Aside from the main issue, can we just take a look at the "users" commenting here? I think I saw maybe one that seemed against MF that I wouldn't immediately call out as a shill on the rest of Voat.
I JUST got back, so I'm still digesting some of this, and may not be able to fully process it tonight, but THAT stood out to me as a safe and overlooked bit of information to comment on.
No doubt there are some shills but I've read through the modlog and I was really disappointed this time. It's not just the shills being kept at bay here, it's regular users as well. The restrictions are being interpreted too stringently by that one mod.
If I go to look through it, what should I be looking for as far as the regular users go. These posts have gotten so outlandish and full of unexplained crap that I'm not sure I'd recognize one.
I'm starting to agree with @kevdude that the mod has to go. Doing the job or not he is divisive to the community and it's suffering as a result.
Is he? Or is he doing his job, and the (possible) shills don't like it?
I keep hearing about all these "good users" that "left" but no names. I keep hearing about all these users that agree that M_F needs to go, but the ones that show up are ESOTERIC, maybe one or two others that don't look too suspicious, and a bevy of pretty obvious sock puppet or non-user accounts.
I've had a couple users respond that I think might be legitimate, and a couple that are probably just virtue-signalling and starting drama to feel good about themselves.
How difficult is it for one of them to come up with an example of his wrongdoing? If he's wrong. If he's done something wrong. If he's done as much as these guys claim he's done wrong, then there should be evidence for it, and I will absolutely remove him on the spot. Why is every piece of evidence they come up with a more than reasonable removal?
I'm going to look through the modlog, but as it stands, if I find that path to be the way to go, I'd be removing him because a very small amount of people are starting drama over him, not because he removed anything that didn't break the rules.
Even kevdude's post - I get it from both angles. The sticky is already up that asks the same question, though, and the post did run afoul of the rules. I mentioned to kev that a comment he made earlier was putting me in a position where there was no right answer, and this post... anything else done with it would have been against the rules and would have been a subjective moderation decision. Even a removal of M_F because of that would be considered a gross violation of moderation, would it not?
Meta posts have always been allowed on voat. Always.
Look through that modlog but at this point, I think you've made your mind up already. I think it will take @PuttItOut's voting system now, applied to this sub, for anything to change in a meaningful way.
Meta posts have always been allowed on voat. Always.
They weren't here, because the place was filled with them constantly. That was the users making that rule.
Look through that modlog but at this point, I think you've made your mind up already. I think it will take @PuttItOut's voting system now, applied to this sub, for anything to change in a meaningful way.
I haven't, but if that's your take, thanks for sticking around as long as you have.
I'm a bit disappointed that the same people pushing me to make a poll post for the users are trying to force my hand to do something before a reasonable amount of time has passed for the users to vote.
I'm not pushing a timeline for his removal. My opinion is he needs to go and let the community have a bit more say in how things roll around here. That includes you conceding a bit as well. Yes, you did a tremendous amount to help Pizzagate in the past but so have the community in doing the real work exposing these pedos.
view the rest of the comments →
Crensch ago
Aside from the main issue, can we just take a look at the "users" commenting here? I think I saw maybe one that seemed against MF that I wouldn't immediately call out as a shill on the rest of Voat.
@Disappointed @kevdude
I JUST got back, so I'm still digesting some of this, and may not be able to fully process it tonight, but THAT stood out to me as a safe and overlooked bit of information to comment on.
Disappointed ago
No doubt there are some shills but I've read through the modlog and I was really disappointed this time. It's not just the shills being kept at bay here, it's regular users as well. The restrictions are being interpreted too stringently by that one mod.
Crensch ago
If I go to look through it, what should I be looking for as far as the regular users go. These posts have gotten so outlandish and full of unexplained crap that I'm not sure I'd recognize one.
Is he? Or is he doing his job, and the (possible) shills don't like it?
I keep hearing about all these "good users" that "left" but no names. I keep hearing about all these users that agree that M_F needs to go, but the ones that show up are ESOTERIC, maybe one or two others that don't look too suspicious, and a bevy of pretty obvious sock puppet or non-user accounts.
I've had a couple users respond that I think might be legitimate, and a couple that are probably just virtue-signalling and starting drama to feel good about themselves.
How difficult is it for one of them to come up with an example of his wrongdoing? If he's wrong. If he's done something wrong. If he's done as much as these guys claim he's done wrong, then there should be evidence for it, and I will absolutely remove him on the spot. Why is every piece of evidence they come up with a more than reasonable removal?
I'm going to look through the modlog, but as it stands, if I find that path to be the way to go, I'd be removing him because a very small amount of people are starting drama over him, not because he removed anything that didn't break the rules.
Even kevdude's post - I get it from both angles. The sticky is already up that asks the same question, though, and the post did run afoul of the rules. I mentioned to kev that a comment he made earlier was putting me in a position where there was no right answer, and this post... anything else done with it would have been against the rules and would have been a subjective moderation decision. Even a removal of M_F because of that would be considered a gross violation of moderation, would it not?
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2394933/11935099 I find this a bit relevant.
@Mickgoestojail
Let me know if/where I'm wrong about something. I believe I have come up with a path to solve all of this, but your input is always appreciated.
Disappointed ago
Meta posts have always been allowed on voat. Always.
Look through that modlog but at this point, I think you've made your mind up already. I think it will take @PuttItOut's voting system now, applied to this sub, for anything to change in a meaningful way.
Crensch ago
They weren't here, because the place was filled with them constantly. That was the users making that rule.
I haven't, but if that's your take, thanks for sticking around as long as you have.
Disappointed ago
I haven't lost all faith yet. I'll let you process things.
Crensch ago
I'm a bit disappointed that the same people pushing me to make a poll post for the users are trying to force my hand to do something before a reasonable amount of time has passed for the users to vote.
Disappointed ago
I'm not pushing a timeline for his removal. My opinion is he needs to go and let the community have a bit more say in how things roll around here. That includes you conceding a bit as well. Yes, you did a tremendous amount to help Pizzagate in the past but so have the community in doing the real work exposing these pedos.