I have attempted to condense and simplify the 12 rules into 6. I believe that they represent the 12 rules in full. For Posts not about Pizzagate I suggest repeated offenders are treated the same way as spammers.

1. CP LINKS, DOXXING will result in deletion and ban
2. SPAM or Posts not about PIZZAGATE will be deleted and repeat offenders banned
3. META posts will be removed. They should be posted as comments here. (https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1467885))
4. TITLE must describe content and include NSFW if necessary
5. CONTENTS must cite source(s) and be able to explain relevance to PIZZAGATE.
6. VIDEO post titles must describe video content or be submitted as discussion posts.

Let’s look at COINTELPRO techniques (see http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5 ) and list what rules address them:

Topic Dilution

• SPAM or Posts not about PIZZAGATE will be deleted and repeat offenders banned
• Meta posts will be removed. They should be posted as comments here.
• VIDEO post titles must describe video content or be submitted as discussion posts.

Forum sliding

• SPAM or Posts not about PIZZAGATE will be deleted and repeat offenders banned

Consensus cracking

• CONTENTS must cite source(s) and be able to explain relevance to PIZZAGATE.

Information collection

• No rule addressing it

Anger trolling

• No rule addressing it, some discussion of self moderation of tone and language to facilitate serious discussion

Gaining full control

• Responsibility of Moderators to be vigilant • CP LINKS, DOXXING will result in deletion and ban

I want to focus in particular on Forum sliding and Consensus cracking in terms of janitorial / moderation activity

FORUM SLIDING:

Relevant rule: Posts not about PIZZAGATE specifically will be removed

ISSUE: The scope of PIZZAGATE has not been formally defined. Leaving janitors without clear guidelines. You WILL end up with different opinions about what is within scope of the forum. Some will be too strict, most will be too inclusive.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Janitors apply rules as they understand them. ONE moderator and one backup is appointed to review daily the result and re-open submissions that are judged to be within scope of investigation. That moderator is responsible for updating guidelines on what is the scope of pizzagate. You can have this post as a one week assignment for a moderator before the job goes to the next moderator, but that moderator, that week has the authority to do the job. Understand that the scope is evolving, case-by-case. Both better understanding of investigative angles as well as shill themes can inform the evolving scope guidelines.

'CONSENSUS CRACKING'

Relevant rule: CONTENTS must cite source(s) and be able to explain relevance to PIZZAGATE.

ISSUE: Janitors MUST be able to assess if the post presents a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof. Problem is, most posts deal with evidence that is circumstantial, and confirmation bias will often tilt in favour of a weak submission. I want to list three examples of possible consensus cracking activity, just to show how difficult this is to assess.

Coffeegate: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1482211 Relatively straightforward. This was deemed to be shill activity almost immediately

James a. legal rep Andrew Kline Is actually DOJ : multiple threads, search on Andrew kline to find them. Initially it was thought to be true, until someone demonstrated that they were two different people that shared the same name. the legal rep of J.A. turned out to be interesting, but DOJ angle is dead end. The other DOJ guy which was found in J.A. instragram posts on the other hand is still interesting.

Podesta brothers and McCann: search on Madeline and Madeleine to find them. The jury is still out on this one. There is no consensus, or you could say that consensus was successfully cracked here. The two drawings of one guy that look like each of the brothers, etc etc… lots of circumstance, but arguably not as solid as Instagram links etc shown in other leads.

my point in bringing up these 3 examples is that it can be easy, to almost impossible to judge an assertion, but some things can be assessed without resorting to a binary true/false judgement.

Possible solution: posts that are developing into consensus cracks need to be analysed from 3 angles.

• What are the supporting facts,

• what speaks against, and

• what negative impact could PIZZAGATE community face if the assertion is proven false or used against them.

In the coffeegate case, if the community had accepted the assertion that coffee related emails were ALSO codewords, it could be used to ridicule the community. In the Andrew Kline case, if the DOJ guy was vilified, despite not being associated except by same name, AND some kind of false flag was carried out against him (like at the restaurant) it would warrant crackdown on the community. In the Podesta / McCann case, we have already seen it being using as an example of sensationalist conclusions without merit to the detriment of the legitimacy of the open source investigation.

This post is far too long as it is, so I will stop now. willing to discuss any of the above.