This post is going to be stickied for 48 hours. During that time, please click here for the usual sticky:
Fully Sourced Executive Summary of Pizzagate Evidence
About the Update
Moderator Rules, along with the new Submission Requirements, have been in effect for over a month now, and we have since managed to better understand the requirements and challenges involved in moderating the subverse according to these rules.
Unfortunately, the volume of rule-violating content that gets submitted to the subverse has repeatedly proven to exceed our moderating capacity, even with a generously sized moderator team that is often criticized for its headcount alone. As it became clear that the current Moderator Rules are not economically viable, we needed to find ways to make the moderator team more efficient while still preserving transparency to a reasonable extent. As a result, we're retiring the proactive explanatory moderator comment on deleted submissions in favor of on-demand explanations. Simultaneously, we're introducing a 2-week probation period for new moderators, during which explanatory comments on their deleted submissions will still be required, in order to provide new moderators a means to establish trust in the community.
Accordingly, new Moderator Rules are as follows, effective immediately.
Moderator Rules
(1) Submissions removed by a moderator will specify the following in the Reason field:
- one or more rule numbers referencing the Submission Requirements that have been violated;
- the username of the submitter (for later inspections).
(2) Submissions removed by a moderator on their probation period will, additionally, get a comment that will:
- explain clearly which rule the submission broke;
- explain what the poster needs to add/fix to resubmit or suggest an alternate subverse in the network to post it to;
- provide a hotlink to the suggested subverse;
- be distinguished as a moderator comment.
(3) Comments are to be off-limits to moderation, with the following exceptions:
- illegal content (CP, direct threats against IRL entities, anything that you could be criminally charged for in US court);
- doxxing;
- adspam;
- copypasta (the moderator will leave the first instance and remove the rest);
- NSFW content (images, etc.) that has not been appropriately labeled as such;
- hyperlinks to malicious URLs.
(4) Moderators are not required to vet submissions based on source quality, however, they can.
- This ensures that moderators have the means to fight planned disinformation.
- When cited sources don't plausibly back the claims, the submission can be considered unsourced.
- When on the fence, the moderator should err on the side of free speech, and let the community self-moderate with votes.
On-Demand Explanations
Users can request a detailed explanation for the removal of any submission. In order to do so, the explanation request needs to:
- be posted as a top-level comment on the deleted submission (for transparency);
- ping at least one moderator (using the @ sign);
- be specific and demonstrate a prior understanding of the rules cited as the reason of removal, requesting information beyond what the Submission Requirements already provide.
Examples for specificity on a submission removed per rule 1:
- "Why has this been removed?" ✘
- "This is related to Pizzagate, why has this been removed?" ✘
- "@wecanhelp, I think my post complies with rule 1 as it is about the Clinton family, and I'm clearly stating that. What am I missing?" ✔
Moderators, regardless of these rules, are still encouraged to be supportive, and make helpful comments on removals where it makes sense and there is a realistic chance of improving a submission that is otherwise investigative in its nature.
MommyLove ago
@wecanhelp what does it mean if you are told you have been strip searched and unicode removed???
wecanhelp ago
I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you be a little more specific?
sensitive ago
Hi everyone, it's my first day on duty, and @wecanhelp was right all along: there are many posts that need to be removed, sigh. I just saw this one - https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1641775 - and it seems to be unsubstantiated. Can we remove this post? Using which rule???
wecanhelp ago
As far as unsubstantiated claims, this submission shouldn't be removed, because per mod rule (4) we don't get to judge the quality of a source, and by definition all a Link post is is a source. As long as the sources actually back the claims made by the post author, it doesn't matter if the sources are absolute bullshit, we don't get to judge that as moderators, and it should be up to the community to moderate the post with votes (which they clearly did, and most of the time they will).
Now, on the other hand, per submission rule 3, the post author should have included a tl;dr summary of the content of the video, which they didn't, so the post can and should be removed under that rule, and feel free to remove it, but only because of the lack of a summary, not because the source is shit.
Hope this made sense.
Millennial_Falcon ago
No, there really isn't. Just trying to get clarification of what you meant.
And that's not much of a clarification. Sounds rather... curated. :-)
Cynabuns ago
The User Content Spam rule is a very generous One to One: for every one original content link (such as to your YT channel or your blog or any other site you are associated with), you need to submit one wholly unrelated link.
By way of example from the guideline, found here https://voat.co/help/faq#selfPromotion, we call this the
10/5 Rule: of 10 links to Voat, 5 may be of original or associated content.Millennial_Falcon ago
IllegalNews and LaDonnaRae both have blogs. I'm not quite getting the difference. Is it that there's a "name" attached? (I put 'name' in quotes because it quite likely is not the person's real name, let alone full name).
wecanhelp ago
Okay, we'll go by that and see if users accept that reasoning. Thanks.
wecanhelp ago
We've been doing that, but this has always been a problem. It just got magnified as the team started focusing on the updated mod rules.
wecanhelp ago
No, but if a public figure makes a video with the same content that we would remove as unsourced meta if posted by a Voat user, is their "public-figureness" enough to override all other principles we mod by?
wecanhelp ago
So basically we're back to subjective judgment. It's really difficult to explain to the community why they can't submit an unsourced post that has a lot of rationality backing it, while we consider Link posts to David Seaman videos sourced content, even though he never sources a single claim and is repeatedly irrational. This is not a theoretical problem.
wecanhelp ago
Thanks for the answer, sorry if I didn't make it clear. It has been a problem before, for example with LaDonnaRae. We would remove her Discussion posts, but allow her Link posts that pointed to the same content, only on her own blog this time. By that logic, anything we remove per rule 2, for example, can then be submitted to Reddit or a personal blog, submitted here as a Link post, and then we can't remove it. This is obviously a loophole.
wecanhelp ago
Did you even read the rest of my original comment? This is clearly not what I'm asking about. Here is the main part of my question (has nothing to do with meta in particular, but the different treatment of Discussion posts and Link posts, per mod rule (4)):
wecanhelp ago
You're reacting to this particular case, but not addressing the main logical concern regarding the inherent different treatment of Discussion and Link posts. Let's assume the post in the example is indeed a fully unsourced, speculative meta. Then the rest of my comment still stands.
wecanhelp ago
I have posteriorly added a fifth rule:
We've been requiring moderators to explain their flairs for a long time now, but never actually added that to the rules.
Since this change only affects transparency positively, I will not re-sticky the post just for this, but I'm pinging @kevdude for some transparency into the change anyway.
wecanhelp ago
No need to update the original, it can stay for historical reasons, I'll keep this one as the official thread for Moderator Rules, and have updated it to contain this rule, adding an extra sentence about flairs so that new mods know what they can do in the case of questionable source material.
VieBleu ago
Unfortunately - I wish I wasn't.
DriftingDevoid ago
I don't see any reason to not have two stickies? Removing the most powerful post from the top of this forum is a bad idea in my eyes! I always refer to this link when I feel people are hungry for facts. I do appreciate any effort to clean this forum from shills and disinformation though! But it's technically possible to have two stickies I presume?
wecanhelp ago
It isn't. Voat only allows one.
TimeForPitchForks ago
Why cant the Mod Rule revisions be put on the side banner? The old sticky was used to red pill people, where did it go?
gr8H8er ago
Bummer, what sucks about that is ALL deleted posts are there. I much prefer to be lazy and pampered!
gr8H8er ago
What if there was another sub, something like 'PizzaFloodGate' where only posts deleted from PizzaGate containing either 'X' number of upvoats or 'X' many comments could be posted? Kinda of like VOAT itself would extend an invitation to post the discussion or link there and would include why the post was deleted. This would kill a few birds with one stone. (I may be new but I just got 101 upvoats! Yay!)
LostandFound ago
No you make a good point I have seen this too where a good post is deleted due to sourcing. I am actually considering a request to allow a popular submission to PGwhatever to be xposted over the the main PG thread for assistance in sourcing. But I seem to operating in a grey area and I am not sure how to suggest a system thats not open to manipulation.
Vindicator ago
One way to handle this is to post it in v/pizzagatewhatever, and then repost the link with a request for help as a comment in all the hot posts currently rising on v/pizzagate. You can look through the users commenting and ping them invidually if you see someone who looks like a researcher that might be interested.
LostandFound ago
I have seen a good few attempts to walk this whole thing off a cliff with extremely speculative posts, that make accusations that are simply not founded by the content of the submission. They can be hard to spot they are done very well, but I can assure you there has been posts here with 200+ upvoats that were designed to do nothing but make everyone here look like nutjobs.
VieBleu ago
I don't agree with this idea at all (1ew's suggestion above about allowing posts with 40 upvoats). There is a contingent here that upvotes in a pack and uses multiple identities to do so as well, and almost always posts spam submissions with innacurate suppositions, confirmation bias (every mystical symbol = Satanism + child trafficking) no helpful content and absent of facts, which slides the forum towards abstract woo. As it is these types of posts stay up far too long.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
This all looks above board and useful (thumbsup.gif)
I like that mods still have the discretion to explain deletions if they choose
Section 3 is solid, clear and should not be an issue for those genuinely wanting to participate in an active community.
This comment doesn't actually specify any IRL entities so it should not be deleted.
That and it's hilarious that someone is that salty.
Threatening mods by user name alone isn't enough, it would require 'doxxing' to trigger the IRL entities section.
If the same comment contained the name of IRL entity in the same sentence as the advocacy for violence - it would qualify for removal.
Example: Hillary Clinton should be 'x'ed blah blah violent thing <-- this qualifies for deletion but VictorSteinerDavion should be 'x'ed blah blah violent thing <-- doesn't because that identifies a bot, not a real person
wecanhelp ago
I would actually argue that "Hillary Clinton should be murdered" is not in violation of rules, "I will murder Hillary Clinton" is. The former is an opinion, the latter is a threat. That is certainly how we've been handling these in the past.
BagelsHigh ago
How about you shut the fuck up and die already?
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
BagelsHigh ago
Shut the fuck up and die.
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
justanotherpizza ago
I think the changes make perfect sense. Moderator attention is a limited resource, so it makes sense for you to streamline your work.
BagelsHigh ago
Kill yourself.
@Crensch, kill yourself.
All mods of this sub, kill yourselves.
Fuck you, you pedo-enabling censorship-prone mods.
All of you should be fucking killed immediately, you pieces of shit.
Don't you fucking get that pizzagate is censored to hell already? You fucking pedo mods are just an extension of the MSM. You're all fucking Clinton shills. There's no goddamn reason this sub should have moderation.
Fuck you Crensch and kevdude. IRL I wouldn't hesitate to punch you to death, you pedo-enabling fucks. Fuck you. Kill yourselves.
@SarMegahhikkitha @bojangles @eagleshigh
VictorSteinerDavion ago
eagleshigh ago
Lol. Thanks for the laugh.
59lion ago
Can there be 2 stickies on the front page? New visitors to this site (which I suspect will be increasing pretty soon) are probably not all going to click on a post titled "Updated Moderator Rules". Its just easier if we have the Executive Summary as one of the top posts so its readily available to newcomers and they can be updated ASAP
VieBleu ago
I asked for this 2 months ago. Voat does not have the technological capability to accomplish this monumental task, but thanks for being a visionary. One day, maybe voat will grant two stickies, we can dream.
wecanhelp ago
There can't be, hence this solution. This is a Voat thing. The executive summary will be back on top in 48 hours.
59lion ago
Could it be titled "Pizzagate Executive Summary/Update Moderator Rules"? I was finally able to direct a friend to this site but after a couple minutes he said he couldn't find the summary link I told him to check out.
wecanhelp ago
No. Submission titles can't be changed. Give your friend a link.
remedial ago
Suggested theme song: https://youtu.be/_Xyp63MaSBs
ThePuppetShow ago
Use a straw next time, cuck boy.
redditsuckz ago
How about Moderators that add new mods to tell us the reasons they chose the mods they did. And before full out deletion of a thread give the poster a chance to add what needs to be added...ie find the link to back up what they are saying.
wecanhelp ago
This is a reasonable request, we could submit a post to /v/pizzagatemods whenever we add a new mod, with a reasoning.
We've played the waiting game before, this one's not gonna work. Most of the time we ask for a change, the change never comes, and in the meantime the post is being upvoted to the front page. It's not like submitters lose the content that they had posted, they can easily copypaste the source of the deleted submission, and make the necessary improvements.
KidsRaped ago
You don't give a shit about the kids, do you? This place is designed to flood out legitimate research and discussion with an endless sea of crap. When is the last time you contributed in the comments sections of posts to help the research? All you do is swoop in and complain about censorship whenever there is an attempt to improve the quality of the posts here.
A lack of ANY censorship whatsoever is censorship by white noise. You have no business being a v/pizzagate mod.
wecanhelp ago
I have removed rule (4), @kevdude and @Crensch.
I'm still concerned that we will have trouble fighting certain types of attacks, but we will figure it out as they happen. For clarity, the rule was meant to serve as a right we don't practice unless absolutely necessary. I can, however, see how this could be dangerous.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
Given the churn on the rules it appears better to be on the side of permissive than restrictive.
It should give us the opportunity to delete obvious and blatant manipulators, without getting in the way of the natural direction of the community.
Crensch ago
I totally get it, but the food put in doesn't come out looking the same >.>
Blacksmith21 ago
Yeah - the problem is the mods forget that there is an empathetic component, a psychological component, and a sociological component to any investigation which a web-based quasi-academic environment (which I appreciate) can strip off a lot of the soft "meta", or whatever the fuck "meta" is - from a more "freeform" style of thread. Not sure if that made sense or not. Some stupid millennial term, I guess.
Anyhow, I like to understand the people, the motivations, the mindset, etc. behind an investigation. It helps to better understand all viewpoints. Some float. Some don't.
wecanhelp ago
For what it's worth, I would like to see some types of meta submissions that the current rules don't allow for, however, nobody has come up with a well-worded rule yet that will allow real quality content but filter out the noise. I think your best bet is sourcing everything that can be sourced, at least to illustrate your points, and focusing on making the post investigative somehow. We moderate against a strict checklist, but we try to be human enough to not remove something like that. If it's on the fence rule-wise, and it's popular with the community, we will more than likely leave it up. Hope that helps.
Vindicator ago
I agree, wecan. That's exactly what I told Blacksmith and he rewrote the post to comply. Here's what I said:
Here's the irony about that investigation and publicity strategy post by @Blacksmith21 that @SpikyAube removed as "meta": If Blacksmith had written it up on his own blog instead of here on Voat, with all of the links to the examples he was citing included there and then linked to it, we would never have removed it as a speculative "meta" discussion to be moved to "v/pizzagatewhatever". His post was no different than pretty much anything David Seaman or George Webb talks about in their videos.
Based on what Kevdude and Crensch have said here about Mod Rule 4, it seems like we mods can all get on the same page about allowing discussion of investigation/publicity strategy threads -- as long as they do fulfill the guidelines and link to references like Blacksmith did. As I see it, Rule 4 is there to protect the main board from concern trolls and shills who unwilling to back up their opinion rants with supporting sources; not prevent the community from discussing the investigation. (Those who do, we will have to take the time to downvoat).
@Millennial_Falcon @gopluckyourself @Phobos_Mothership @abortionburger @Kwijibo @SpikyAube @l4l1lul3l0 @belphegorsprime @rktyp What do y'all think? Can we all get on the same page that even when the shitposts are fast and thick, we take the time to make SURE a post hasn't made every reasonable attempt to satisfy the submission guidelines before removing for rule violations? Maybe apply the "George Webb/David Seaman test" -- i.e. ask ourselves "If the user had posted a link to a blog or video saying this, would I be removing it?" It's really hard for people when one of us says a post is okay, and another mod comes along a few hours later and removes it. And btw, thanks for all you guys do.
wecanhelp ago
@kevdude, we've talked about this problem in detail, and our conclusion is that mod rule (4) creates a discrepancy between Discussion posts and Link posts.
I think the post in question is speculative meta. I would have removed it. It doesn't further the investigation itself, rather, it makes predictions about the effects of the investigation, which is almost by definition meta. This is a perfect submission for /v/pizzagatewhatever.
I get to make that call since this is a Discussion post, and the main content of the post is in the post body.
However, had it been submitted as a Link post to OP's blog or, say, /r/conspiracy, suddenly the same speculative meta content would need to be allowed, since per mod rule (4), we don't get to decide if the original post author is a trustworthy source of predictions.
I'll go one step further and assume that the same content is written by David Seaman, and submitted by a Voat user as a Link post, with a title like "What might happen once arrests start happening". There's no way we can remove that, even though it's the exact same content.
We would appreciate if you could weigh in on the practical application of these rules.
CC: @Millennial_Falcon @Vindicator @abortionburger
hels ago
How about a weekly "open thread"? People like me follow and have questions but when the questions come to mind I know I can't ask them on /v/pizzagate since they will be deleted. I want to help and be a part. I know there are other subverses to post questions but they will be seen by few and what if the question was truly worth it? Would enough people see it to make it a research topic or could the downvotes make it a passover?
I want to talk on here but feel like I have nothing to give.
wecanhelp ago
People have made the choice not to subscribe to /v/AskPizzagate despite the encouragement to do so. Just like with money in real life, people on here vote with their subscriptions for what they do and do not want to see. If the majority of the community was interested in question posts, there would be a much larger interest in subs like /v/AskPizzagate. This is just to let you know why general questions are still not considered submission-worthy content on this sub.
Having said that, I like your idea of an "open thread" every once in a while, which is a single submission started by a moderator that doesn't take up a lot of front page real estate, with the activity taking place in the comments. We could do an experiment with the format, and see how popular or useful it is. What do you think, @Millennial_Falcon and @Vindicator?
hels ago
Thank you for including the mods in your thoughts. The more people who see and read the basics and add-ons to previous posts will only help build the cause, create more awareness and research dug deeper. I hope a weekly open thread gains traction.
wecanhelp ago
We'll see, but it won't hurt to try. I'll make sure to start one this Sunday, and we'll see what kind of feedback it receives. Thanks for the idea.
wecanhelp ago
Sounds good, @Millennial_Falcon and @Vindicator. I'll make sure to start the first one one of these days, definitely agree with not stickied, not sure about the weekly summary, I mean as long as someone wants to do it, it could be done in the comments for sure, but do you want to compose one of those every week as part of the submission, Vindi? Also, any particular suggestion for the day of the week for these?
Millennial_Falcon ago
Saturday or Sunday?
wecanhelp ago
Sunday was my thought, too, let's go with that, easy to remember and there's less activity then to distract from.
Vindicator ago
I think this would be particularly helpful for user strategy discussions about how to advance the investigation/public awareness of PGA. Could be combined with a weekly Roundup summary of great research/news posts.
Millennial_Falcon ago
I like the idea of a weekly general discussion thread. (Not stickied. Just let it get organically voted. That way we can get an idea how much interest there is in such threads). If there proves to be a lot of interest, maybe we could sticky one every other week or something, for a day or so.
wecanhelp ago
Sorry, by "legit", I meant "submitted by a legit member of the community", as opposed to "submitted by a disinfo shill". The submission itself can still be rule-violating, and if a certain circle of users is quicker than the mod team then we have no way to remove a post that otherwise doesn't comply with the rules. It has happened in a past that we left up popular posts that were on the fence, for transparency and historical significance. We will continue doing that. But with submissions that clearly violate the rules, there should be no loophole to exploit.
Blacksmith21 ago
That would be my OP. The title was "Pizzagate Day +1 / Preparing for What's Next". I wanted to explore day one issues and preparations for the next phase of battle. This isn't going to end with cigars and Nuremberg trials. We may get a taste of it. We may win this battle - and a decisive battle - but we have not won the war.
SpikyAube ago
I think I deleted that one - sorry! It was a good/interesting post but I think the idea is that need to keep the sub focused more on investigation and sharing information and leads backed up with evidence, than try and have it be all things at once, such as a place to discuss the investigation in general terms, plus PR/memes/ways to spread info and reach. more people plus the actual work of investigation If it tries to be all those things, it will fail to do any of them well if that makes sense.
It would be good if more people subscribed to the other PG subs, but perhaps if you make a post there you can draw attention to it in comments here or at the bottom of a submission here that is within the rules?
witch_doctor1 ago
I get what you are saying about focusing on research and not being all things at once, while leaving the other subs for memes, etc...however; IMO that is one of those theory vs. reality things. The reality is that 2 months after the r:/pizzagate exodus (that I was a part of), pretty much nobody goes to the other subs. It's not going to happen, and while I can only speak for myself, I wish it was all in one, as it is much more entertaining as well as informative.
Additionally, T_D is a great example of being all things at once, and look how powerful they have become in a very short time span. IMO, relaxing the rules at this point would make a whole lot of sense because the new info has slowed to a crawl. And relaxing the rules now, doesn't mean we couldn't revert to the current rules when there is a new document dump and research rightfully should be the only thing occurring in this sub. Thoughts?
Primus_Pilus ago
Is there a method to undelete it and post it back?
Blacksmith21 ago
This is good stuff. Very well thought out, with a defined path of redress. Kudos to those who came up with this.
wecanhelp ago
Votes are almost always manipulated on disinfo posts, heavily.
Crensch ago
If the moderator chooses to follow the sources, and the sources do not support the claim in the submission that is pretty objective, no? The "quality" is pretty subjective, though.
wecanhelp ago
We can call it "validity", but I do believe that we need a rule (4) of some sort that is stronger than votes, which are habitually manipulated on disinfo posts.
wecanhelp ago
The problem with that is that planned disinformation attacks almost always come with a rapid upvoting to the front page. Also, this would be a loophole for otherwise legit posts as well, opening the door for vote manipulation.
wecanhelp ago
Offer a suggestion that allows for fighting planned disinfo, I'm open to changing it.
wecanhelp ago
It's there. -->
wecanhelp ago
No, we can't nor do we want to remove that. In fact, I'll add it to the subverse description.
ThePuppetShow ago
I think you have some shit on your nose.
Dressage2 ago
How do we not know is one of the mods writing incognito?
ThePuppetShow ago
We don't. What we do know is Voat was bought out and restructured right when pizzagate moved here.
wecanhelp ago
Source?
ThePuppetShow ago
Kingkongwaswrong said they got new partners so he was taking a more hands off role.
kingkongwaswrong ago
I never said this.
You probably got confused re: getting new subverse owners for /v/pizzagate, i.e. @crensch and @victorsteinerdavion
I have no affiliation with the voat owners and have no idea what's going on up there, besides the fact that the canary looks super dodgy.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
Unfortunately this is a conflation of two separate clauses.
The issue of new partners is unrelated to your taking a hands off role.
I wasn't intending to insinuate that in my comment below.
Also, woohoo you're back, welcome
wecanhelp ago
Source?
VictorSteinerDavion ago
Me.
As in, this is exactly what Kingkongwaswrong said was happening when they asked me to participate as an owner mod.
The whole 'voat got bought out and restructured' thing I don't buy into though.
wecanhelp ago
Yeah, that's the one I was asking about. I doubt it.
ThePuppetShow ago
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1468633
https://voat.co/v/pizzagatemods/1465205#submissionTop
wecanhelp ago
These don't back your original claim:
ThePuppetShow ago
How do you figure? Kingkongwaswrong announced that there are new owners and he stepped aside (restructuring). All this happened immediately after pizzagate moved here. You can try to spin it how you want, but the facts are clear.
wecanhelp ago
I'm not trying to spin it, I think there is simply a misunderstanding. Kingkongwaswrong is talking about owners of the /v/pizzagate subverse, and your original claim talks about ownership of Voat itself, which I don't believe has changed, and which got my attention about your comment in the first place. If I'm the one who's misunderstanding it, then please help me out with a source for Voat being bought out.
ThePuppetShow ago
There was another comment made about donations and the owners of voat, can't seem to find it.
I'm under the impression that kkww was one of the owners here under an alt accnt. Who could look at this investigation and have the supposed beliefs kkww had and just walk away? Someone in it for the $. Voat was a setup and the way this forum has shaped up, with no discussion of leads possible, proves it. This place is officially worse than reddit right now. More investigative work is done on The_Donald and v/pizzagate is losing members rapidly. Good work mods, you earned your check.
wecanhelp ago
As far as I know, the number of subscribers has only gone up, not down, over the past three months. But keep throwing false information around without actual sources if that's what floats your boat.
ThePuppetShow ago
I suppose I haven't lost like 20 scp and 20 ccp, with no recent downvotes, since this conversation started either? Whatever man.
wecanhelp ago
Another instance of you doing crappy research.
ThePuppetShow ago
Never bothered to research it, just like I never bothered to take screen shots of what the member tally is. It doesn't matter to me. Keep pushing your rules, people have you guys figured out. "Crappy research" LOL
wecanhelp ago
That seems to be the summary of your activity right there. Keep it up.
ThePuppetShow ago
Would you like for me to leave?
wecanhelp ago
I honestly don't have a preference.
ThePuppetShow ago
Pussy. Can't even say how you really feel because youre so cucked.
wecanhelp ago
I think you're too much of a coward to troll with your regular account.
OrwellKnew ago
Very nice job here. Everything seem reasonable and common sense
Thank you to all mods for the work you are doing
wecanhelp ago
Thank you for the support.
redditsuckz ago
Doesn't really look like these rules are being followed as of yet...
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/modlog/submission
wecanhelp ago
Please be specific. I can see that the submitter name in the Reason field is often missing. What else have you seen?
wecanhelp ago
@gopluckyourself @l4l1lul3l0 @Kwijibo @abortionburger @SpikyAube
wecanhelp ago
@Phobos_Mothership @Millennial_Falcon @belphegorsprime @Vindicator @rktyp
wecanhelp ago
@kingkongwaswrong @Crensch @VictorSteinerDavion @heygeorge @kevdude
THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES ago
Let's make a monthly or biweekly post of fringe deletes, that did get deleted, please. I have seen some good stuff get deleted, and a lot of bad stuff as well.
redditsuckz ago
This is a very good Idea...thats why it will never fly around here.
SpikyAube ago
That's a good idea! I'd be happy to compile that if we can decide on criteria for which posts get included. @wecanhelp
wecanhelp ago
I don't think this is a good idea. We should zoom out a bit, and see that we're trying to use one sub for everything, merely because this one has the largest audience. I understand the problem, but this is not the solution. It would consume a lot of moderator time to even just come up with and transparently discuss the criteria for such posts, let alone actually maintaining a digest like that. This post is precisely about severely limited mod resources, and I'm not sure what the solution is, but whatever it is, it's not on this sub. There's a reason for having submission rules.
redditsuckz ago
You have 15 moderators and you already asked all 15 of them if they would like to do this and they all replied no?
There are over 10,000 people on this sub and dont you think if you ask one of them might be willing to compile a list?
wecanhelp ago
No, why, which part of my "I don't think this is a good idea" suggests that my response represents that of 15 moderators? I was personally pinged to offer my opinion, which I did. If you're interested in others' input, or want to see this happen, go right ahead and put some effort into interviewing and organizing. Since I don't agree with the proposal, I don't see why you're expecting me to run errands for you to make this happen.
redditsuckz ago
"wecanhelp" is your username...O.o
We are here to help each other not hinder and as a mod all you would have to do is put a sticky up asking if someone would like to compile a list for a biweekly thread compilation of removed submissions and even sticky a thread with the removed submissions for a day or two. Now if that takes up too much of your time then ask another mod to do it.
wecanhelp ago
I'm here to help, not to wipe your ass. If you want something, you're part of the same community, go ahead and make an effort, ask some people, make a plan. There's only a single sticky allowed per subverse on Voat. We will not sticky everything that pops out of your head.
redditsuckz ago
Not totally convinced of that...I noticed you and gopluckyourself logged on around the exact same time rogue mod numbchuck logged on when he caused damage to the sub by deleting important posts;
http://archive.is/twzsl
So maybe there are still a few "rogue mods" here and some deleted posts deserve attention that only you can give because you are a mod with "sticky powers".
wecanhelp ago
Oh, sweet! I always wanted to see when people log on to Voat, could you please point me to the logs of that?
Oh, wait - this is not your honeypot website that I've needed to flag twice. Too bad.Edit: That was voatsucksreally, my bad.
redditsuckz ago
As in "log on" you arrived at 8:21 pm and numbchuck is there within that minute to do damage to the sub;
http://imgur.com/a/rFapL
And what website is that?...because if I had a website it would be for actual investigations of pizzagate not some drama lama bs that you encourage and let happen to v/pizzagate.
wecanhelp ago
Has it ever crossed your mind that as mods, we, y'kno, tend to be around? By "arrived", you certainly mean I was here in that very minute, along with, well, I can't say for sure but I think about... 1k+ people? Not to mention it was my interaction with numbchuck in PMs that triggered him (see his first removal with the comment "cunt", which was my post that I have since resubmitted), so, geez, is there a chance then that he and I both were online at the same time? You know who else was here at the same time? Kevdude. He was alert enough to stop numbchuck. Or, was he numbchuck? Stay tuned, kids, we'll find out in another episode of Scooby Doo.
I stand corrected regarding this one. I have mistaken your username for voatsucksreally, apologies for this one, I'll make an edit in my comment claiming that the website was yours. You're nonetheless full of shit, but this was my mistake.
THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES ago
THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^
SpikyAube ago
Ok yes I see your point, I was getting a bit too enthusiastic there...