@readstuff, I need to remove this submission per rule 4. This is a meta discussion, and as such, belongs on /v/pizzagatewhatever. Please resubmit it there. Thank you.
As for activism-related posts like this, a fresh discussion has been started over here by @sound_of_silence. You're encouraged to chime in, along with everyone in the community.
Wecan, I left this up because a)It had linked sources b)It is directly related to advancing the pizzagate investigation and is evidence based and c)It didn't seem like a Rule 4 violation, which I understood to refer to unsourced discussions such as rants, rambling venting, opinions, and complaints about how the sub is being moderated or infiltrated by shills. Meta to me means abstract discussion, not sourced tactical planning. I as a mod could use a specific description with examples of what is and is not "Meta". Also worth clarifying would be how much "meta" in a post that also includes linked evidence supporting the premise of the headline is allowed before the whole post becomes a Rule 4 violation. I have seen many posts removed because they contain opinion and speculation alongside the premise and supporting evidence. I have advised users to put their speculative, opinion-related material into a comment in the post so as to avoid triggering Rule 4. Pinging other mods, who may have additional questions like mine. Thanks. :-)
@gopluckyourself@Millennial_Falcon@Phobos_Mothership@Kwijibo@l4l1lul3l0
The post was not investigative content but a general announcement/suggestion to the community. Per rule 4, this kind of content belongs on /v/pizzagatewhatever. Adding a few Pizzagate-related links to a post doesn't magically make it comply with rule 4. To illustrate my point: having found something suspicious in your research but not knowing what to do with it, an investigative post along the lines of "I have found this source, this is how I believe it is relevant, please discuss" is a post that does comply with rule 4, and is allowed by submission rules. On the other hand, a post composed in a public service announcement fashion, directed at the community with the goal of improving certain processes or tendencies, or discussing community strategies, will not become a sourced general discussion by adding in a few links illustrating your point.
Let me put it this way: if your sources are the meat and gravy of your submission, it is sourced content; if they're the garnish, it is not.
We've always removed and redirected submissions that are non-factual in their focus.
Thank you. That's a sensible description of an unhelpful policy that may account in part for the fact that this investigation is treading water rather than breaking through to widespread attention. The principals must be made to explain themselves and the MSM and authorities must be made to do their jobs. Substantially all of our subscribership and readership is in what you call sourced Pizzagate, and little to none in what you call Meta and elsewhere. That's the opposite of what is needed now. Virtually all Pizzagate followers already know that these matters deserve serious attention from the larger community. You should be guiding discussion so sat increase the ability of our small community to move the broader public to bring that attention to bear. Instead, your rather academic subverse distinctions just limits and segregates our own communications and communicators and makes it very hard to direct focus and harness power where it is most needed and most likely to be productive.
I don't agree. Neither do ten thousand subscribers who, for some reason, chose to subscribe to the sourced, investigative subverse, but not to the everything-Pizzagate-related-goes /v/pizzagatewhatever.
view the rest of the comments →
wecanhelp ago
@readstuff, I need to remove this submission per rule 4. This is a meta discussion, and as such, belongs on /v/pizzagatewhatever. Please resubmit it there. Thank you.
As for activism-related posts like this, a fresh discussion has been started over here by @sound_of_silence. You're encouraged to chime in, along with everyone in the community.
Vindicator ago
Wecan, I left this up because a)It had linked sources b)It is directly related to advancing the pizzagate investigation and is evidence based and c)It didn't seem like a Rule 4 violation, which I understood to refer to unsourced discussions such as rants, rambling venting, opinions, and complaints about how the sub is being moderated or infiltrated by shills. Meta to me means abstract discussion, not sourced tactical planning. I as a mod could use a specific description with examples of what is and is not "Meta". Also worth clarifying would be how much "meta" in a post that also includes linked evidence supporting the premise of the headline is allowed before the whole post becomes a Rule 4 violation. I have seen many posts removed because they contain opinion and speculation alongside the premise and supporting evidence. I have advised users to put their speculative, opinion-related material into a comment in the post so as to avoid triggering Rule 4. Pinging other mods, who may have additional questions like mine. Thanks. :-) @gopluckyourself @Millennial_Falcon @Phobos_Mothership @Kwijibo @l4l1lul3l0
wecanhelp ago
The post was not investigative content but a general announcement/suggestion to the community. Per rule 4, this kind of content belongs on /v/pizzagatewhatever. Adding a few Pizzagate-related links to a post doesn't magically make it comply with rule 4. To illustrate my point: having found something suspicious in your research but not knowing what to do with it, an investigative post along the lines of "I have found this source, this is how I believe it is relevant, please discuss" is a post that does comply with rule 4, and is allowed by submission rules. On the other hand, a post composed in a public service announcement fashion, directed at the community with the goal of improving certain processes or tendencies, or discussing community strategies, will not become a sourced general discussion by adding in a few links illustrating your point.
Let me put it this way: if your sources are the meat and gravy of your submission, it is sourced content; if they're the garnish, it is not.
We've always removed and redirected submissions that are non-factual in their focus.
readstuff ago
Thank you. That's a sensible description of an unhelpful policy that may account in part for the fact that this investigation is treading water rather than breaking through to widespread attention. The principals must be made to explain themselves and the MSM and authorities must be made to do their jobs. Substantially all of our subscribership and readership is in what you call sourced Pizzagate, and little to none in what you call Meta and elsewhere. That's the opposite of what is needed now. Virtually all Pizzagate followers already know that these matters deserve serious attention from the larger community. You should be guiding discussion so sat increase the ability of our small community to move the broader public to bring that attention to bear. Instead, your rather academic subverse distinctions just limits and segregates our own communications and communicators and makes it very hard to direct focus and harness power where it is most needed and most likely to be productive.
wecanhelp ago
I don't agree. Neither do ten thousand subscribers who, for some reason, chose to subscribe to the sourced, investigative subverse, but not to the everything-Pizzagate-related-goes /v/pizzagatewhatever.