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
view the rest of the comments →
VictorSteinerDavion ago
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.
Vindicator ago
I ask people to post their frustrated rule suggestions and proposals to v/pizzagatemods almost daily, every time I remove a post that should have been made there in the first place. Unfortunately, almost no one does, and posts there rarely get more than a couple of comments.
If there were a way to automatically subscribe everyone who subscribes to v/pizzagate to all of the sister-subs and include them in their Front Page Set, it would really help solve this problem.