I don't see a direct relevance to pizzagate. I scanned through it, and even tried to go through a second time to find the direct link. The equivalent of "something fucky" doesn't establish a direct relevance to pizzagate as defined in the sidebar.
In this case, you've got a member of the elite -- the mayor of Seattle -- having to resign over multiple underage sexual abuse allegations which were covered up by the justice system at the time -- who pushes back against the Progressive trashing of the city via homeless camps and then suddenly his past becomes relevant and he's out (i.e. as if PG blackmail engaged). I don't know how you could have a better example of directly related to PG! I see three direct connections, any ONE of which makes it legit:
The mayor of a major city is resigning for sexually abusing kids
The kids complained at the time, but the justice system covered it up
Suddenly, that "justice" system has revoked the mayor's Get Out of Jail Free pass for some reason -- potentially a prime example of the major theory of Pizzagate: that pedos are put in positions of power so they can be blackmailed
The OP documented everything he could find related to this situation and presented it to voaters with a "something stinks, but I don't know what" headline, and it gets deleted because he couldn't put all the pieces together himself or figure out how Voat formatting works. Tons of work down the toilet, from his point of view (most users don't realize how easy it is to repost things from Removed Submissions, or where to find it).
Plus, it really feeds the shill narrative that we're just a honeypot here.
It would be one thing if it had a few legit points and then a bunch of swiss-cheese argumentation pushing some retarded narrative with unrelated bits of unsourced information. We get tons of those disinfo posts. But this seemed to me like a serious attempt to round up all the available information on a PG related topic to try to get to the bottom of it with many eyeballs. Isn't that the whole point of this subverse?
It's a nice thought that people should post their works-in-progress on pgwhatever for collaboration, and then post a polished piece on the main board after the work has been done, but that's not how things actually function. No one subscribes to that sub so people don't see what's posted there unless they are pinged in specifically by the OP. Posts don't get more than a few eyeballs in that sub.
Expecting "works in progress" to be posted there first just kills the momentum -- especially when Voat is supposed to be an uncensored venue. It's just not intuitive for people. Instead of expecting v/pizzagate to be the internet's glossy, four-color, hardbound official Pizzagate encyclopedia, we would really be better off with a special, curated, separate sub for best-of-the-best PG research, and let the hashing out happen on the main sub with all the subscribers who want to get involved, IMHO.
I saw this post as a round-up or mega-thread so that people could try to put the pieces together.
Without expansion discussion by the OP it does not meet the threshold required by the rules.
Where in the rules is "expansion discussion" required? If that were true, no Share A Link post would ever be allowed. Nor would megathreads that consolidate multiple research posts into a single thread.
EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post
This post is basically a linkdump with no exposition.
I understand what you're driving at and I agree completely that a round up post would be great, I welcome it.
This post is not that.
This post is only linking to other posts already in the verse with no additional content or discussion added by the OP.
Nor would megathreads that consolidate multiple research posts into a single thread.
Megathreads usually involve the poster adding opinion or analysis in the main body of the post, creating a beginning point for people to discuss and comprehend the concepts behind the megathread.
All it would take to make this post pass the rules would be for it to have some shallow narrative about all the events linked and how they crease a greater mosaic we can all look at and think on.
This post is basically a linkdump with no exposition.
That isn't true, VSD. He gave every single link a one-line summary in what appeared to me to be a clear attempt to fulfill that requirement in the rules. There is nothing in the rules requiring "exposition" or "additional content" of linked material. We ask people to connect the dots if they make an argument -- but he's not pushing an argument or theory, he is wondering what theory might explain all the strange pieces of the mayor's story and trying to get collaborative help putting that together. Removing the post shut down the collaboration. It was on-topic, represented quite a bit of hard work (which MF acknowledged) and could have been left up without violating the rules in any major way. We could easily have asked him to edit it, rather than removing it. Instead, we have just given the shills more ammunition for their "Voat is compromised, you have no hope" attacks.
Not trying to be a dick, here. I would really like things to work better for everyone.
This post is basically a linkdump with no exposition.
That isn't true, VSD
I disagree and will continue to do so and repeat quoting a segment of rule 3:
EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post
.
There is nothing in the rules requiring "exposition" or "additional content" of linked material
This I interpret to be a different way of saying exposition - meaning a expansion of the concept within the link to clarify and summarise.
If this interpretation is not correct the rule needs clarification or removal.
he is wondering what theory might explain all the strange pieces of the mayor's story and trying to get collaborative help putting that together.
Which is why it's better content for whatever
We could easily have asked him to edit it,
Which is what I've been asking for all along
we have just given the shills more ammunition for their "Voat is compromised, you have no hope" attacks
Unfortunately no matter our actions this claim will always be leveled, even perfect conduct will inspire new levels of shilling.
Keep in mind my objective as a mod is not to curtail the editorial content of the sub - that is for [M] level mods who are (meant to be) more active.
My objective and goal is to ensure the moderation team is not corrupted by shills and the very people we're meant to be investigating.
If you feel strongly that this post (or future ones like it) should not be deleted you are well within your authority as a mod to repost the content yourself with an explanation and ping the original poster and to the mod that deleted it.
The ensuing discussion of the post's merits can exist within the public view of the community.
view the rest of the comments →
Crensch ago
And in rule 1 for the entire post:
Here's where I am currently, @kevdude @VictorSteinerDavion @Vindicator @Millennial_Falcon -
I don't see a direct relevance to pizzagate. I scanned through it, and even tried to go through a second time to find the direct link. The equivalent of "something fucky" doesn't establish a direct relevance to pizzagate as defined in the sidebar.
Did I miss something?
Vindicator ago
In this case, you've got a member of the elite -- the mayor of Seattle -- having to resign over multiple underage sexual abuse allegations which were covered up by the justice system at the time -- who pushes back against the Progressive trashing of the city via homeless camps and then suddenly his past becomes relevant and he's out (i.e. as if PG blackmail engaged). I don't know how you could have a better example of directly related to PG! I see three direct connections, any ONE of which makes it legit:
The OP documented everything he could find related to this situation and presented it to voaters with a "something stinks, but I don't know what" headline, and it gets deleted because he couldn't put all the pieces together himself or figure out how Voat formatting works. Tons of work down the toilet, from his point of view (most users don't realize how easy it is to repost things from Removed Submissions, or where to find it).
Plus, it really feeds the shill narrative that we're just a honeypot here.
It would be one thing if it had a few legit points and then a bunch of swiss-cheese argumentation pushing some retarded narrative with unrelated bits of unsourced information. We get tons of those disinfo posts. But this seemed to me like a serious attempt to round up all the available information on a PG related topic to try to get to the bottom of it with many eyeballs. Isn't that the whole point of this subverse?
It's a nice thought that people should post their works-in-progress on pgwhatever for collaboration, and then post a polished piece on the main board after the work has been done, but that's not how things actually function. No one subscribes to that sub so people don't see what's posted there unless they are pinged in specifically by the OP. Posts don't get more than a few eyeballs in that sub.
Expecting "works in progress" to be posted there first just kills the momentum -- especially when Voat is supposed to be an uncensored venue. It's just not intuitive for people. Instead of expecting v/pizzagate to be the internet's glossy, four-color, hardbound official Pizzagate encyclopedia, we would really be better off with a special, curated, separate sub for best-of-the-best PG research, and let the hashing out happen on the main sub with all the subscribers who want to get involved, IMHO.
@VictorSteinerDavion @Kevdude
VictorSteinerDavion ago
Referring to my comment below
This post itself is not about those things, this post is about links to other posts about those things.
Without expansion discussion by the OP it does not meet the threshold required by the rules.
Vindicator ago
I saw this post as a round-up or mega-thread so that people could try to put the pieces together.
Where in the rules is "expansion discussion" required? If that were true, no Share A Link post would ever be allowed. Nor would megathreads that consolidate multiple research posts into a single thread.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
This post is basically a linkdump with no exposition.
I understand what you're driving at and I agree completely that a round up post would be great, I welcome it.
This post is not that.
This post is only linking to other posts already in the verse with no additional content or discussion added by the OP.
Megathreads usually involve the poster adding opinion or analysis in the main body of the post, creating a beginning point for people to discuss and comprehend the concepts behind the megathread.
All it would take to make this post pass the rules would be for it to have some shallow narrative about all the events linked and how they crease a greater mosaic we can all look at and think on.
Vindicator ago
That isn't true, VSD. He gave every single link a one-line summary in what appeared to me to be a clear attempt to fulfill that requirement in the rules. There is nothing in the rules requiring "exposition" or "additional content" of linked material. We ask people to connect the dots if they make an argument -- but he's not pushing an argument or theory, he is wondering what theory might explain all the strange pieces of the mayor's story and trying to get collaborative help putting that together. Removing the post shut down the collaboration. It was on-topic, represented quite a bit of hard work (which MF acknowledged) and could have been left up without violating the rules in any major way. We could easily have asked him to edit it, rather than removing it. Instead, we have just given the shills more ammunition for their "Voat is compromised, you have no hope" attacks.
Not trying to be a dick, here. I would really like things to work better for everyone.
@Millennial_Falcon @Crensch @kevdude
VictorSteinerDavion ago
I disagree and will continue to do so and repeat quoting a segment of rule 3:
This I interpret to be a different way of saying exposition - meaning a expansion of the concept within the link to clarify and summarise.
If this interpretation is not correct the rule needs clarification or removal.
Which is why it's better content for whatever
Which is what I've been asking for all along
Unfortunately no matter our actions this claim will always be leveled, even perfect conduct will inspire new levels of shilling.
Keep in mind my objective as a mod is not to curtail the editorial content of the sub - that is for [M] level mods who are (meant to be) more active.
My objective and goal is to ensure the moderation team is not corrupted by shills and the very people we're meant to be investigating.
If you feel strongly that this post (or future ones like it) should not be deleted you are well within your authority as a mod to repost the content yourself with an explanation and ping the original poster and to the mod that deleted it.
The ensuing discussion of the post's merits can exist within the public view of the community.