many posts did he make in v/gaming, did they have a postive upvote score? If you bother to look, you probably won't find any. Why? Because the community of v/gaming has decided they didn't want that content here, so they downvoated it.
Here's the catch, Aged isn't going to stop doing it, he's going to rely on people at large to get tired of downvoating. He's been doing this for years.
At some point, you have to consider colloquial usage of spam. It looks entirely unwanted, and if you're doing it for a month straight, it fits that definition of spam easily. Let's take this one step further though. Where's his community engagement in those topics he posts? It's nearly non-existent. For someone who posts so much, they make so few comments. It looks even more like spam. It's not someone who wants to have discussion, which is what these types of places thrive upon.
All Aged is trying to do is destablize the platform, which Putt has banned people for sitewide before. Aged wants to see these types of fights, wants to see more draconian rules put in place.
And I think this is where the murkyness of the rules gets stretched. "It's a gaming character, so therefore it's gaming." Intent matters here. The intent isn't post gaming related things, it's use the medium in a non-gaming aspect to spread other messages. It would be like someone going into v/cars and posting pictures of people making out in cars. Sure, those people are in a car, but what type of discussion is honestly going to be generated based on that criteria if someone did it on a regular basis? Let's change that though, what if the car was simply in the background for aesthetics and not the main focus of the picture? At some point it stops being about the car and about something else.
This is why considering intent matters. If you can show evidence of Aged having actual gaming related discussion on a regular basis, I'm all for changing my mind on the matter. I've looked and I just don't see it.
shrink ago
Sure, and that's fine, but as I mentioned in another post, popularity vote isn't a rightful ban. Even if everyone agrees "we don't like thing," you don't censor someone just because it bothers you or you don't believe it belongs there. Again, as mentioned, someone should only be banned if 1) breaking rules or 2) posting illegal content. I understand nobody cares for the shit he posts, that's perfectly alright, but until everyone decides at a subverse to actually make a real rule against it, our hands are tied. Aged intentionally walks a fine line in order to annoy people. Add a new rule (like for example, no porn of anything in v/gaming) and see if he remains within those rules. If he does, you still cannot ban him.
To me, spam isn't about whether I want it or don't, people just think of spam as stuff they don't like, but that's tangential; spam generally is one or two things presented over and over and over ad nauseam. For example if Aged is posting a specific category of submission constantly (for example, porn every 30 minutes), then I'd agree that's spam and deserves a ban. I understand this is a subjective view on what spam is, however, so you're going to need the community to agree "this is spam and against the rules," and NOT simply "we as a community don't like his content." I've read this entire thread, there are clearly people that don't like his shit or his actions, but strongly disagree that he's ever spammed the sub. I can't weigh in on whether that's true from my POV myself.
Correct. I'm being technical about the rules because what choice do I have? Or anyone, for that matter? I agree with you, it gets gray, and the community needs to decide how to make that gray black and white, if at all; some prefer to have rules that remain gray for flexibility, but that doesn't work sometimes when you don't have a mod. Like I said, it is stretching it, and that's the whole motivation behind Aged's actions. That's still not quite far enough into "ban this account" territory.
I respect your opinion on this but I'm inclined to disagree. We should have black and white rules for every sub that treat everyone the same. "Intent matters" is almost like saying "we need to take things on a case-by-case basis," and if I've learned anything in my time as a fraternity vice pres, it's that "case by case" means unequal, subjective repercussions for someone depending on their popularity or some other nebulous category. I don't disagree completely because I'm certain you could find hypotheticals in which I'd think intent does matter and factors into the judgment (manslaughter vs premeditated, as an example) but we need to consider the context.
I don't know why you've been downvoated, your arguments are reasonable from my standpoint and you're not arguing in bad faith. While it's safe to assume nobody cares for his content or his actions, we need to help do whatever necessary to avoid a slippery slope of mob opinion and/or compromising Voat's integrity via usage of censorship. Note I'm not saying all censorship is bad, but it needs to be extremely limited in its usage, and I don't think we've passed the threshold for this.
kneo24 ago
I actually agree with a lot of parts you wrote. The community of v/gaming should decide what they want the rules to look like. I think the rules should be defined more clearly to alleviate issues of gray areas.
I just disagree we should kowtow to every curmudgeon because some jackass wishes to stretch the rules as much as they can to force a point to subvert usage of the medium they're in. It's a matter of picking which slippery slope you wish to be a part of. Sanegoat, I think, is a good example of the other extreme of the slippery slope. There are people who still think he should have never been banned for more or less trying to destroy the platform in any way he could, because it wasn't strictly a site wide rule.
Though I think ultimately this points back to the grayness of the rules. One thing to consider is that the more rules you implement, and the more subsections you add to the rules, more caged people feel. I'm not sure a suitable balance can be struck.