I agree, every post should have text.

Some advice to those that want to:

• Share important information

• Debut a featured link or video

• Be an AWESOME Voat contributor

USE MARKDOWN SYNTAX <-go ahead... click it.

...or be this guy

Everyone please don't forget... https://i.imgflip.com/1plws8.jpg

Edit: Relevant to PG because we need VOAT in order to continue sharing research on PG...plus supporting free speech is a good thing.

or it was added, but there is now a "sourced" in front of "activism".

There has always been a "sourced" in front of "activism". You are implying nefarious bullshit on the part of mods instead of taking responsibility for your own tendency to jump to conclusions and read what your "Reddit cancer mod" bias puts in front of your eyes. I hope you don't manage people IRL; you suck at it.

I think if you review my comment history, you will see that I do in fact appreciate having transparent community-wide discussion. Cite one example of me EVER advocating or doing anything else. This is a baseless claim.

On the contrary:

• https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1878826/9225341
• https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1875803/9207450
• https://voat.co/v/pizzagatemods/1825982/9225560
• https://voat.co/v/pizzagatemods/1834908/9023283
• https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1875885/9201734
• https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1872570/9185151
• https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1871311/9184741
• https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1860810/9112814

I have no problem with it at all and thought that's what we were doing. No interest whatsoever in "encouragement meta pieces" and haven't heard anyone else express a desire for such, either.

@Crensch @VictorSteinerDavion

Rule 4 has been made much more clear. (It isn't really a rule, so much as it is directing where to post certain posts that don't pass Rule 1). It also specifies that memes and sourced activism/publicity posts are now allowed.

Please link to where the community asked for this change. I am not saying I disagree. If there was a feedback thread I would vote FOR this. BUT I find it troublesome that you decided on your own as 2-3 people to make this decision for a sub of 14k+ with 1k active at any given time.

Clarification and condensing is one think. Substantively altering and/or adding rules is another.

Rule 4 hasn't been changed -- merely clarified. The emphasis on the undefined term "meta" caused a lot of user frustration. It wasn't helpful. The new version says the same thing in a less abstract way.

Adding the reminder about memes and activism/publicity posts did not involve any rule changes. In this sticky, after mounting anger from many longtime users whose unsourced discussion posts about organizing protests and petitions were removed, we tried to show users how to make these types of posts in a way that satisfied the submission rules.

As you can see from the comments in that thread, this rule clarification was welcomed. Again, it was a response to the overall concerns and frustrations expressed by a majority of those we had interacted with in Comments.

This example represents about 1 out of every 20 link posts, unfortunately.

AWESOME

It also specifies that memes and sourced activism/publicity posts are now allowed.

So its common for important subverses either here or reddit to COMPLETLY HIDE the links to share posts or discussions on the front page?

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1902603/9355016

check out the new sidebar and the sticky. The (M)s have seemingly become an insulated IRC group.

This is not something I want, and I think action needs to be taken to address this all to common trend.

I agree completely, and unlike reddit, we have recourse here to address the issue

I've been aware of this request for change for a small while and in modmail I agreed with the sentiment.
I didn't approve or disapprove of the rule change itself, but I can agree with the reasoning.

There apparently has been discussion offsite in a matrix chat, which I personally did not participate in (due to risk of identification).

I don't really have an issue with the change itself as stands.

I'm thinking on how to encourage everything to be contained within the site/verse/meta discussion verse itself but unfortunately the voat tools are a bit wanting and I'm not sure of the specifics of how it would play out.

Something I've noticed is each wave of new members comes with a 'muh rules change' churn and we get a new kerfuffle about this very issue, but a fraction of a fraction of the community participate in any meaningful way on the discussion of rules.
It usually devolves into 'modz are shills lolz' comments and nothing really gets done.

That's why I didn't really mind the mods taking on this one themselves, mostly to see how it all plays out in the community.

I don't want to encourage a passive community that simply rolls over and accepts mod decrees, but I also don't want endless rule change churn that removes energy for why the sub even exists.
Constant pestering to change the rules is also a tactic to create mod exhaustion from those that would like this to quietly die off, and we have to be forever vigilant of the myriad ways forums are silenced.

I think the first step is to enforce all mod chatter to be in site, in channel - but I can't also force people to use a high friction system to work out how to run this nightmare.

I think encouraging more use of the meta-verse's like v/pizzagatemods is a way to start, I'm interested in what the people who actually do the work of moderation think about this.

Ahh (((Manufactured Consensus))) at its finest.

The most Draconian rules I have ever seen.

Thanks Mod Team, and for all your hard work.

I like that the link post has been disabled and feel it'll help those who don't understand why their posts have been removed and become antsy. It's often unknown to the posters that pasting a link with no description means a deletion. This disheartened a lot of posters I feel, so this is an improvement.

Descriptions with links is good practice anyway and I'm for that.

The title rule I'm unsure about, as it could be open to interpretation whether something is pg related. However as I understand it, if posters write an argument in the description of how their post relates to PG it'll be allowed, is that correct, mods?

Thanks again

Just my two cents: During all my investigations here, I've rarely run into a useful link post. There aere few exceptions, but even those would have been better with some connecting the dots in the post, so my support goes for "Discussions only". Also, it's just as easy, compared to "write a topic and a paste a link". You can do that in a discussion post too.

Thank you for clarifying, Mods. Thanks for everything.

The rule 1 has taken a huge jump for better, so first I want to say big thanks. But... sorry for nitpicking, the work seems to be in half way, and this has actually bothered me for long:

Please describe "elites"

1. Is it defined by wealth and/or power and/or influence and/or publicity and/or position, also noting the level:
   e.g.: town something - city something - state something - national something - global something
2. Where's the bar in positions?
   e.g.: teacher - principal - member of the board - owner of the building - member of related financing organization - president of...
   e.g.: cleric - priest - bishop - archbishop - cardinal - The Pope - and again the related organization stuff...
3. Is one person enough?
4. Is a connection to one enough? How close connection would do?

...as these questions are obviously difficult to answer by anyone, I'd suggest jst dropping "elites" and replacing it with "crime rings with remarkable influence on at least local level" or something like that (The best replacement should actually be discussed, voted or something)

ps. I think I should add how I personally understand "elite"... For me, it doesn't include spiritual aspects (church/cult etc) and it's something having influence on at least city wide level (local boards deciding for constructions etc) up to global influence. I also see a strong financial aspect connected to it, but not limited to economics. In overall, my understanding varies depending on the perspective in question (there could be "elite" person or group in a company, having influence only for the employees of that company). Difficult...

I didnt dispute that part, and it still proves my point fuckwit.

pizzagate is about drug smuggling and another thing panda is code for cocaine all my info i have gets me ban from all websites even this one so i know what i have is true im not giving fake shit out i can't post on twitter reddit facebook and all the chans.

i repeat pizzagate is about using kids for smuggling drugs

What if everythings safe at your work because you don't work with a bunch of pussies?

pizza gate is a drug smuggling ring and you guys deleted my post all the chans ban me for my post twitter ban for my post facebook ban me for my post.

Have mercy, I cant keep up. :-)

Then that just means all mods are shills observing the awful moderating of v/pizzagate. Apparently sensitive deletes so much he can't keep track, NICE DEFENSE LOL

And I explained that already to @DonKeyhote ...

Yesterday Milennial faggot deleted my thread and when i replied to the message with a fuck you he responded as u/sensitive XD

Hey pizzagaters, please hit me up when those "imminent" pizzagate arrests finally happen ok?

It would be a bad idea to make exceptions. We will explain when deleting, though, pointing out the amended rules.

Mods, is there a way to set strict ground rules for headings? so sick of click bait crap, ie "discovered something new" etc

Thank you!

Regarding new rules: Rules are OK, just a reminder to those posting to double check and triple check your headings because they cannot be edited. Your poor grammar or bad spelling will haunt your post forever. Additionally, good descriptions entice more readers and also make searches in the future easier.

Regarding your other stickies: how does one donate to voat by credit card. I have no idea what bitcoin is about and I'm uncomfortable with any such thing.