A Few Clarifications of the Submission Rules (pizzagate)

submitted ago by Millennial_Falcon

Other important stickies:

Fully Sourced Executive Summary of Pizzagate Evidence

Seth Rich: Building a Case

Please Subscribe to /v/SethRich!

Update on the State of Voat from PuttItOut (please donate to Voat)

Hi all! We have made some minor clarifications and amendments to the submission rules. These changes include:

  • Language from the community-developed definition of Pizzagate has been included directly in the wording of Rule 1.

  • We have also included a link with examples of posts that do or do not pass Rule 1

  • Rule 2 now includes what was formerly a part of Rule 4 (all posts need at least one link)

  • The disabling of "share a link" posts (you can still post a link as a discussion post). The reason for disabling this option is to encourage good descriptions (i.e. attention to Rule 3), which often are not possible with the character limit for titles.

  • Clarification of Rule 3 to state that a good title must establish direct relevance to pizzagate.

  • Amendment of Rule 3 to require descriptions of unembedded links in posts. (It is much easier for users to make sense of a post if you tell us the significance of your links.)

  • 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.

  • Rule 5 (no standalone memes) has been axed, and rule 6 (NSFW posts must be labeled) has taken its place. Standalone memes are now allowed, so long as they support the investigation.

Let us know what you think about these changes!

Best,

The Mod Team

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

anonOpenPress ago

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...