Before responding, take a moment to learn the history of the PG subverse here.
Once you've done that, understand that giving mods the ability to moderate based on their knowledge of the narrative invites mods that will steer the narrative using their mod tools.
You'll get mods that allow this:
The Rule 1 problem is the biggest problem in the subverse in my opinion. Tons of quality material like children being given hormone blockers at age 3, Planned Parenthood misleading children to believe that a person is not male/female at birth using the word "gender", organ harvesting, etc...
... and delete real PG leads.
The original idea of this subverse was to have a running ARCHIVE of everything, because no other place seemed to be safe to do so. Posts being constant links and re-links to known solid direct connections to PG with a new connection highlighted for others to look at and follow. After a while, parts of that should have gone into this sticky, and would be considered more or less canon for future leads.
The original idea of the RULES of this subverse was to keep everything in a very structured and easily-parsed format, allowing the mods to simply clean up the stuff that wasn't formatted properly, and didn't pass the direct-link muster. This would prevent the mods from pushing their own narrative, and allow them to keep the place clean enough so that both the new and the veteran could pick up the torch with relative ease.
Now to the discussion of the rule, and the possible changing of this entire subverse.
If you want a modification of any part of rule 1, state clearly the exact part(s) and justify your position.
view the rest of the comments →
Factfinder2 ago
I concur with @VictorSteinerDavion’s comment that use of the word “elites” is a problem. He suggests instead “those with authority and power, meaning; political, judicial, religious or corporate.”
That would be a start, but the entertainment/broadcast industry would need to be added. But even with that, people like James Alefantis and Jorge Puello would not be included. Add the hospitality industry, and you pick up Alefantis but still exclude Puello. To include him, you'd need to add child help organizations. And then there's the medical industry, fraternal organizations, the military, intelligence, the transportation industry, and on and on.
The point is, whenever you start listing, you're bound to miss something and you complicate the mods' job, not to mention limiting the scope of the research.
We need to face the reality that almost every facet of society today has the potential to harbor abusers because of the extreme infiltration that has taken place.
I'm in favor of combining Pizzagate and P Whatever because the division between them hampers research. It’s true that small-town pedo ring members aren't the ones in charge at the top, but they might be directed by string-pullers higher up, whether they are aware of being directed or not. A huge element of this is the possibility that some of the perps are mind-controlled patsies carrying out the dictates of an "invisible" hierachy.
Also, an abuser who has been caught victimizing his or her own child or a neighbor kid cannot realistically be deemed by us not to be involved in an organized ring. The fact that we don’t know about it yet doesn’t mean it’s not happening. We must remain open to the possibility if we’re serious about the research.
I think it's likely that many people who visit Pizzagate don't routinely visit P Whatever, and so connections that might have been useful are never made.
In my opinion, mods should not be censoring/deleting anything except obvious shillage and things that have nothing even tangentially to do with abuse or murder of children.
My proposal for the wording of Rule #1:
Relevance: The goal of Pizzagate research is to identify and expose the specific persons and organizations who are directly responsible at the highest levels for ordering and/or perpetrating the abuse and/or murder of children in the U.S. and globally.
Posts must be relevant to the goal of Pizzagate research and may include sourced information about conditions and circumstances that enable or have the potential to enable abuse as well as sourced information about perpetrators who are or have the potential to be abusing at the direction of others.
[edited for clarity]
The Pizzagate definition and examples of relevant posts would need to be modified.
Jem777 ago
I agree completely with the above information. The issue about sourcing also comes up because there are many whistleblowers on here who are trying to get information out without being directly linked. Some of us have been targeted and worse to silence us. The only way for us to help is dropping breadcrumbs. There are amongst us victims as well who are trying to leave information without being tracked. Many victims are so traumatized that even speaking is earth shattering much less putting together details of already fractured minds. We need these survivors. Some of us our them.
It would be great to have a sub for that purpose. I could moderate that and quickly determine what information should be funneled to investigators in this forum.
Factfinder2 ago
I agree that the factual claims sourcing requirement in Rule #2 as written might inhibit victims who want to come forward. We could simply drop the requirement for victims who are telling their stories, but that would assuredly increase the shill activity dramatically. Because some of them are put off by having to work at searching for a relevant source, the link requirement helps weed them out.
Still, I continue to believe that separating into different subverses hampers the research. I think Voat users should be the ones deciding the quality of posts, not mods, and most people don't visit other subverses.
Instead, we could smooth the path for victims to tell their stories by rewriting Rule #2. As it stands now, the rule doesn't actually prevent victims from coming forward. They can already link to any one of vast numbers of research papers and testimonies that have something in common with what they went through, but that should be explained in the rule.
Now it reads:
Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.
I propose we change it to this:
Factual Claims: EACH factual claim in a post that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If the post is a victim’s personal story with no direct source to link, it is permissible to provide a link that has something in common with the victim’s experience along with a note explaining the connection (for example, “I experienced something like this.”) If you ask a question, explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.
Vindicator ago
I like this tweak, Factfinder. It's a good addition.