David Seaman smearing Voat? (pizzagate)

submitted ago by Millennial_Falcon

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.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

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.

Millennial_Falcon ago

You're showing your colors here. Why are you stirring up trouble and division

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

...claims every troll fuck I've come across here.