Which is more likely: someone that invested in Voat who posts that often on Voat doesn't have much to say to Voat, or that they're not pedo-posting in their comments the same way they do in submissions because their account would become limited?

I'm not sure what my answer to this question would change. You're asking for an opinion on an empirical issue for rhetorical effect. Evidently, Aged posts a bunch and doesn't comment much. Comments have literally no penalty since they don't cost him any CCP. Your response to this is to imagine reasons why he's not posting- as if you know him. How do you expect me to argue against your imagination?

I replied to this argument last time. You ignored my reply and restated the argument. That's arguing in bad faith. Here's what I saiid:

I understood you perfectly fine. It's you who's not listening. His posts get voted down no matter what or where he puts them. You'll notice he has a sub for trailers. Those get voted down too, regardless of the actual content. If there's suddenly a different standard for his comments (i.e.the points that actually matter), that's a separate issue as far as I'm concerned. Ultimately, I'm unconvinced people would have different standards for both.

If downvoats were remove...

More imagination. I may as well ask "what if" we just get more of the same.

Here's what I said:

Okay, final form time. Let's get this out of the way, because I feel like we're going to go around in circles:

I think you're saying that he values his CCP. I think you're saying his CCP is literally the only reason he's not posting more links. I think you're saying he'd use his comments as supplementary posts. I think you think this is bad. I have no idea where you picture this happening. Your basis for this is that many of his posts deal with loli.

Am I right? Am I missing something? If everything is in order, I want you to tell me what you think I think. This tactic is known as a "steel man", and it's very useful.

He can't right now: he would eventually lose enough CCP to face penalties.

You'd know better than me: what are the penalties for having a low CCP?

His gaming posts are like someone going into a thread about light bulbs and posting pornography of Thomas Edison.

You wouldn't know this necause you're new, but his posts were pretty welcome there u til Putt caved to the pressure and banned him. When he got unbanned, some users got polarized and started voting him down out of spite. Now his posts rarely go positive.

No, it wouldn't.

You're not thinking any of this through. He's telling us to rely on mods to police things. Your point is that he's encouraging this one thing, but this one thing is half of what the community does. You're trying to make a distinction between policing "spam" and some more nebulous, general policing. I'm not. Because once you let them decide what spam is, you get firmly on a slippery slope back to Reddit. We're all here because of that.

The 1381 submissions he's made to /v/gaming disagree with you.

The fact that people DV literally just because its Aged weakens your point somewhat. Take away about 2-3 DV and you get a better idea how well received posts are. (Before you ask, that's the number of DV I see on his v/loli posts. Either they're bots, or people are going out of their way to DV him.)

I don't imagine that at all, no. Where did that even come from?

You probably think that's a rhetorical question. It's not. I ask because, even if everything you say is true, I'm not seeing how it's a problem. So the first place to start is by asking if you think he'll spam every post with irrelevant links. That would be pretty annoying no matter what.

Do you mean suspended? He has a submission made to /v/gaming made 3.9 hours ago. That's different from a ban.

No. I mean banned. Putt caved, banned him, told us he banned him, Voat, understandably, did not approve, and he got unbanned. The screechers got their panties in a twist and started this weird crusade you've tangled yourself up into. Notable highlights are u/theoldones begging for child porn,Repeatedly, And again for good measure, spamming v/ProtectVoat for a day and a half to try to dox me, only to get doxxed himself, while also complaining that I point out that he begged for child porn. It was funny.

I'm not impressed at your listening skills, I'm impressed with your skills at debate and persuasion. I should include rhetoric in there too.

I'll share some tips:

1) Actually listen: I know you think you know what the other guy is saying, but you don't. Ask questions frequently. And don't play "gotcha".

2) Stop making assumptions about the person you're talking to: Especially online. The other person is probably nothing like you imagine. What good does it do anyone to have you waste time imagining what he's like when he's trying to talk to you?

was alerted by Mumbleberry

A) You don't actually need to @ him. It just clutters up his inbox.

B) I know you don't know what's going on, because:

C) You're relying on biased accounts and taking the conversation at face value. There are layers here extending beyond any actual disdain for me. This is a purity spiral. Plain and simple. People here like their free speech. A minority would prefer to curtail that on moral grounds. That kind of attitude is why Voat became so popular in the first place. Most of us remember that.

I'm convinced both you and Aged are operating in bad faith.

Tip #2. Remember. You can assume anything you want about me. In the end, the conversation only gets harder for you to have, not me.