You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Vindicator ago

I'd love that. We should also spell out the ban policy and add that to the rules at the same time. That was never done. If I just put up a sticky, though, MF is going to take it personally. I'm already stuck between a rock and a hard place with him as it is. Any suggestions? I doubt people will participate if Crensch does it, for fear of being Crensched, LOL. He's quick on the trigger.

Millennial_Falcon ago

99% of my bans have been Amalek alts, and the only point of those is to discourage him by making him have to complete captchas and create new account names and passwords. The rest have been people that were deliberately breaking rules in an antagonizing way. I would actually be fine with reversing every single existing ban, as I don't think they matter at this point (new accounts are free). I would prefer that to opening voting on an actual ban "policy." Think about it. Would we be simply defining what number of posts about a given topic within a specific amount of time by the same user constitutes spamming? And then how do you define whether it's a different topic or not? What if it's obvious that it's one person or a group of people maliciously spamming, but using different accounts and "different" topics? How do you objectively measure deliberateness, antagonism and maliciousness of rule-breaking posts? I've had plenty of rule-breaking posts complaining about mods where I didn't even think about banning, but others that were over-the-top and I where the poster was showing flagrant disregard for the rules, which obviously called for a ban. I don't like the idea of introducing a discussion about it. There are too many shills around would jump on the opportunity to stack the vote, and too many normal users will ignore the vote and the discussion entirely. I think this needs to be left to the combined right-brain and left-brain of actual mods, not turned into mob rule.

@kevdude, @Crensch

Vindicator ago

As for explaining deletions, I'm fine with it in cases where it isn't completely obvious just from naming the rule

The problem with just naming the rule, MF, is that half the users on here, maybe more than half, are on mobile and never even see the rules. And for those who do realize where to read the rules, it's almost never clear to them which part of the cited rule they screwed up. Even users who have been posting for a while. The rules are complex, especially Rule 1. Maybe wecanhelp could edit his mod tool plugin so that it quoted the exact part of the rule in question? I get that you don't want to take any more time than necessary. But the majority of posts are not being made by shills. They're made by decent folks, most of whom are not writers, trying to help bring the Cabal to justice. When their work is summarily deleted with nothing more than a rule number, it confirms everything the shills crow on about and leaves people even more deeply enraged than they were when they discovered pizzagate.

As for bans, 99% of my bans have been Amalek alts, and the only point of those is to discourage him by making him have to complete captchas and create new account names and passwords. The rest have been people that were deliberately breaking rules in an antagonizing way.

But then there are users like @TrishaUK who aren't good with computers or the Voat interface who had the misfortune of replying to one of the Amalek alts and ended up on your shill list and repeatedly banned even though a five minute perusal of their profile would reveal they are not shills. Although I unbanned her twice, she is now too afraid to make submissions in v/pizzagate and trigger your banhammer.

Is it really fair or wise to have no expressed ban policy?

TrishaUK was banned the day she submitted an important post and it left her unable to respond to Comments. Numerous other users who saw this could not undertand it, and concluded you were trying to silence her -- feeding right into the agenda of the Amalek alts you'd also banned. With no clear policy, there is no ruler to measure mod conduct against and people assume the worst.

TrishaUK ago

@Vindicator thanks for this write up. @Millennial_Falcon all I can say is that you knew I was not 'Amalek' because I have had many conversations/comments with you prior to you banning me. I was left thinking you do it, just because you have the authority to do it, and I am not savvy enough, computer wise, to know what to do about it. When I asked why you banned me, you didn't have the courtesy to respond to me. Well you have won. I rarely post anything anymore, last post a month ago, it takes time to research important information to type up in a post on voat and time to reply to comments, just to have it deleted, even though I want to still help the cause for the sake of the children. 🙁 Again Thank you @Vindicator for being such a great Moderator. 👍🏻 😀

Millennial_Falcon ago

I have had many conversations/comments with you prior to you banning me.

False.

When I asked why you banned me, you didn't have the courtesy to respond to me.

False. You never responded to me when I showed you this, other than to say "what the hell?" : https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2117259/10435332 How do you explain thanking Vindicator when he was helping SimonRothschild1? Hmmmm?

Well you have won.

You're playing the victim a bit too hard. (overacting)

it takes time to research important information to type up in a post on voat and time to reply to comments, just to have it deleted

Banning your account doesn't remove your posts, and as I've told you before, you can easily make a new account. Pretending to be "not computer savvy" seems like absurd cover story, an excuse to whine about being banned instead of even TRYING to explain the reply in the link above, or simply making a new account. You made your current account, and so you knew how to make another one. (But of course my belief is that you have hundreds of accounts.).

@Vindicator, you were the one who showed me the above comment of "hers" in the SimonRothschild1 thread in the first place. Odd to see you so up in arms about me acting on it.

TrishaUK ago

Well @Millennial_Falcon you are WRONG because I have ONLY this ONE voat account! Why would I want to make another account just because you felt like banning me 'because it pleases you'. I did nothing wrong, and I have tried to follow the Rules, if I make a mistake I admit it and try rectify it. Fyi, I am not a liar, and this is why I can admit I know little about computers and technology etc, it has nothing to do with sympathy. )I am a granny, not a tranny - reference to your snide comment "hers")

Millennial_Falcon ago

'because it pleases you'.

Why did you put this in quotes? I never said that or anything even close to that. Your assumption of bad faith is just further evidence to me you're lying. Why are you even still arguing? Your account is no longer banned! Aaaaaand you still haven't attempted to explain replying to Vindicator as if you were SimonRothschild1. That's all I'll be saying about this. You are not banned now, and I won't be banning you again, so you have nothing to complain about, but I won't be apologizing because I still don't believe you. You can't blame me because you refuse to even try to explain. You haven't denied writing that comment, either. @Vindicator

TrishaUK ago

Glad you won't ban me, I know I am not lying and thats all that matters to me. ( @Vindicator I still have no clue whats going on - But hey I will just zip it 🤐 for the sake of peace! )

Vindicator ago

Oh, for Christsake @Millennial_Falcon @TrishaUK!!!!!!! Y'all are doing it again! Trisha, I was quoting the Amalek shill, not MF. MF never said "because it pleases me". That was SimonRothschild. Everybody PPPPPLLLLLLEEEEEAAAAASSSSSEEEEE read comments in context in the thread and don't reply based on what shows up in your notifications! Pretty please?