Thanks for the post, interesting.

@revolutionaryocelot, thanks for trying, there isn't much sense here. make smaller posts with this, explore the nuances of each particular post, this is disjunct.

[–] Vindicator [M] 0 points (+0|-0) 1 month 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? permalink parent save edit delete undistinguish reply report

[–] VictorSteinerDavion 0 points (+0|-0) 30 days 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.

@RevolutionaryOcelot, thanks for the shitpost. I'm giving you our 24 Hour Repreive flair so everyone who wants to can downvoat this fake research you are posting to mock them. Per the original board owner comments on this post, it will then be removed.