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.
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.