Take No offense. I'm not him, so I shouldn't speak for him.... But fuck it, I will. I think he was insinuating you must spend more time on reddit, than voat if you're asking that question... Actually I'll abandon that theory, I have no clue what he's insinuating.
As far as censorship on voat goes. Yes. They most certainly are censoring, albeit under the guise of "We know what you guys should be focusing on." Often times they remove extremely relevant posts because a single mod lacks understanding as to what constitutes "relevant to pizzagate." And that's me giving those mods the benefit of the doubt... If I were to assume the worse, It would be that the mods removing these posts are doing so deliberately, in attempt to steer the investigation/research in a particular way.
Personally, I've seen a half dozen posts removed after being deemed, "not relevant" when I know for a fact they are relevant. I know they are relevant becasue my own research consists of many of POI in the posts that were removed... And to clarify, I came across these POI solely on my own research project...
It's not like I saw the posts on voat, Then decided to look into them... It was actually the other way around. I did my own research, not based on leads from voat. I only searched voat for these specific POI AFTER I deemed them relevant to my personal research. Sometimes the posts were months old... It should also be noted that even though my research correlates with a lot of the same people in the removed posts, It is completely DIFFERENT information.
However, the original posts on voat, were just as damning as the separate information I came across. Which makes it really hard for me to give the mods the benefit of the doubt in these cases.
That being said, There are a wide range of mods on this sub. Some have a good track record, Some not so much. Some get beat up more than they should, Other's not enough.
I really really don't think most of the mods here are at all trying to censor, they all seem very concenred with getting it right and not censoring important stuff while at the same time ensuring the content is relevant and not all disinfo, distraction or just stuff no one can understand asking people to click on dodgy links. Thats my experience anyway. I think its more misunderstandings, either mods misunderstanding the relevance of the post, or posters misunderstanding the rules or the reasons their submission was deleted. Most submissions can be resubmitted with some additions like explaining the connection to PG or including sources for claims.
I really really don't think most of the mods here are at all trying to censor, they all seem very concenred with getting it right and not censoring important stuff while at the same time ensuring the content is relevant and not all disinfo, distraction or just stuff no one can understand asking people to click on dodgy links.
Ok, so I agree with you that most of the mods aren't TRYING to censor... But we've seen far too many examples, not even as far as internet forums go, rather life in general.... Where all it takes is a couple "moles" to fuck things up.
As far as their duty to weed out "distraction" This is where a lot of people might disagree with me.... but PERSONALLY, I do not think that is their duty. TOO OFTEN we see examples of what they deemed "Distraction" turns out to be extremely pertinent... It's a bit of catch-22. The way it should work, Is that no one becomes a mod, unless they've contributed a lot of original, relevant, information.... But Once you become a mod, Your time is spent being a mod..... I doubt they have time to monitor posts for distractions, and ALSO do their own original research, let alone research on all the new finds.... So how can they know what is a distraction or not?
All I know is I have a list of posts that were removed (Not mine) for being "distraction" or "irrelevant", even thougth they are extremely relevant. I only come across those posts, when I search voat for "new" information that I Find..... But more than not, upon reading the removed posts, it's perfectly clear to me how they were relevant before they were removed, and with out the added context of what I've found through out my research.
BUT AGAIN. I agree with you in saying that most of the mods do not have malicious intents, However intent has no bearing on the affect their power has... What seems like to distraction to them, often times is not distraction at all, to those with a better understanding of the topic at hand.
Side note, unrelated to anthing you said.... POSTS ARE NOT ABOUT IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. Some of the biggest aspects of this reserach, fuck, MOST of the information can be "refuted." That's the definition of "Circumstantial evidence" Actually I have no clue what the definition is. That doesn't mean it is not relevant, or further more, not evidence... No post should be viewed with tunnel vision....By that I mean, stop looking for absolute conclusions based on a single post.... This puzzle is too big, to be deemming a single peice irrelevant, when you're analyzing that single piece on its own.
There are a lot of people who know what they're doing, and are privay to a lot more context than the mods.... It's hurtful to those people, If the mods remove posts simply because they deem it distraction. Especially since the acitvaty of this sub has slowed down dramatically.... In my opinion, The only posts that should be removed, are posts that are factually inaccurate. This sub was NOT** created as a tool to inform the masses on what's going in pizzagate..... It was created to research ALL of the pieces to this massive possible. Nothing can be done if every post that isn't concrete evidence is removed.... Sometimes posts are generally correct, but the specifics are lacking. If you watch George webb (AS EVERYONE SHOULD) this is what we call "working theory."
From the wiki (WHICH IS SHIT SOURCE FOR "NEWS" based events I.E pizzagate)
A working hypothesis is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research[1] in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails.[2] Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research [3] purpose in empirical investigation and is often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research.[4][5]
Under the current practices of this sub, we seen none of that. Which is not rational way to go about this research.
I don't think the rule about sources is at all about irrefutable evidence, it's partly to get people in the habit of making sure they can back up claims and distinguish between claims and speculation. Speculation and working theories are 100% a crucial part of any research, but it's still v important to distinguish between what we can postulate from the facts available, and what we actually know to be true. I don't know about the other mods but I'm a researcher for my job and I've also been trained as a journalist (although I quickly realised I really hated the media!) and if it's what you do as your profession, you perhaps notice what things will work and be credible as a source or evidence, when certain speculation is valid and helpful and when it is missing information or steps etc, and why certains things will get picked up on and torn apart by the media and therefore just serve to derail the investigation.
I always try to give extensive commentary on posts that have been deleted (that I come across or deleted myself) to explain why it was probably deleted, how behind the rationale is the desire to protect the investigation from being discredited, and how the post could be changed so that it will work. But a lot of people don't want to learn about that stuff and don't resubmit and just start posting about how all the mods are shills etc. Which really makes me sad!
Speculative posts are fine and not against the rules, and they don't need solid irrefutable evidence at all, there just needs to be enough information to show people why/how you came to that conclusion or what led you down that path of thinking. Because that provides extra value to the investigation by giving all the people reading different points and sources and persepctives for them to hang their own ideas and research on, which will be more likely to spark out of the box thinking or connections that wouldn't otherwise have arisen.
This sub was NOT** created as a tool to inform the masses on what's going in pizzagate..... It was created to research ALL of the pieces to this massive possible.
I think this is actually the main problem - the sub wasn't created to be a way of informing the public, its purpose is completely different, BUT it attracts attention from people who've only heard the fake news lie or people who know little about it and are skeptical, and knowing that, we want those people who come here to leave understanding PG better and understanding that it is real, that this isn't just a bunch of nutters making up stories to one another for laughs, and we also want to make sure that anyone who wants to discredit it can't leave with reams of submissions they can point to that are completely unsourced or don't follow a rational narrative thread, or that make us look like none of us know what we're doing or that we are going crazy and sharing random people's social media accounts and info just because they said they like pizza in their bio or something and because we had a 'bad feeling' about them. It could be that something like that actually ends up leading somewhere and the poster's intuition was right. But the likelihood of that has to be balanced against the potential negative repercussions to the investigation of having a post like that on the front page, which could end up on the news with newsreaders screeching about how PG is an insane witch hunt and leaving out ALL the other information other than that which makes their point.
So it is diffiuclt I think to balance the two, although I agree that it should be heavily weighted on the side of the investigation, it would be a massive shame if somehow some of the less solid and more crazy ideas/research posted here ended up making it much more difficult to convince the wider public of the investigation's general veracity.
See, This is why I try not to go on multiple long winded tangents in a day.... Because Now I'm not sure which comment you're specifically addressing...lol
I don't think the rule about sources is at all about irrefutable evidence
Did I say anything about sources or the source rule? Whoops, I don't mean that aggressively... like, " DID I FUCKING SAY ANYTHING BAOUT SOURCES YOU FUKIN CUNT"
I literally can't remember.... But I don't think I did? IF I did, I shouldn't have grouped it with the other point I was making... Because I Think EVERYTHING needs to be sourced well. But I was talking about the countless posts that are sourced AMAZINGLY well, but are still removed. ( I might be over exaggerating when I say "Countless posts" to be honest, I have about a half dozen posts in mind as I type this, But they are pretty big posts formatted properly)
I just realized you're a mod... So first let me say; you can sleep soundly because I was not thinking of you when mentioning the mods in my last post... Lol.
d we also want to make sure that anyone who wants to discredit it can't leave with reams of submissions they can point to that are completely unsourced or don't follow a rational narrative thread, or that make us look like none of us know what we're doing or that we are going crazy and sharing random people's social media accounts and info just because they said they like pizza in their bio or something and because we had a 'bad feeling' about them.
Dude. I totally agree.... and Again, I hope I didn't say anything that insinuates posts need not be sourced.... but also, I DON'T THINK social media accounts should be posted AT ALL, because it always ends up hurting us one way or another... Whether it ends up in a which hunt on innocent people, Or whether it prevents future research on someone highly suspicious. In fact, I think I said something similar in one of my following comments.
I'd argue, the only time a social media account should be publically analyzed, Is if there's incriminating evidence on that person else where.... By that I mean, instagram accounts should not be posted, simply because they are friends with another POI... Admittedly, more often than not that person ends up having sketch shit that warrants furthere investigation.... But you just can't do that shit. LIke, Do it privately, But you're most certainly right that it will end up hurting us if we continue to post people's instagram, if those peoole aren't connected in any other way.... I've been trying to say that for awhile now.
It's tricky.... Because often times Instagram accounts by themselves are suspect enough to warrant further investigation. But either way... I was not addressing those types of posts,orwhat we should do with suspicious instagram accounts, In my last comment.... And again, if I did, then I wasn't very clear..
So I agree with everything you said... I should have been more clear in the points I was trying to make.... I was strictly talking about well sourced, Meaty posts, Being removed because people somehow can't see how it's related to pizzagate.... Or because the poster isn't willing to spell out his accusations against someone because there's not ENOUGH evidence to do so.
I wasn't saying that crazy speculative posts should be allowed... In fact, I dont think speculative posts should be allowed at all... Well, completely speculative... Back to your first point, speculation needs to be back by sources... And the more serious of an accusation, the more sources you should be providing...
I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY, I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT MY POSTS BEING REMOVED.... Although, I did have one of my bigger posts removed the first 2 times I posted it, but admittedly, It was disorganized as fuck
Okay we agree with each other, I am not sure I have seen meaty well sourced posts deleted. I suppose throwing a sentence in explaining its relationship to PG doesnt take too much time, hopefully people will get used to doing that and there will be much fewer controversial deletions!
I could have added this reply to my earlier reply, but I wanted to give you double the rush on seeing you had a message from me - you're very welcome ;-)
view the rest of the comments →
FuckUredditFuckuSpez ago
Take No offense. I'm not him, so I shouldn't speak for him.... But fuck it, I will. I think he was insinuating you must spend more time on reddit, than voat if you're asking that question... Actually I'll abandon that theory, I have no clue what he's insinuating.
As far as censorship on voat goes. Yes. They most certainly are censoring, albeit under the guise of "We know what you guys should be focusing on." Often times they remove extremely relevant posts because a single mod lacks understanding as to what constitutes "relevant to pizzagate." And that's me giving those mods the benefit of the doubt... If I were to assume the worse, It would be that the mods removing these posts are doing so deliberately, in attempt to steer the investigation/research in a particular way.
Personally, I've seen a half dozen posts removed after being deemed, "not relevant" when I know for a fact they are relevant. I know they are relevant becasue my own research consists of many of POI in the posts that were removed... And to clarify, I came across these POI solely on my own research project...
It's not like I saw the posts on voat, Then decided to look into them... It was actually the other way around. I did my own research, not based on leads from voat. I only searched voat for these specific POI AFTER I deemed them relevant to my personal research. Sometimes the posts were months old... It should also be noted that even though my research correlates with a lot of the same people in the removed posts, It is completely DIFFERENT information.
However, the original posts on voat, were just as damning as the separate information I came across. Which makes it really hard for me to give the mods the benefit of the doubt in these cases.
That being said, There are a wide range of mods on this sub. Some have a good track record, Some not so much. Some get beat up more than they should, Other's not enough.
SpikyAube ago
I really really don't think most of the mods here are at all trying to censor, they all seem very concenred with getting it right and not censoring important stuff while at the same time ensuring the content is relevant and not all disinfo, distraction or just stuff no one can understand asking people to click on dodgy links. Thats my experience anyway. I think its more misunderstandings, either mods misunderstanding the relevance of the post, or posters misunderstanding the rules or the reasons their submission was deleted. Most submissions can be resubmitted with some additions like explaining the connection to PG or including sources for claims.
FuckUredditFuckuSpez ago
Ok, so I agree with you that most of the mods aren't TRYING to censor... But we've seen far too many examples, not even as far as internet forums go, rather life in general.... Where all it takes is a couple "moles" to fuck things up.
As far as their duty to weed out "distraction" This is where a lot of people might disagree with me.... but PERSONALLY, I do not think that is their duty. TOO OFTEN we see examples of what they deemed "Distraction" turns out to be extremely pertinent... It's a bit of catch-22. The way it should work, Is that no one becomes a mod, unless they've contributed a lot of original, relevant, information.... But Once you become a mod, Your time is spent being a mod..... I doubt they have time to monitor posts for distractions, and ALSO do their own original research, let alone research on all the new finds.... So how can they know what is a distraction or not?
All I know is I have a list of posts that were removed (Not mine) for being "distraction" or "irrelevant", even thougth they are extremely relevant. I only come across those posts, when I search voat for "new" information that I Find..... But more than not, upon reading the removed posts, it's perfectly clear to me how they were relevant before they were removed, and with out the added context of what I've found through out my research.
BUT AGAIN. I agree with you in saying that most of the mods do not have malicious intents, However intent has no bearing on the affect their power has... What seems like to distraction to them, often times is not distraction at all, to those with a better understanding of the topic at hand.
Side note, unrelated to anthing you said.... POSTS ARE NOT ABOUT IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE. Some of the biggest aspects of this reserach, fuck, MOST of the information can be "refuted." That's the definition of "Circumstantial evidence" Actually I have no clue what the definition is. That doesn't mean it is not relevant, or further more, not evidence... No post should be viewed with tunnel vision....By that I mean, stop looking for absolute conclusions based on a single post.... This puzzle is too big, to be deemming a single peice irrelevant, when you're analyzing that single piece on its own.
There are a lot of people who know what they're doing, and are privay to a lot more context than the mods.... It's hurtful to those people, If the mods remove posts simply because they deem it distraction. Especially since the acitvaty of this sub has slowed down dramatically.... In my opinion, The only posts that should be removed, are posts that are factually inaccurate. This sub was NOT** created as a tool to inform the masses on what's going in pizzagate..... It was created to research ALL of the pieces to this massive possible. Nothing can be done if every post that isn't concrete evidence is removed.... Sometimes posts are generally correct, but the specifics are lacking. If you watch George webb (AS EVERYONE SHOULD) this is what we call "working theory."
From the wiki (WHICH IS SHIT SOURCE FOR "NEWS" based events I.E pizzagate)
Under the current practices of this sub, we seen none of that. Which is not rational way to go about this research.
SpikyAube ago
I don't think the rule about sources is at all about irrefutable evidence, it's partly to get people in the habit of making sure they can back up claims and distinguish between claims and speculation. Speculation and working theories are 100% a crucial part of any research, but it's still v important to distinguish between what we can postulate from the facts available, and what we actually know to be true. I don't know about the other mods but I'm a researcher for my job and I've also been trained as a journalist (although I quickly realised I really hated the media!) and if it's what you do as your profession, you perhaps notice what things will work and be credible as a source or evidence, when certain speculation is valid and helpful and when it is missing information or steps etc, and why certains things will get picked up on and torn apart by the media and therefore just serve to derail the investigation.
I always try to give extensive commentary on posts that have been deleted (that I come across or deleted myself) to explain why it was probably deleted, how behind the rationale is the desire to protect the investigation from being discredited, and how the post could be changed so that it will work. But a lot of people don't want to learn about that stuff and don't resubmit and just start posting about how all the mods are shills etc. Which really makes me sad!
Speculative posts are fine and not against the rules, and they don't need solid irrefutable evidence at all, there just needs to be enough information to show people why/how you came to that conclusion or what led you down that path of thinking. Because that provides extra value to the investigation by giving all the people reading different points and sources and persepctives for them to hang their own ideas and research on, which will be more likely to spark out of the box thinking or connections that wouldn't otherwise have arisen.
I think this is actually the main problem - the sub wasn't created to be a way of informing the public, its purpose is completely different, BUT it attracts attention from people who've only heard the fake news lie or people who know little about it and are skeptical, and knowing that, we want those people who come here to leave understanding PG better and understanding that it is real, that this isn't just a bunch of nutters making up stories to one another for laughs, and we also want to make sure that anyone who wants to discredit it can't leave with reams of submissions they can point to that are completely unsourced or don't follow a rational narrative thread, or that make us look like none of us know what we're doing or that we are going crazy and sharing random people's social media accounts and info just because they said they like pizza in their bio or something and because we had a 'bad feeling' about them. It could be that something like that actually ends up leading somewhere and the poster's intuition was right. But the likelihood of that has to be balanced against the potential negative repercussions to the investigation of having a post like that on the front page, which could end up on the news with newsreaders screeching about how PG is an insane witch hunt and leaving out ALL the other information other than that which makes their point.
So it is diffiuclt I think to balance the two, although I agree that it should be heavily weighted on the side of the investigation, it would be a massive shame if somehow some of the less solid and more crazy ideas/research posted here ended up making it much more difficult to convince the wider public of the investigation's general veracity.
FuckUredditFuckuSpez ago
See, This is why I try not to go on multiple long winded tangents in a day.... Because Now I'm not sure which comment you're specifically addressing...lol
Did I say anything about sources or the source rule? Whoops, I don't mean that aggressively... like, " DID I FUCKING SAY ANYTHING BAOUT SOURCES YOU FUKIN CUNT"
I literally can't remember.... But I don't think I did? IF I did, I shouldn't have grouped it with the other point I was making... Because I Think EVERYTHING needs to be sourced well. But I was talking about the countless posts that are sourced AMAZINGLY well, but are still removed. ( I might be over exaggerating when I say "Countless posts" to be honest, I have about a half dozen posts in mind as I type this, But they are pretty big posts formatted properly)
I just realized you're a mod... So first let me say; you can sleep soundly because I was not thinking of you when mentioning the mods in my last post... Lol.
Dude. I totally agree.... and Again, I hope I didn't say anything that insinuates posts need not be sourced.... but also, I DON'T THINK social media accounts should be posted AT ALL, because it always ends up hurting us one way or another... Whether it ends up in a which hunt on innocent people, Or whether it prevents future research on someone highly suspicious. In fact, I think I said something similar in one of my following comments.
I'd argue, the only time a social media account should be publically analyzed, Is if there's incriminating evidence on that person else where.... By that I mean, instagram accounts should not be posted, simply because they are friends with another POI... Admittedly, more often than not that person ends up having sketch shit that warrants furthere investigation.... But you just can't do that shit. LIke, Do it privately, But you're most certainly right that it will end up hurting us if we continue to post people's instagram, if those peoole aren't connected in any other way.... I've been trying to say that for awhile now.
It's tricky.... Because often times Instagram accounts by themselves are suspect enough to warrant further investigation. But either way... I was not addressing those types of posts,orwhat we should do with suspicious instagram accounts, In my last comment.... And again, if I did, then I wasn't very clear..
So I agree with everything you said... I should have been more clear in the points I was trying to make.... I was strictly talking about well sourced, Meaty posts, Being removed because people somehow can't see how it's related to pizzagate.... Or because the poster isn't willing to spell out his accusations against someone because there's not ENOUGH evidence to do so.
I wasn't saying that crazy speculative posts should be allowed... In fact, I dont think speculative posts should be allowed at all... Well, completely speculative... Back to your first point, speculation needs to be back by sources... And the more serious of an accusation, the more sources you should be providing...
I ALSO WANT TO CLARIFY, I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT MY POSTS BEING REMOVED.... Although, I did have one of my bigger posts removed the first 2 times I posted it, but admittedly, It was disorganized as fuck
SpikyAube ago
Okay we agree with each other, I am not sure I have seen meaty well sourced posts deleted. I suppose throwing a sentence in explaining its relationship to PG doesnt take too much time, hopefully people will get used to doing that and there will be much fewer controversial deletions!
I could have added this reply to my earlier reply, but I wanted to give you double the rush on seeing you had a message from me - you're very welcome ;-)