You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

VictorSteinerDavion ago

After a quick skim it appears this post is a valid attempt to contribute and foster discussion of evidence etc.

If the other two posts were of this type they would not have been deleted.

Millennial_Falcon ago

No, this is Amalek and like most of his posts, it's incoherent. Read it and see if you can make sense of it.

VictorSteinerDavion ago

I actually agree, the formatting is almost identical to others made.

But rule of socks applies and I have to evaluate it within the constraints of each unique account is not troll until proven otherwise.

Don't misconstrue my comment as some kind of overriding status or having any more authority as your own, your well within your rights to treat it as you see fit, especially considering you're doing the bulk of the work round here.
When I declare things authoritatively I'll use the distinguish tag to make the [M] appear. Otherwise I'm just a normal community member.

It sucks, but sometimes I have to lay out bait to make the trolls surface, the next wave of "drama" is due in a few days and this is part of the canary testing that helps me link all the socks together.
The banhammer will probably see some action in the next weeks.

Vindicator ago

@Millennial_Falcon & VSD:

This is definitely a "baffle with bullshit" Amalek post aimed at delegitimizing the ruleset and mods by presenting tantalizing but impossible to fully understand information that mods will delete. What I've noticed about these posts is that they very long, with many links and details, yet lack a clearly stated premise and make numerous vague, implied claims which are difficult to vet. They make a serious of leaps in logic between things with no clear connection. They are designed to trigger deletions by mods, and rely on users finding them in removed submissions but being too lazy to verify the claims and the links supporting them. Example:

The company discussed is Joule Unlimited which seems to be the same company as Unlimited Joules of MIT "I studied at MIT," Podesta explains, "but, uh, I didn't bother to take computer science."

The "Unlimited Joules of MIT" link simply goes to the Wikipedia page for Joule Unlimited, so it does not support the IMPLIED claim that there is any connection to MIT, or Podesta's time there.

Many users see through these types of posts. Many others, sucked in by the tantalizing bits but unable to untangle the meaning of the post, react with outrage when they are deleted. I have noted, as we saw in the recent post to v/pizzagatemods, that the person(s) who makes these posts comes back months later under an alt and cites them to bitch about mods, Voat (usually with a reference to Peter Thiel) or the ruleset.

Perhaps the best way to put an end to them is to flair them as Disinfo and make a comment pointing out the problems with the post. This is more time consuming, but it disrupts the narrative completely. It also educates users, shows mods are on task, and exposes the ass who posted it as no friend of v/pizzagate. Two such posts from the same user wins a ban.

Regarding the sock puppet policy, VSD: Is it not safe to assume that anyone who deliberately finds a removed submission and reposts it is showing a pattern of disregard for the subverse submission rules? Why does it matter if it is a different username?

VictorSteinerDavion ago

I agree whole heartedly with the assessment.

Unfortunately I'm hoisted by own petard of requiring each user to be treated fairly until it's shown they are a sock.

I knew what the post was and who it was from as soon as I saw it (keeping in mind how inactive I am in terms of deleting posts).
But.
Being a new account I had to treat it as if it's a new user eager to contribute but making mistakes.
Instead of making Millenial the scapegoat, I deleted it myself, as a way of focusing any negative response towards me.

VSD: Is it not safe to assume that anyone who deliberately finds a removed submission and reposts it is showing a pattern of disregard for the subverse submission rules?

Yes and no.
The problem of false positives means we will eventually screw up a legitimate attempt.
Which means we have to figure a secondary method to indicate the nature of a post - tagging "wall of meaningless gibberish" (or something more appropriate) is a good way.

The individual(s) responsible for these posts are running on a rather obvious plan, which involve fatiguing the community to the point it fractures and dissolves in petty squabbling.
Much of what I've been doing lately is to put a pin in the balloon, which is intended to force the next steps from the disruptor ahead of when they planned.

A clarification for administration:
If a user reposts previously deleted content, with no modification or changes to the content of the post, it is to be assumed a sock. As such the post should be deleted and the user banned.

If a user reposts content that was previously deleted, but substantial effort has been made to make the post more in line with the rules it should be permitted within a grace period, or until it can be shown by the community to be another attempt to disrupt the community.

Posts containing formatting like the one on question here are to be deleted out of hand, without question and without recourse, no matter the age of the account posting.
The rubbish formatting in question is easily identifiable (we may need to link to the numerous examples).

It is the unfortunate truth of what we must do as mods to stop the infiltrators from gaining footholds, and the recent attempts to coerce other subs like ProtectVoat into forcing a subversion of the moderation team are illustrative of the methods we should continue to expect.

Vindicator ago

Thank you VERY much for your wise and measured response, for helping with the deletions, and for clarifying policy. I know how time-consuming it is. I am so glad that you and others at ProtectVoat are on top of this and have our backs! :-)

VictorSteinerDavion ago

Point of clarification:

I'm not "at protectvoat" or a user/support/detractor of that verse.

I've been accused before of being some kind of manchurian candidate to promote what that sub is about.
The number of times kevdude has been mislead into thinking v/pizzagate has some kind of core deep corruption makes it very difficult to maintain peaceable relations, but in the long run kevdude keeps a mainly level head and isn't a serial nut harasser.

It's a pity voat doesn't have an in house wiki to add all these declarations and addendum.
When and if the tools make it easier some effort should br applied to codifying all these commentaries into a readable structure.

Vindicator ago

Thanks for that clarification. TIL :-)

A wiki would be handy, for sure. It takes quite a bit of reading and lurking Comment histories to figure out who's who and what's what. I learn a little something more every day.

Another handy thing that would make it a lot easier to moderate v/pizzagate with more "peaceable relations" would be the ability to actually run a poll and assess the will of active contributors. The "post a sticky and hope people see it comment and up or downvoat" approach is a crap shoot at best.

birthdaysuit11 ago

I remember when these posts started to emerge. It was right after I posted the cryptome disinformationn, shill/troll documemt. It went through every single tactic CTR, shareblue, corporatists and intelligence agencies use to dillute discussion, prevent answers, confuse, discredit, emotionalize, etc. Even simple tactics like 'stir the pot', infiltration, and obsolete retoric propaganda, where sock puppets and shills contine to comment on how this thread is obsolete or of no use, or has gone to shit.


However, what you mentioned is also in thr shill handbook. Basically, after I posted this handbook/documentation so people like is could spot these shills, I got numerous messages in my inbox, not by friends or pizzagate contributers but by shills. Telling me how this will be put to good use.


Anyway, this tactic is where they post heap loads of disinfo, misinfo and real information in a disordered format, with unclear conclusions, or lack thereof in order to discredit and CONFUSED REAL RESEARCHERS from true information. It clutters the shit out of everything. I feel bad for these basement dweller shills.

Vindicator ago

Birthdaysuit, would you mind linking to that post of yours in a comment on the current sticky about Shareblue? I would like to round up those resources, partly for my own education.

birthdaysuit11 ago

Hi Vindicator, I deleted it so shills couldn't use it as a instruction sheet. Can I send it to you instead? I'll do that. There are dozens of pdf's many of which are legitamate intel documents.

Vindicator ago

Yep. Sounds perfect.

Millennial_Falcon ago

Hm, I had lately been of the opinion he is just a nutter. You monitor the chatter much more than I do, so perhaps you're right, but it could well be that all the angry comments he seems to incite are from his own sockpuppets. I know many of them are. I don't see how anyone in their right mind could read one of these posts and think it's saying anything sensible. Could be that he knows how to develop a following of mentally-off people, though. I just don't like the idea of allowing him to shit up the board just because some users (either complete fools or his own sockpuppets) seem to agree with him.

Vindicator ago

This was my point: I wonder if simply deleting his posts for rule violations isn't just another doorway to allowing him to shit up the board. When it is removed, without being exposed with a comment pointing out why it's a piece of steaming bullshit, it then sits, waiting in Removed Submissions, for the gullible, the irate, the ignorant and those who don't want to put any effort into thinking when confronted with messy, difficult to understand material and are open to suggestions, when their feelings are hurt due to their own post's removal, like "mean mods are compromised" to stumble across, confirming their worst fears.

Millennial_Falcon ago

How about deletion with a comment explaining how the post is logically incoherent?

Vindicator ago

Yep, that would do the trick. Especially with a disinfo flair as well. I think it's important to show that it's not just incoherent, it's dishonest.

Millennial_Falcon ago

k

birthdaysuit11 ago

That's like the perfect shill wet dream.

Vindicator ago

Indeed.

Vindicator ago

Good God, that was the worst paragraph I've ever written in my life.