You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

sensitive ago

@NotHereForPizza, this post is very valuable to the Pizzagate investigation and has the potential to bring it forward / on track again.

NotHereForPizza ago

I'm not denying that. You're dodging the argument.

This is meta discussion.

sensitive ago

Mods have a certain degree of interpretating the rules. In this case, the helpfulness to the investigation is greater than this concern, don't you agree?

NotHereForPizza ago

I agree that rules are rules and that those who don't follow the rules don't belong here.

In fact, I believe the mods should be held to a higher standard due to the abilities they have which shape the way we view this platform.

I don't like this diplomatic shit. You're dancing around this situation, and that's quite worrying to me.

Remove this post. It doesn't follow the rules. Aren't you a janitor?

privatepizza ago

I believe it follows the rules.

  • Rule 1 - ALL submissions should be directly related to Pizzagate

Covered in OP

  • Rule 2 - EVERY claim that is made as part of your post needs to be sourced

Covered in OP

  • Rule 3 - LINK posts (VIDEO, IMAGE, ARTICLE, etc.) all need to include an accurate description of the actual content.

Covered in OP

  • Rule 4 - META submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed

Description of issue and example given in OP (link)

  • Rule 5 - Standalone MEMES will be removed.

This is not a meme

  • Rule 6 - NSFW submissions (gore, nudity, etc.) must be labeled as such

This is not NSFW

NotHereForPizza ago

This is very binary.

Let's read what wikipedia defines as meta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta

It typically has to do with self-reflection. You're showing us how to make good posts, you're not adding to the investigation from a research perspective. This post is discussing how to discuss the subject.

v/pizzagatewhatever was created for this reason

We can't encourage the mods to let this slide by letting it go ourselves.

privatepizza ago

Regardless what FuckwitAPedia says, (I can't believe you're citing this source?!), it is important to the investigation and covers all the rules. imo if you're for this investigation, you would see the benefit in the post for others, and not be pulling teeth about semantics.

NotHereForPizza ago

Haha you can keep repeating it if you want, and it still won't be true.

Wikipedia compiles different sources from all over the web. Anyone can edit a page, that's true. But, to say that the few things that people do change spoils all of the valuable information on the site is utterly irresponsible. Careful of the compositional fallacy here. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/composition/

Also, saying I'm either for you or against you because of this (which you claim is semantics, which I claim you're simply not following the rules) is entirely laughable.

I'm certain people won't fall for such basic attempts at persuasion.

privatepizza ago

Whatever dude, go talk semantics and Wikipedia somewhere else. imo if you are with the investigation here you'd see the value of this post. It's essence is to advise and help people posting important info here. If you can't see that, GTFO.

NotHereForPizza ago

Man, you suck at this.

You've never actually disagreed that this is meta discussion. Even the mod gave up on me, and is just going to ignore me until this blows over while these threads wasting everyone's time slide the real shit.

You're all so obvious.

privatepizza ago

Um... what are you actually getting at? That this is a meta discussion? Meta discussions don't include links as far as I can tell. That way, with links, one gets around the rules and the post has to stay up. That's a meta discussion per PG Voat. So I'm letting people know how to get around the rules. What's your beef and why are you so against this? I'm sorry, I don't understand your motives here.

NotHereForPizza ago

Basically, the fact that you're trying to circumvent the rules. I'm glad we finally understand each other.

privatepizza ago

Indeed, thanks for this. I'm attempting to help the people within our group, to enable their important posts to say up. Thanks.

NotHereForPizza ago

Actually, what you're doing is signaling so that people know how to circumvent the rules, as stated here:

That way, with links, one gets around the rules and the post has to stay up. That's a meta discussion per PG Voat. So I'm letting people know how to get around the rules.

@kingkongwaswrong @Crensch @VictorSteinerDavion @Millennial_Falcon @wecanhelp

One of you has to be reasonable here. Even if my reasoning is flawed, I'm just an annoying douche, or whatever else you might come up with, this guy literally admitted that he's trying to get around the rules. I'm still a little confident that you're not fucking with me. Anyone care to prove me wrong?

Crensch ago

Actually, what you're doing is signaling so that people know how to circumvent the rules, as stated here:

The people out to destroy this place are already well aware of how to have a post stay up here. It IS the people new here that are not following the rules.

The mods are not narrative police, the rules are there to help the users not have to trawl through every troll shitpost some idiot from sbbh wants to post here. Follow the rules, or get your post removed.

NotHereForPizza ago

I'm glad we see eye to eye on this.

So, you're going to remove the post, right?

Crensch ago

No. As an [O], I'm mostly here to take care of the mods acting up, and deal with some of the bigger issues. The mods [M] tend to be the keepers of the day-to-day here, as I do my best to keep my distance for myriad reasons.

As it stands, one former mod/janitor who left of her own accord, and one janitor found this to be OK, and I have no idea if it was discussed with other mods, or was a sticky at some point, either of which would indeed supersede the normal rules of the subverse.

NotHereForPizza ago

Yeah, let's read that one more time:

So I'm letting people know how to get around the rules. https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1780973/8723870

This is literally a person saying they are telling other people how to get around the rules. You actually just responded with:

As an [O], I'm mostly here to take care of the mods acting up, https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1780973/8730387

@sensitive (janitor, not a mod) was the one to challenge this. If you're going to make the above statement, while ignoring the first quoted statement above, you're honestly challenging any shred of integrity I was under the impression you had prior to this.

I get it, this took a lot of acrobatics, but I hope everyone can see the point here.

Let me break it down for anyone willing to check this out: The entire time I've maintained the same, rather simple position: this post doesn't follow the rules. Before, I wanted to stick this discussion out because I knew after @sensitive came into the conversation, it was going down the shitter. @privatepizza doesn't defend him/herself. (S)he simply makes accusations like:

if you are with the investigation here you'd see the value of this post. It's essence is to advise and help people posting important info here.

Not only does this attack my character, it deflects the argument and leads us to a diluted conclusion which straw mans my argument. This person is literally saying, "if you're not with us you're against us" because my claim is that this topic is meta discussion, despite whether or not privatepizza or sensitive think this is a semantics argument, and therefore it's against the rules. If I'm in the wrong, and sensitive thinks it's okay to be lenient on certain aspects of certain rules, then we need to hammer down the definition of meta so this doesn't happen in the future.

Let me make this crystal clear: My position is that this is meta discussion, plain and simple. Their position has turned into a semantics discussion. This is very awkward, because semantics should be my argument. If they didn't agree it's meta, they shouldn't care about it's various uses or meanings, it shouldn't be vague like that. Their argument would be much stronger if it were along the lines of, "This isn't meta because of X." They wouldn't need to fall back on challenging the meaning of my language if it was clear enough that this argument didn't need to be had. Let's check out these definitions below:

----- http://www.fitz-claridge.com/?q=node/18 http://www.fitz-claridge.com/?q=node/18 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-discussion http://www.liquisearch.com/meta-discussion/examples ----

Everyone deserves to be held to the same standards (even more so, the mods), especially when it comes to organization being almost necessary due to the sensitivity involved in the subject matter here. Don't play games with me, or the rest of the community. We don't deserve posts like this or @abortionburger resigning as a mod being on the front page. We don't deserve the luxury of her drama, and the audacity it takes for you or other members of the community to endorse this behavior is not only alarming, it's unacceptable and down right irresponsible. The thought that this sub/site might be compromised never bothered me before, but the fact that I'm seeing this shit for multiple days in a row now only because "omg my feelings!" is the rather disappointing. You're all better than this.

As an addendum:

Funny you covered your tracks:

one former mod/janitor who left of her own accord

And it just so happens to be the one that left.... the same day of this post.

or was a sticky at some point

Huh... that's weird. I seem to recall @abortionburger herself making this post. As you said, conveniently, that's precisely what she did. Isn't it fucking strange that the two cases you mentioned not only happened to be covered because she left, it all happened to occur on the same damn day?

Quit fucking with me, Crensch. I don't appreciate this. You're making me go out of my way now, and all that's going to do is make it a lot more difficult on both of us during my stay here. This shouldn't take so much discussion. This is very much black and white.

privatepizza ago

Dude, I don't need to defend myself to you. I suggest you get a life.

Crensch ago

Quit fucking with me, Crensch. I don't appreciate this. You're making me go out of my way now, and all that's going to do is make it a lot more difficult on both of us during my stay here.

Nothing about any of this will make anything more difficult for me.

All these conspiraconnections you're making have fuck-all to do with me. You might be right about things not connected to me, but all these supposed convenient coincidences only exist because they're fucking coincidences - not because I'm some mastermind pulling strings on you all.

In fact, maybe they are all about someone pulling the strings - whoever is paying you, or whoever is goading you into posting and having an issue in the first place at this very moment. Or maybe it's you who's the mastermind?

See how easy it is to play that game?

NotHereForPizza ago

Oh, I've been far too consistent for anything like that to give me any concern.

This is black and white in my eyes, and at some point it needs to be addressed. If you don't want to deal with it now, I can guarantee it will come up later.

Besides I can't hardly agree with that. Like I said:

Everyone deserves to be held to the same standards (even more so, the mods), especially when it comes to organization being almost necessary due to the sensitivity involved in the subject matter here. Don't play games with me, or the rest of the community. We don't deserve posts like this or @abortionburger resigning as a mod being on the front page. We don't deserve the luxury of her drama, and the audacity it takes for you or other members of the community to endorse this behavior is not only alarming, it's unacceptable and down right irresponsible. The thought that this sub/site might be compromised never bothered me before, but the fact that I'm seeing this shit for multiple days in a row now only because "omg my feelings!" is the rather disappointing. You're all better than this.

You're an owner of the sub, and the fact that you brush off a concern like this is troubling. As I said, if it was any other member of the community this wouldn't matter for shit.

Crensch ago

Oh, I've been far too consistent for anything like that to give me any concern.

I don't believe you, 1-month-old account.

I'm done entertaining your responses. I don't trust that you're not a shareblue shill, and you're wasting my time.

NotHereForPizza ago

That's cute. We're still not discussing whether or not this is against the rules? It's even personal now?

All you have to fall back on is the age of my account? You know, it speaks volumes that you and everyone else that I've interacted with has simply dodged the argument.

Like I said, I'm extremely confident this will come up again. Ignore it now if you want to, get all mad at me and downvote everything if you want to. I'm going to stay, and certainly going to keep doing what I've always done. Go through my account history if you want. I'm certain that you and anyone else reviewing my posts will come to the same conclusion, and I'm more than certain you won't link me to shareblue. Nice try though.