@2impendingdoom, please add the https://voat.co/user/PizzagateBot/comments link to the body of your submission so mods don't have to take it down.

@nana66 @jangles @unicornsandsparkles @Criticalthinker615 @Jem777

He has not been banned from this subverse, although I did delete his comment in two threads and give him a warning about repeatedly violating the Voat User Agreement we are all bound by when he attempted to post a screenshot of a submission made -- and then deleted -- by Psychanaut. That submission was in violation of Voat's rules about sharing publicly identifiable personal information on Voat. Both of them put themselves at risk of a sitewide ban because of it.*

PizzagateBot, it should be noted, attempted to use Voat's "comments are sacrosanct" norm as cover for ignoring the sitewide rules. He could have made a post examining and debunking Psychanaut's submissions, or Kim Holleman's Quora articles. Instead, he spammed submissions he didn't like with hostile comments, escalating to this doxing incident which violated the User Agreement. Comments in those two threads make it clear that he and other users were surprised their efforts had failed to censor Psychanaut's free speech.

Whatever your opinion of Psychanaut, the attempts to shut down a user should make you pause. I have received a number of DMs from users who discovered their comment histories were being archived by someone documenting everything they post. Two were doxed and had to shut down their accounts.

Also, since PizzagateBot began auto-archiving posts, users themselves have grown quite lax about archiving. If he deletes his account, all of his comments will be permanently erased.

Other than the doxing comments I removed (which were separate comments from the archiving bot-comments), PizzagateBot has not been censored in any way. He stopped archiving by his own choice, for unknown reasons.

*The User Agreement requires mods to remove content in violation of its terms:

Moderating a subverse is an unofficial, voluntary position. We reserve the right to revoke that position for any user at any time...When you receive notice that there is content that violates this user agreement on subverses you moderate, you agree to remove it.

Perhaps those with a legal background could chime in about what happens to a contract when the party issuing it fails to abide by its terms? I believe that nullifies it -- and possibly removes the indemnification it provides Voat protecting it from harm caused by its users.