CDAN: A+ list singer turned child molester left rental house with what looked like remnants of cages big enough to hold humans. (pizzagate)

submitted ago by RagingShieldMaiden

http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/02/blind-item-2_20.html

There were bolts still in the wall and camera outlets above them when the owner of this rental house took possession. He called police because he said it looked like the remnants of cages inside the house big enough to hold humans. It would be interesting to hear what this former A+ list singer turned child molester has to say about it.

Comments lean toward R Kelly aka "Rapper into pissing and fucking girls on video"...

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

septimasexta ago

Why is CDAN allowed to be posted with NO verifying links? While the topic appears to be pizzagate related, it is always in the realm of gossip/ speculation. This should have a 24 hour flair like the rest of us get. This post is not research based. Where are the photos? Is there a copy of the filed police report?

Vindicator ago

In this case, septima, CDAN itself is the supporting link for the claim made in the headline. If RagingShieldMaiden had written a title directly claiming "Rapper left human cages in rental house" there would be a problem. But the title was that a gossip blog with a history of having solid information reported he left behind cages. The link supports the title, and RSM did a good job writing an accurate title that didn't claim more than it should.

At least, that is my perspective.

septimasexta ago

One of my posts was not treated this way. My title was the actual title of the linked article. It made a key claim in the article it said was sourced from abc, however it did not give a link. I was put on 24 hr notice to find the link, AND RIGHTFULLY SO. I did provide the link and the post stayed up. I have nothing against CDAN, but I would expect equal treatment in research standards. The strength of VOAT is a well documented research post. Just my opinion.

Vindicator ago

Thanks for elaborating on this, septima. I see your point. I'm not sure what the best solution is, though. In the case of your post, there was an easily verifiable primary source mentioned that wasn't linked and could have been fake or taken out of context (not judging here -- just speaking from the 40,000 foot level).

In the case of CDAN, no primary sources are possible because it IS a gossip blog. Nothing said there can truly be called anything but rumor -- which is why I never sticky CDAN stuff. We'd have to banish it completely to v/pizzagatewhatever, which might be appropriate and what the community wants. Yet I believe (and I think many others do as well) that CDAN is useful in providing CLUES that might help make sense of other information, leaks, events, actions and stuff that is supported by primary sources. Many articles by True Pundit based on his connections in the intelligence and law enforcement fall into the same category. My sense has been that board members have been frustrated by the number of removals and wanted to see more quality content left up, and that CDAN is quality content, though unverified.

Soon, we will have the ability for users to start referendums to call for a vote on something link "CDAN isn't research and belongs in v/pizzagatewhatever" or "Posts based on unnamed sources belong in v/pizzagatewhatever" and we will be able to gauge the community's stance.

Perhaps for now, the best solution is to deploy the "Unverified" flair on CDAN threads and others whose links lack traceable primary sources?

@think- @ben_matlock @kevdude

think- ago

Didn't read this last comment of yours, @Vindicator before I posted mine a couple of minutes ago, I agee with you.

I don't have any problems with flairing CDNA blinds 'Uncverified', but I'd say let's wait til the new voting system is in place and let the community decide.

Until then, let CDNA blind(s) stay is and don't flair.

@ben_matlock @kevdude Honeybee_

Vindicator ago

That would be my preference for now as well, since everyone knows they're unverified. I hate being a ball-breaker or overly paternalistic which is very easy to do when we've got all these rules. It doesn't create a welcoming environment.

think- ago

I hate being a ball-breaker or overly paternalistic which is very easy to do when we've got all these rules. It doesn't create a welcoming environment.

Agree.

ben_matlock ago

i saw this post as i was falling asleep last night and had similar concerns as @septimasexta regarding CDAN.

personally i love visiting CDAN daily. all sorts of helpful, juicy nuggets can be found in those blinds. but...blinds by definition are unverified (unless, of course, they've been revealed), which, by their nature, puts them in conflict with the Rules.

that being said, i certainly don't want to be a ball-breaker either. i am all for having some kind of referendum to let the community come to a consensus on which types of sources are 'trusted' enough to allow them to be posted here. when could we implement such a voting system?
@vindicator @kevdude

think- ago

The voting system will be put in force at the end of this month, as far as I recall.

I hear you, Ben, although I agree to disagree with you. I know that the community is divided when it comes to the CDAN blinds, so let's wait two weeks and discuss this with the others. At present, I have no idea what the majority thinks about it.

@Vindicator @kevdude @Honeybee_

Vindicator ago

Just to add another thought to this train of thought @ben_matlock @think- the same Rule 2 problem arises with personal experience survivor stories or professional testimony from folks in healthcare and law enforcement.

I think we do want to welcome that, because it can help with the investigation. In the past, I have advised people to include a relevant link to similar or related material, such as published reports about the emotional damage victims contend with, statistics about victims, training publications for law enforcement etc. etc. so that Rule 2 is "technically" satisfied.

Adding an "Unverified" flair to all such posts, would also be appropriate.

Don't forget, one of the most powerful, compelling things this board uncovered was the alleged rape of a 16-year-old Comet Ping Pong employee by Alefantis, who tried to post here and was deleted due to lack of evidence. Our moderator abortionburger got ahold of him through Facebook, interviewd him, made a Steemit thread about it and posted that here. Next thing you know, Alefantis is hunting down @IsThisGameofThrones making death threats, and abortionburger gets doxxed, receives death threats and has to leave Voat.

Rule 2 is vital, but IMHO we need to find ways to help users satisfy it.

@kevdude

IsThisGameOfThrones ago

I don’t understand the reference to me

Vindicator ago

Hey there! Sorry...was recounting some of our most dramatic investigative moments for our new mods. We are discussing how to handle personal testimony when we have a rule requiring links to supporting evidence. Lots has been happening around here lately Ryan. Check out the stickies.