I got online tonight and saw this post was left up, despite the fact that the OP does not bother to explain any connection to Pizzagate, and no connection is made in the linked article, either, which Rule 3 requires:
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate.
We delete dozens of posts a week and cite Rule 3 because they do not spell out how the material is directly related to child sex abuse by the global elite. We are required to consistently administer the rules. And yet we are tossing them out the window now because we don't want to "bow to political correctness"?
MF, in the comments, you say,
"The post is about a major Hollywood (Pedowood) Director, who even directed a movie about Pedowood pedophilia (Eyes Wide Shut). Hollywood is heavily run by Jewish men, so his comments could easily be read as a commentary on Pedowood. We can't bury pertinent facts just because it might kinda look bad."
I don't give two shits about "looking bad" or "political correctness." But I do care about being consistent.
So I just want to be clear: we are suddenly giving the benefit of the doubt to posts because we personally know they "could easily be read as a commentary on Pedowood."? We are no longer requiring direct relevance be SPELLED OUT for the sake of newbies? When did this rule change occur? Why was there no sticky so people could comment? Or has that procedure changed, too?
There is literally no way for me to do that. Only a subverse Owner or PuttItOut can prevent a Moderator from deleting posts, or unfairly leaving them up. Another M can do nothing.
Hierarchy is the only thing preventing you from have a bigger role? I've said before I'm more than ready for someone else to step into this role. Only reason I'm still doing it is nobody else will. Secondly, I really find it hard to believe that your concern about this post is not about optics. I think that's 99% of the impetus for concern here, but it's a relevant concern and a valid application of Rule 3. We don't need to obfuscate things and act like the Rules are purely logic-based and there's some mathematical formula for determining whether a post meets the Rules, and that I just did my math wrong or something. That's horsecrap. And I am NOT "running the sub into the ground." Some folks here need to do some meditation or something. It's gonna be OK, man.
Yes. The bin Talal post should have had the connection spelled out. It should have been removed per Rule 3.
Hierarchy is the only thing preventing you from have a bigger role? I've said before I'm more than ready for someone else to step into this role. Only reason I'm still doing it is nobody else will.
MF, I originally rearranged my whole schedule to make sure there were eyes on the board during the 10 to midnight W. Coast period and have many times been on here until 2am my time deleting hentai. I've dealt with multiple doxing incidents posted in the middle of the night, including abortionburger, becki percy, and Psychanaut. Since that shit died down, I have repeatedly asked if you would like me to take the morning shift from you several days a week, which you refused. You are hours ahead of me due to geographic location differences. If you get on first thing in the morning to mod, there is no way for me mod. It's already done. The posts are already deleted. Add to the time problem the fact that your understanding of Rule 1 is more restrictive than mine, and many posts I leave up you delete anyway. So, just how do you propose I take a greater role? There's no room for me to do more removals.
I have tried to do as much as I can with flairs, stickies, and trying to help people whose posts have been removed figure out how to fix them to satisfy the rules so they can be reposted. I've kept track of Voat development news and posted numerous stickies on the topic to combat user paranoia and shill whinging about Voat being compromised. I've tried to keep tabs on who is undermining the community and let you and @Crensch, @VictorSteinerDavion and @kevdude know. I have explained and defended your removals frequently and attempted to get us all working together as a team. I spent hours recruiting fresh blood for the mod team to take pressure off of you, recruiting 1stLantern, SethRich, and Honeybee_ and trying (and ultimately failing) to mitigate the frustrations of sensitive, gofuckyourself and 4|1.
So yes, there is nothing I can do to have a bigger role. It boggles my mind that you see yourself as the only person willing to moderate the subverse. All you have to do is LET someone else be responsible a couple of days a week and trust their decisions during the designated time period. But numerous mods have tried to help and left in frustration because you can't make room for anyone else. It's crazy.
I originally rearranged my whole schedule to make sure there were eyes on the board during the 10 to midnight W. Coast period and have many times been on here until 2am my time deleting hentai. I've dealt with multiple doxing incidents posted in the middle of the night, including abortionburger, becki percy, and Psychanaut.
And I appreciate all your work. My comments about doing most of the modding (i.e. removals) weren't meant to disregard the work you do but to respond who shills who have the nerve to call me lazy or act like I'm a tyrant, when I'm doing a thankless job that nobody else seems to want to do. I suppose in the future I should specify removals, so as not to disregard your own work.
All you have to do is LET someone else be responsible a couple of days a week and trust their decisions during the designated time period.
That's simply not true. I have repeatedly in the past ask you and other mods to help with finding and vetting new mods, but with limited results. I don't mean to be ungrateful; I'm just saying your time and that of others seems as limited (or moreso) than mine. You are the only one who has offered to help with removals lately, and it seemed like a somewhat reluctant offer and I felt it was unnecessary. If you're implying that others have left because I corrected them on something, that's just silly. New mods are going to have to have guidance. And if you felt I was driving people off, it would have been nice if you'd said so before, rather than bring it up obliquely now. It also seems ironic to hear you talking about trusting someone else's decisions in this context.
I have repeatedly asked if you would like me to take the morning shift from you several days a week, which you refused.
That doesn't ring true. I remember you offering one time recently, but it seemed to be in response to me being time-stressed. As I said, I'm not really time-stressed right now (hence why I readily agreed to start leaving removal explanations again), and I didn't want to put extra burden on you if you didn't really want it. If you really want to take more responsibility on, I'm happy with that.
However, that really has nothing to do with the Kubrick post. I simply felt it had obvious relevance to Pedowood (and it kinda does). I still believe your concern with that post was largely optics, and I would like you to acknowledge that. Acting as if the bin Talal post should clearly have been removed seems like you are stubbornly trying to stand firm in the position that Rule 3 removals are black-and-white, while really (other than Amalek's obvious schiz-posts) they are subjective and based on pragmatics (which is ok, because it's not a topic-killer; it's a fix and repost rule). We have had plenty of posts about bin Talal in connection to the deep state swamp, and we routinely allow major swamp-related posts.
I feel I should also address what sounds like some frustration with me removing posts you have left up. I don't think I have done that in a while, and I felt like we were pretty much on the same page with that. I feel there's a general lack of communication which has built up some frustration on your part, although I acknowledge that are probably some topic we have disagreed about that we never found a compromise on. If there's any you would like to revisit, I'm all ears.
hence why I readily agreed to start leaving removal explanations again
There is no circumstance where a mod that deletes a post has the ability to choose to not leave an explanation.
If you delete, there must be an explanation.
Not always a complex or detailed one, but one relevant to the post and which reflect the intent of the original poster.
If OP is troll, a snarky but appropriate deletion message is fine, if OP is trying to make an effort respect should be given to that effort.
Reasons for deleting content is not discretionary.
And to be absolutely clear, every moderator who has the power to delete posts is free to do so as they see fit and according to the rules.
If said moderators screw it up and don't improve the community will ask for removal and that removal will be granted.
There should not and will not be any further talk along the lines of "I didn't want to step on your toes".
If you're a mod you log in and moderate.
And to be absolutely clear, every moderator who has the power to delete posts is free to do so as they see fit and according to the rules. There should not and will not be any further talk along the lines of "I didn't want to step on your toes". If you're a mod you log in and moderate.
That has been my perspective on it. Hence why I have never been too worried about checking with Vindicator to see if he left something up intentionally or missed it or whatever. It is good for us to be somewhat on the same page though.
There is no circumstance where a mod that deletes a post has the ability to choose to not leave an explanation.
I have always indicated the rule that was broken, and I have always left explanation where I've felt it was appropriate. I have simply not always had the time, as the only daytime mod, to spell out an explanation when such seemed superfluous (such as for posts containing zero links), especially for obvious troll posts. I aim to be consistent about it going forward, though.
view the rest of the comments →
Vindicator ago
@VictorSteinerDavion @Crensch @kevdude @Millennial_Falcon
I got online tonight and saw this post was left up, despite the fact that the OP does not bother to explain any connection to Pizzagate, and no connection is made in the linked article, either, which Rule 3 requires:
We delete dozens of posts a week and cite Rule 3 because they do not spell out how the material is directly related to child sex abuse by the global elite. We are required to consistently administer the rules. And yet we are tossing them out the window now because we don't want to "bow to political correctness"?
MF, in the comments, you say,
I don't give two shits about "looking bad" or "political correctness." But I do care about being consistent.
So I just want to be clear: we are suddenly giving the benefit of the doubt to posts because we personally know they "could easily be read as a commentary on Pedowood."? We are no longer requiring direct relevance be SPELLED OUT for the sake of newbies? When did this rule change occur? Why was there no sticky so people could comment? Or has that procedure changed, too?
Please enlighten me.
gamepwn ago
Vindicator you need to take over this forum...it's being run to the ground...
Vindicator ago
There is literally no way for me to do that. Only a subverse Owner or PuttItOut can prevent a Moderator from deleting posts, or unfairly leaving them up. Another M can do nothing.
Millennial_Falcon ago
Hierarchy is the only thing preventing you from have a bigger role? I've said before I'm more than ready for someone else to step into this role. Only reason I'm still doing it is nobody else will. Secondly, I really find it hard to believe that your concern about this post is not about optics. I think that's 99% of the impetus for concern here, but it's a relevant concern and a valid application of Rule 3. We don't need to obfuscate things and act like the Rules are purely logic-based and there's some mathematical formula for determining whether a post meets the Rules, and that I just did my math wrong or something. That's horsecrap. And I am NOT "running the sub into the ground." Some folks here need to do some meditation or something. It's gonna be OK, man.
Vindicator ago
Yes. The bin Talal post should have had the connection spelled out. It should have been removed per Rule 3.
MF, I originally rearranged my whole schedule to make sure there were eyes on the board during the 10 to midnight W. Coast period and have many times been on here until 2am my time deleting hentai. I've dealt with multiple doxing incidents posted in the middle of the night, including abortionburger, becki percy, and Psychanaut. Since that shit died down, I have repeatedly asked if you would like me to take the morning shift from you several days a week, which you refused. You are hours ahead of me due to geographic location differences. If you get on first thing in the morning to mod, there is no way for me mod. It's already done. The posts are already deleted. Add to the time problem the fact that your understanding of Rule 1 is more restrictive than mine, and many posts I leave up you delete anyway. So, just how do you propose I take a greater role? There's no room for me to do more removals.
I have tried to do as much as I can with flairs, stickies, and trying to help people whose posts have been removed figure out how to fix them to satisfy the rules so they can be reposted. I've kept track of Voat development news and posted numerous stickies on the topic to combat user paranoia and shill whinging about Voat being compromised. I've tried to keep tabs on who is undermining the community and let you and @Crensch, @VictorSteinerDavion and @kevdude know. I have explained and defended your removals frequently and attempted to get us all working together as a team. I spent hours recruiting fresh blood for the mod team to take pressure off of you, recruiting 1stLantern, SethRich, and Honeybee_ and trying (and ultimately failing) to mitigate the frustrations of sensitive, gofuckyourself and 4|1.
So yes, there is nothing I can do to have a bigger role. It boggles my mind that you see yourself as the only person willing to moderate the subverse. All you have to do is LET someone else be responsible a couple of days a week and trust their decisions during the designated time period. But numerous mods have tried to help and left in frustration because you can't make room for anyone else. It's crazy.
Millennial_Falcon ago
And I appreciate all your work. My comments about doing most of the modding (i.e. removals) weren't meant to disregard the work you do but to respond who shills who have the nerve to call me lazy or act like I'm a tyrant, when I'm doing a thankless job that nobody else seems to want to do. I suppose in the future I should specify removals, so as not to disregard your own work.
That's simply not true. I have repeatedly in the past ask you and other mods to help with finding and vetting new mods, but with limited results. I don't mean to be ungrateful; I'm just saying your time and that of others seems as limited (or moreso) than mine. You are the only one who has offered to help with removals lately, and it seemed like a somewhat reluctant offer and I felt it was unnecessary. If you're implying that others have left because I corrected them on something, that's just silly. New mods are going to have to have guidance. And if you felt I was driving people off, it would have been nice if you'd said so before, rather than bring it up obliquely now. It also seems ironic to hear you talking about trusting someone else's decisions in this context.
That doesn't ring true. I remember you offering one time recently, but it seemed to be in response to me being time-stressed. As I said, I'm not really time-stressed right now (hence why I readily agreed to start leaving removal explanations again), and I didn't want to put extra burden on you if you didn't really want it. If you really want to take more responsibility on, I'm happy with that.
However, that really has nothing to do with the Kubrick post. I simply felt it had obvious relevance to Pedowood (and it kinda does). I still believe your concern with that post was largely optics, and I would like you to acknowledge that. Acting as if the bin Talal post should clearly have been removed seems like you are stubbornly trying to stand firm in the position that Rule 3 removals are black-and-white, while really (other than Amalek's obvious schiz-posts) they are subjective and based on pragmatics (which is ok, because it's not a topic-killer; it's a fix and repost rule). We have had plenty of posts about bin Talal in connection to the deep state swamp, and we routinely allow major swamp-related posts.
I feel I should also address what sounds like some frustration with me removing posts you have left up. I don't think I have done that in a while, and I felt like we were pretty much on the same page with that. I feel there's a general lack of communication which has built up some frustration on your part, although I acknowledge that are probably some topic we have disagreed about that we never found a compromise on. If there's any you would like to revisit, I'm all ears.
@crensch @ kevdude @VictorSteinerDavion
VictorSteinerDavion ago
There is no circumstance where a mod that deletes a post has the ability to choose to not leave an explanation.
If you delete, there must be an explanation.
Not always a complex or detailed one, but one relevant to the post and which reflect the intent of the original poster.
If OP is troll, a snarky but appropriate deletion message is fine, if OP is trying to make an effort respect should be given to that effort.
Reasons for deleting content is not discretionary.
And to be absolutely clear, every moderator who has the power to delete posts is free to do so as they see fit and according to the rules.
If said moderators screw it up and don't improve the community will ask for removal and that removal will be granted.
There should not and will not be any further talk along the lines of "I didn't want to step on your toes".
If you're a mod you log in and moderate.
pinging @crensch as a courtesy
Millennial_Falcon ago
That has been my perspective on it. Hence why I have never been too worried about checking with Vindicator to see if he left something up intentionally or missed it or whatever. It is good for us to be somewhat on the same page though.
I have always indicated the rule that was broken, and I have always left explanation where I've felt it was appropriate. I have simply not always had the time, as the only daytime mod, to spell out an explanation when such seemed superfluous (such as for posts containing zero links), especially for obvious troll posts. I aim to be consistent about it going forward, though.