Last night, a user posted a highly-upvoted post on /v/pizzagate attacking David Seaman. https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1650713
Seaman posted this response about two hours ago: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1651763
I removed it because there was no verification it was him (so the post violated rule 4). I asked him to repost with some kind of verification it's him. He reposted, but it looked like the same post with no verification (he mentioned a tweet at the beginning this time, but no link, so in my impatience, I didn't notice the mention). So I removed and again asked for verification.
Seaman then tweeted this: https://twitter.com/d_seaman/status/832293244532830208
He included an image of a Voat message (which seems to have never been sent, because presumably he was implying he sent this message to me, since I was the one who removed his post, yet I never received such a message). The only way I was alerted to his tweets about the Voat post was through another Voat user's comment.
In the "message" he imaged in this tweet, he complains that I'm asking for "personally identifying info." LOL. You're a public figure; all we needed was typical AMA-type verification (a photo of yourself holding something with today's date, "Voat", etc). Anyway, the tweet was sufficient verification, so I pinged him and told him he can repost and I won't delete. Yet he still has not reposted (?). Is he trying to set us up as looking unfair to him?
He also complained about us allowing the post that had attacked him. That post satisfied our posting rules. This community is anti-censorship. Again, feel free to repost your post with the same account (@David_Seaman). Please link one of your tweets about the post in the post itself, so other mods will not mistakenly remove it.
view the rest of the comments →
David_Seaman ago
The message to you voat would not let me send, due to "insufficient points."
You're showing your colors here. Why are you stirring up trouble and division, RATHER THAN LEAVING UP MY POST SO I CAN DEFEND MYSELF, which violated no user's privacy nor did it violate anything. I have confirmed my identity beyond any reasonable doubt.
UNFAIR.
sandernista_4_TRUMP ago
David you are unhinged. The mods may sometimes be unfair, but in this case you're being a bitch. You need to work on your style and your persuasion skills. You lost the status of "journalist" in many people's eyes because you are disorganized and hysterical and are therefore a toxic variable in this entire movement. You are just a shitposter like the rest of us, you aren't anyone special so stop acting like the world is against you. Infowars wouldn't even hire you because you are just too fucking bitchy.
Precipitate ago
You're a fucking hack. You do no investigation, you just report on the same few bits of months old info over and over and most of your videos are just you ranting or shilling. You make the community look bad, especially now that you appear to be becoming unhinged.
Piscina ago
David, ignore the haters. Just keep doing what you're doing. You're shining the light on something that needs to be known to people. We all have different strengths--some at investigating; some getting the message out. We need everyone on board, even those whose approach we may sometimes disagree with. I for one am grateful for what you do.
Singleservename ago
Whining bitching calling everything unfair, talking about himself relentlessly like the cuck he is all the while misappropriating others' labors for his own jewtube glory and jewgle ads.
Yep this has to be the real @$$hole called kikeface Semen.
gas yourself now profiteering parasite.
sawn ago
Do you ever stop whining?
wecanhelp ago
Seriously? And you would still screenshot it and reference it in a tweet that is to criticize a mod's reaction whom you, as it turns out, haven't even contacted? I think you are showing your true colors here, David, and this is coming from someone who had supported and defended you before against attacks by the community.
Except for the Submission Requirements, a.k.a. the rules of this subverse that we equally judge every single submission against, and which you apparently didn't bother to read.
No, you haven't. As @Millennial_Falcon has said, all it would have taken is a link to your tweet confirming your identity, but you haven't provided any links whatsoever. Your post, without a single link pointing to anything, is an instant delete for any mod really, as it is guaranteed to violate either rule 2 or rule 4 regardless of its content.
I must say your behavior recently has been beyond suspicious.
V____Z ago
Sorry, you can claim to be unbiased with regard to David, but I have seen you delete posts that linked to his videos, based on the rule that everything needs to be explained, whilst leaving non-David-related posts up that violated the same rule - and I mean these posts were submitted at the same time, roughly, so I have to assume there was some bias. Though this is not possible for me to prove.
MF told David he needed to prove who he was in order for his post to stand. Then goalposts changed.
I posted proof that was required, and that was deleted too, by MF himself, which is truly bad form since there is a conflict of interest (he was a subject of the video).
Voat is going to quickly be outed as compromised unless you all pretend to be unbiased. None of us are, but you've got to fake it a little bit better.
wecanhelp ago
If you're gonna accuse me of selective moderation, then you might as well collect your proof the next time. It's not so hard, there's this magical function called bookmarking in your browser, and also, removal logs are freely available to everyone.
V____Z ago
I can prove what you removed, but not the ones you let stand that were posted at the same time. And even if I did, i could not prove that you actually saw those posts.
But you've already admitted that you no longer support david by claiming you once did. So you are not impartial and should probably leave these threads for those mods who are.
wecanhelp ago
I don't have to be impartial as long as my responses to him are fact-based, which they are.
V____Z ago
This is the problem, I feel the community would agree. You really should stay away from moderating posts by or about someone you are biased against. You know as well as the rest of us that facts can be spun either way, and it is what you leave out often times that makes bias a problem. The fact that you would argue for your right to engage here as a mod, when you e admitted to being against David (or, no longer on his side) reveals the exact problem, and why Voat is soon going to have a terrible reputation. David's videos can get 27K hits in an afternoon. I'm not in love with the guy, I'm stating a fact to support my contention that there are repercussions to the mods behviour here, and I would recommend staying on the side of caution and to refrain from engaging u less you're truly dispassionate, so you can think straight.
Please read all the comments here, and look at the up votes on David's comment. You and MF are in the minority. Do you care?
wecanhelp ago
No, I don't particularly care. Popular is not necessarily right. I stand by my statement that you don't need to be opinionless in order to moderate fairly and according to a checklist. This post was violating rules. It was removed as a result. Had it complied with the rules, the post wouldn't have been removed, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I would have, as a user and not as a mod, downvoted it, but that's as far as my expression of opinion would have gone. As far as opinions go, it is also my opinion that the board should be moderated according to rules, and impartially, and it is a stronger one than anything I think about Seaman. It is sort of a moot point to argue about this, though, as you're convinced I couldn't keep a cool head independently of my opinion, and I'm convinced I can. Cheers.
gangpressorliber ago
Jackasery!
gangpressorliber ago
THATS THE WAY IT IS AROUND HERE YOU GOTTA TAKE IT UP THE BUTT FOR AWHILE BEFORE YOU CAN BE A BIG MAN LIKE FALCON AND DISH IT OUT TO OTHERS!! LOLZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Beginning to wonder about the rules myself. did they come from color coded halls or something......
NoBS ago
Falcon's ass, and does it stink!
Millennial_Falcon ago
Pot calling the kettle black. Your Tweet calling us "unfair" and trying to make us look biased against you was completely unnecessary. All you had to do was reply to me in a comment (no direct message necessary). I also pinged you after I saw your tweets, and asked you to repost, but you still haven't. Issue a retraction tweet concerning your "voat mods being unfair" tweet, and we'll be all good (I will delete this post and write a neutral post about our misunderstanding). And please repost your post.
sawn ago
Welcome to David Seaman. As everyone who's ever worked with him will tell you, it only gets worse.
gangpressorliber ago
@$$HAT!
NoBS ago
Quote: Pot calling the kettle black. Your Tweet calling me "unfair" was completely unnecessary." end quote Millennial Flake. You are acting like a spoiled child having a temper tantrum. Sometimes the truth just plain sucks. Have a nice day.
Millennial_Falcon ago
LOL. Seaman says "waaaaa, unfaiiiiiiir" and I'm the spoiled child?
NoBS ago
Temper tantrum level. Yes, very immature for a Mod. You are why this site sucks, get off your high horse.
witch_doctor1 ago
Nope...I agree with David...you delete two threads when it would have been so easy to check his twitter feed and now you want him to submit a 3rd thread? Unfair was a fair way to describe it.
eiggaMAD ago
It should have been David's responsibility to provide proof.
witch_doctor1 ago
He did....keep up. Falcon stepped up and did the right thing and re-posted the thread. Kudos to Falcon.
eiggaMAD ago
I meant more along the lines of providing the proof in his post, not on his Twitter feed. It's not a voat mods job to check his Twitter.
nnfx ago
I also understand, why David felt treated unfair, but Millennial Falcon tried to explain what went wrong here and offers a handshake. Now it's about David not to be unforgiving.
Thrash57 ago
Seaman is right, he did confirm the post was From him on his twitter. And here on Voat where we are against censorship, the man has a right to defend himself if you are going to let post after post attack him.
Edit: whether or not you believe he is a shill, does not mean he cant defend himself. He does have a job that relies on the veracity of his claims, and he should be allowed to defend both his career and his claims.
V____Z ago
I said the same thing, posting yet more proof that it is him, and that too was deleted... BY MF! Voat is massively compromised. Allows hit pieces on David Seaman, but not his response
Vindicator ago
Moderators have to remove dozens of shitposts from here every day; expecting them to be hanging out on twitter is unrealistic.
Also, Mr. Seaman is welcome to defend himself in the comment section of any and every post he wants to. He is free to explain or debunk any concern about him expressed by a Voater at any time. The opportunity to have that dialogue in order to get to the truth is why moderators volunteer hours of their free time daily to keep this subverse open and functioning.
If we ever hope to drain the swamp our once democratic republic has become, we need to be able to freely critique our leaders and public figures and have an open dialogue. The fact that Mr. Seaman and many who follow him would rather wage ad hominem attacks against Voat moderators for holding him to submission requirements we require everyone to meet is telling.
NotHereForPizza ago
Well, it looks like you guys need to document everything to prove it to us.
What's the next step for you guys? Unfortunately, although quite taxing, prove him wrong by documenting the fuck out of everything.
Want the community to stay on your side? Bust your asses and make him look like a fool, instead of sending walls of text back and forth, arguing with the community.
You've made fair points for the most part. Don't misunderstand. My trust is waning with Seaman. But, I think the mod team has to shoulder the burden of proof. It's your platform he's using, after all.
Please, please, prove me and him wrong.
Vindicator ago
NotHere, prove what to you? That moderators are fair? That moderators are not "compromised"?
Everything we do here on Voat is open for all to see: removed submissions, comment histories, ratio of upvoats to downvoats. @David_Seaman is the author of his own problems. All we have done is allow posts that satisfy submission guidelines, and remove those that do not. Seaman did not follow the submission guidelines by linking to anything to support the claims made in the headlines of his posts, the most basic rule of this subverse. His headline was "David Seaman Here." Millennial_Falcon removed his post like he has done to hundreds of others for the same reason, and asked him to repost with a link that supported that claim. Seaman provided no link. He added more unsourced discussion of a tweet, a single line of text. Posts that fail Rule 4 -- unsourced discussion -- are easy to see because they are walls of text with no blue links -- exactly what Seaman reposted. So, Falcon removed it again, in the midst of the typical morning shitpost street-sweeping effort.
Seaman's post wasn't the only one that failed to meet submission guidelines, by the way. Neither did the the piece critiquing him the first time it was posted last night, with a headline claiming he was a "Likely Mossad Asset". I removed it. The Voater reposted an edited version that complied with the guidelines, and it stayed. We applied the same standards to both parties.
As @Kevdude and @Crensch will attest, it is not our job as moderators to remove posts because the subject discussed in them might think them "unfair." If the claims made by the post are linked to supporting evidence and satisfy all the submission guidelines, we must leave them up due to Voat's minimal-moderation anti-censorship policy. It's up to users to challenge one-sided or false-premise or poorly supported arguments in comments and with downvoats. That's how it is here. If one side doesn't want to invest the effort to defend its point of view, including by following the submission guidelines, then the other side will stand unopposed. For better or worse, that's how the system is set up.
Crensch ago
Fucking well said, old boy.
NotHereForPizza ago
We can go back and forth on this as much as you want.
Like I said in the beginning, the way to defend yourself is making a stickied post outlining everything in a complied, neat little post.
Hold our hand through it if you have to. I don't think there's much wrong in urging you to go beyond the call of duty. It might seem backwards. I understand that, but your best defense is still gonna be going out of your way to prove him wrong. This back and forth between you and I will do nothing to maintain your credibility. This isn't a discussion you and I should be having, it's a discussion you and Voat should be having.
As a side note: I find it extremely contradicting that most people here are against censorship, but when I insist that the moderation team be transparent, even so far as to make a case for themselves using their moderation powers to make a post devoted to doing so, instead of sitting in the comments arguing with people, I see people jumping down my throat. My only point was to keep them honest. Also, it's certainly unwelcoming that you would bring other people into this with the sole intent of attacking my character. My claims are in no way invalid because of my recent participation. It's pretty telling, if anything, that people are now trying to shut me up.
Crensch ago
3-day-old username with 8ccp telling us what to do, and what our community will do...
You are MASSIVELY insignificant.
NotHereForPizza ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Crensch ago
That's only when it's a fallacy. You are, quite literally, insignificant here. You're a troll or sockpuppet account whose comfort and consideration here is worth precisely dick.
NotHereForPizza ago
I understand you think that. But, argumentum ad hominem is about claiming an argument doesn't have merit due to the character of the individual who purposed the argument.
I don't care what you or the rest of the community thinks of me, I'm here to help all of us come to honest conclusions about a given argument. If that upsets you, fine.
Crensch ago
Your concerns have no merit because you fit the profile of every concern troll out there. As such, welcome to the internet where that's not a fallacy.
...claims every troll fuck I've come across here.
wecanhelp ago
Aren't the links to his two posts enough documentation for you of him failing to post a link to his identity verification?
Isn't it telling that instead of simply doing that, he goes out of his way to smear /v/pizzagate moderators both on Twitter and YouTube, with a screenshot of a private message to a moderator that he himself admits to have never sent after all?
NotHereForPizza ago
He didn't follow the rules - suck it up. You're better off ignoring what he has to say.
Make a new post and sticky it. Make the title: "Exposing David Seaman" or whatever you want. But, in the post include his argument, your argument, and then provide the documentation to back it up. You're wasting your time waging war in the comment sections. If you're going to moderate, moderate. Don't bicker, it's a direct betrayal to everyone involved in this situation at every level.
At some point, someone has to should the responsibility of going through and proving it at every stage. Your mistake (if you keep ignoring it) will be not doing it first, especially if you keep dodging the opportunity to definitively prove yourself and instead continue this arbitrary bickering. Take the high road.
wecanhelp ago
I don't see this as bickering. This is not your everyday rule-violating post that gets deleted and then that's it. He has tried smearing the mod team on two platforms, with a 100k+ following on each. As I see it, we need to address his points and then let the public decide for themselves. But if we don't react, then only his side of the story gets heard.
NotHereForPizza ago
Great. That's the exact thing I've encouraged you to do!
Maybe I'll be more convinced that you maintain any integrity you once had when you actually fulfill that though, because, as of right now, you're still parroting the same shit I've seen from every other mod. If anything, that seems coordinated.
Though, I'd love it if you'd help me be less skeptical.
Millennial_Falcon ago
Again, after I saw his tweets, I asked him to repost.
eiggaMAD ago
Tbh it wasn't even your responsibility to seek out his tweets. Honestly even if you saw them but he didn't provide them to you you really could have not reposted his shit. So good on you for being a decent person, sorry people suck.