*** Our usual sticky, the Executive Summary of Pizzagate Evidence, can be found in the sidebar and here. ***
There's been a great discussion over the past few weeks in v/pizzagatewhatever about what users would like to change in order to improve the functioning of this subverse, so we'd like to take an official poll to gauge sentiment. I will describe details here, and list individual proposals separately in the Comments below; please upvoat or downvoat each of them and/or leave a subcomment to voice your opinion on the matter.
Item #1: Should we turn on the 100 CCP Downvoat setting (Doesn't prevent shitposts; Removes us from being visible outside this sub)
The primary concern discussed is cutting down the number of shill and troll posts by limiting downvoats to those who have 100 Comment Contribution Points. Please be aware there was quite a bit of misinformation contained in that discussion. Here are the facts:
Kevdude explained to me how CCP works:
CCP are points we get for comments. The middle number at the top is your sitewide ccp. Once that hit 100 you can downvote. You can not downvote anywhere if you are under 100.
In the sidebar there is the minimum ccp to dv in a sub. That refers to your in-sub ccp which is ccp you generate on the comments you make in that sub. (which is why under that you see "your ccp for this sub"). That does not mean new users with 0 ccp can downvote. It just means tgat you don't have to generate points in the sub to dv there. If you raise the sub minimum 2 things happen. Users can no longer generate ccp for the sub and the sub is blocked from v/all.
@VieBleu characterized the 100 CCP limit to downvoat as a "figleaf" and implied it limits people's ability to submit material. The first point is accurate, the second is not.
To clarify: turning on this setting has NO IMPACT on the ability to submit or comment. It's main effect is to prevent our material from being seen outside this subverse (something many shills and several pedos who frequent this board would love to have happen!) and stop each of us from accruing Comment Contribution Points for our comments within this subverse. This could have the unintended effect of severely limiting those who primarily contribute to v/pizzagate! CCP is an important buffer -- if people downvoat your comments into the negatives, you lose the ability to comment. Organized downvoat brigades can effectively silence those with low CCP. Currently, SCP -- submission contribution points -- have no effect on the ability of your account to take action on Voat (other than demonstrating you are an actual contributor).
Based on this, I believe turning on the 100 CCP downvoat minimum would unnecessarily empower the shills and trolls -- the exact opposite of the intended effect, which is why @Crensch @Kevdude @VictorSteinerDavion and others who have been pinged about this have said no. However, because users have requested it, I am going to include it in this poll as item number one. Please make an informed vote.
Proposal #2: Turn on the "Only allow submissions from authorized users" feature & Authorize users who introduce themselves in new sister-sub
In the thread mentioned above, user @GoodGodKirk suggested we create a Pizzagate Introductions sister-sub, and close submissions to those who have not introduced themselves. I believe that would be FAR more effective and have less negative consequences for legit users than turning on the 100 CCP Downvoat option. However, it would require we stop allowing submissions from everyone until they make a post in the new subverse. The downside to this is that it would radically downthrottle content in the short term. This is a huge change and would need a demonstration of major support from the community, but could be a very interesting experiment! Please vote and comment below.
Include any thoughts you may have about how to get the most out of an intros sister-sub to hinder shills and support legit Pizzagoats. For example, before approving submitters, we could require they subscribe to all five (now six) sister subs -- so that stuff from v/pizzagatewhatever ends up on their front page and people aren't so reluctant to post speculative or unsourced stuff there.
Proposal #3: Change mods/owners (various ideas)
In VieBleu's threads, various ideas and proposals were put forward, including adding me as an O. I have mixed feelings about that and feel really weird putting it in a sticky. I am including it, though, because I said I would do this sticky based on what was discussed. Two new facts have come to light however since that thread that may make this a moot point:
Proposal #4: Revisit what is and isn't Rule 1 compliant (directly related to Pizzagate)
This topic has caused massive frustration for users and mods, and will require it's own sticky, as there are a number of issues and this could dramatically shift what is allowed to remain on the board. For now, please voat about whether we should discuss this, and leave a comment about why stuff that's removed now should be included, or why not, so those thoughts can be included in a future sticky.
Proposal #5: Hide the "Share a Link" button
The low effort required to post in v/pizzagate via Share a Link, as well as the inability to edit post headlines (Link posts are ONLY headlines) to satisfy the rest of the submission rules make this idea very attractive to mods. We have to take down numerous otherwise legit posts because people don't take the time to write a clear, accurate headline that explains how the link they are sharing is directly related to Pizzagate. We can't remove the functionality, but we can hide the button. This would go a long way toward reducing unnecessary post removals on technicalities.
Those are the five main proposals as I saw it. If I've missed any, please include them in the Comments below. Give them a headline like I have done (put a "#" with no space at the beginning of the headline, and a double carriage return after, some text describing why you think the change should be made, and ask people to vote on it.)
Edit: formatting
view the rest of the comments →
Vindicator ago
Proposal #3: Change mods/owners (various ideas)
Please vote and comment -- be specific about what you are voting for or against please
Silverlining ago
@Millennial_Falcon should be encouraged to resign. He spends hours here and adds nothing, just upsetting people.
I would be happy to resign ownership of https://voat.co/v/MillennialFalcon in his favor, if he leaves off moderating this subverse.
He would get his life back.
And @kingkongwaswrong might as well move on at the same time. Absentee landlords are so last century, if not the one before that!
Millennial_Falcon ago
pick one.
There are two kinds of people who get upset by my moderating. One is shills/trolls like Amalek. Another is paranoid types (a great recent example is @hojoruku) who think I'm trying to censor them because I ask them to take 2 minutes to add needed info to their post. Well, to be fair, there's a third issue. Some users simply don't understand that actual evidence is important and it gets buried and hidden if we allow the slippery slope of tons of barely-relevant posts.
equineluvr ago
Your INCONSISTENCY is frustrating, MF. You need to enforce the rules the same way for everyone instead of giving your buddies a break that others don't receive.
Millennial_Falcon ago
What buddies are you even talking about? I do enforce the rules as evenly as I reasonably can. There is a lot of gray area (particularly with Rule 1), as there is irreducible and unavoidable subjectivity. I try to follow the spirit of the law. Rule 2 and 3 violation are almost always easily fixable. Even Rule 1 violations are often fixable, but those are the ones where it is more subjective. Actual evidence indicating possible pedo elite activity ALWAYS stays up. That is the most important thing.
equineluvr ago
Everyone here knows who they are: DarkMath, Jem777, Jangles, and Dressage2. There may be others, but these four posters in particular I have seen several times.
Instead of IMMEDIATELY DELETING their submissions, you give them a "pat on the back" for their efforts, explain what the problem/violation(s) is/are, and give them an opportunity to rectify it/them.
Everyone else's submissions go straight into Deleted Submissions so they have to look there to find out what was wrong.
We have all seen this and talked about it, so please don't deny that you do this.
Millennial_Falcon ago
This is just flat-out false. DarkMath is banned. How is that a pat on the back? All of those accounts are in fact on my radar, since Amalek pings them onto his shitposts all the time. I don't give anyone special treatment. If your post breaks a rule, I just delete it and name the broken rule(s). That's all I have time for, but I also always work with people who message me directly or ping me (never been in habit of checking subverse mail). I am always happy to help people bring a post into compliance if it has potential, although the rules are not hard to understand.
ThePuppetShow ago
This is not true.. I've pinged you and messaged you on several occasions trying to get answers on why you deleted my post and was completly ignored. Here's an example..
ThePuppetShow ago
@crensch Do you want me to write this up for pizzagatemods or can you just evaluate it here? I'm sick of being called a shill by this mod. MF is blatantly lying here, I've never had a PM conversation with this person. I'm a bit leary because I feel like I'm already being targeted by this mod and this will certainly make it worse.