Yeah so this happened over at pizzagateshills:
v/pizzagateshills (armyseer) > DarkMath | Sent: 3 hours ago on 1/6/2017 6:26:10 AM You've been banned from v/pizzagateshills :( @armyseer has banned you from v/pizzagateshills for the following reason: shill
------------------------End of message---------------
I'm seeing other people who got banned from pizzagateshills and that strongly suggests "armyseer" is the shill and not us.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1541843/7505268
So what can I do? Is there some sort of appeal process here on voat. I'd like to prove I'm NOT a shill.
What can we do about armyseer?
tjarco ago
Well @DarkMath, you caught my eye as well...
Not labelling you as a shill but you do have some curious behaviour, why did you report these voats as spam?
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1549777 https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1549514 https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1549774
These voats are offering alternative views, and since this is an investigation we should be vary wary of conformation bias, so opposing views should not be labelled spam IMHO. Opposing views should be debunked or confirmed that they debunk other information, doing this is something else than trying to censor the content by marking it as spam which makes it questionable why you did mark it as spam...
DarkMath ago
One of the techniques CTR employs to discredit this investigation is tying PizzaGate in with the centuries "Blood Libel" slur against Jews. That's exactly what 1549777 and 1549774 are doing. Major shillage there.
1549514 appears to be posted by someone trying to discredit Trump by saying he agreed that Russian Hacking stole the election. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hillary lost because of leaks within the U.S. government. So 1549514 is highly suspect for shillage.
tjarco ago
I agree that both three of these posts are not up to 100% standards, but they are not spam. The fact that you are not trying to debunk or solidify the points raised, but rather want them gone makes me suspect of you being a shill. Calling out shills is a good thing and very valueable, but if something offers an opposing view or has some holes in the evidence focus on clarifying the actual content rather than trying to censor it..
DarkMath ago
"rather want them gone"......You're missing the point. Maybe an analogy would help. Imagine a course at some university titled "Hitler: Was he right about the Jews all along?"
Does that sound like something a university should sanctify and have its students investigate?
tjarco ago
you are missing the point, it's not spam - also your comments resemble a lot of this stuff https://ritualabuse.us/mindcontrol/
Once again, I'm not labelling you as shill, I just remarking some behaviour that strikes me as not aiding this investigation
DarkMath ago
"not aiding this investigation".......Do you know what would greatly hinder this investigation? If it turns into a Jew hunting exhibition.
In fact your inability to grasp such an obvious fact makes me think YOU'RE the shill here.
tjarco ago
agreed that would not be good, just the voat you referring to is noticing a trend which can not be denied. If it turns out that a large part of Jewish journalists are covering up PG, there is no need to deny this. PG is unpartisan and whoever is bad is bad regardless of beliefs or descent... If you want to debunk this whole thing, create a thread with non-Jewish journalists debunking PG to put things into perspective - that is aiding research!!!
DarkMath ago
"Jewish journalists are covering up PG".......Right there you're not being honest. It's not just Jewish reporters covering up PizzaGate it's THE ENTIRE MSM. Is Andrew Cuomo Jewish? How about Mike Barnacle on MSNBC. Is he Jewish?
This isn't complicated. If you were truly honest and wanted to protect this investigation you wouldn't want it discredited like this. Right? You'd put "The Jews(tm)" thing on the back burner and look for less controversial and more unassailable evidence no?
tjarco ago
Ok and this is where you seem biased, and I will use an analogy myself to see if you understand your own bias..
If someone was to post a list of sheepherders, football-coaches or inline-skaters that all debunk PG on twitter, would that be spam as well?
I truly don't give a F about who is defending pizzagate and I think that EVERYONE that defends it will and can be exposed - there is nothing wrong with that. It looks like you are defending Jews and I get that, since it's a delicate matter and NO ONE should be claiming ALL jews are bad, the OP was just exposing SOME to be. And once again, I have giving you options to put all of this data into context, collect other data to bedunk it, don't try to censor it just because...
DarkMath ago
I already gave you an example of a university offering a course titled "Hitler: was he right about the Jews after all?". You ignored that one. It seems that you're suggesting you can't absolve all Jews. Really?
How about a tweak my example: "Hitler's SS: were they right about the Jews after all?". Do you see how I changed the number of people? Did that change anything? No, of course it didn't. You know it doesn't. Please stop being intentionally obtuse.
tjarco ago
you're right, you can't absolve all jews, just like you can't absolve all republicans/democracts/muslims/chewing-gum-producers/pastafari's or just basically everyone, whoever is wrong is wrong no matter religion, belief or descent...
DarkMath ago
Again you didn't address the example of a university offering a course like "Hitler: was he right about the Jews after all?". You ignored it because it proves my point.
If you want to hunt down offending Jews that's great. Good for you. Just don't do it here because Jew hunting could discredit this investigation which CTR et al would very much like. Again you're clinging to this "Jew Hunting" point way too long for my taste. It's almost like you have an ulterior motive here.
;-)
tjarco ago
it's you who brought it up after I presented 3 voats you marked as spam, mate..
continue what you are doing, I'll just keep an eye on you..
about your example, it's unrelated and universities should be allowed to pose hypothesis to debunk. Also it's a question and questioning is never wrong - it's not implying anything and it's diverting from our actual discussion.
DarkMath ago
"universities should be allowed to pose hypothesis to debunk"........You mean like debunk the Holocaust? Really? I'm not buying it. There are some "hypothesis" that are so wrong some countries even criminalizes them. Australia will put you in jail if you try to deny the Holocaust.
Validating "Blood Libel" is an equally offensive hypothesis.
tjarco ago
No I mean posing a hypothesis like: "Was the Holocaust fake?" which triggers investigation which leads to findings that it's NOT fake. Posing a hypothesis to investigate is not criminal. It's a question, a hypothesis, NOT A STATEMENT - asking "Was Hitler right?" does NOT implicate he was right AT ALL. it just asks (hence the question mark) for people to do their research.. Once again this isn't related to why I started this discussion.
DarkMath ago
You still don't get it. I'll try another tack. What if your local newspaper ran a story: "Is tjarco into raping cows?". You'd be pissed because you don't rape cows.
By your logic you could very well be into raping cows though because there exists human beings out there who are into bestiality. You're a human being so it's fair to investigate you for raping cows right?
tjarco ago
I wouldn't be pissed with just the title. It's the content - If they made allegations that I am raping cows, while I am not, yes I would be pissed. But if the story contains proof that I am not raping cows, I would be very happy with the article... If in fact I was raping cows, I wouldn't be happy, but I would be happy for the public that the newspaper would uncover my behaviour. So the question/title itself isn't wrong - it's the content or answer to the question that can make it wrong or right, but the question itself is never wrong.
Like I said, whoever is wrong is wrong and posing questions is never wrong - making false allegations is - and that's where this whole thing started. I didn't see any false allegations in the posts you filed for spam... You can try to divert this discussion with all the examples you can come up with, it's not diminishing my original worries of your behaviour.
DarkMath ago
"wouldn't be pissed"......Really? I don't think you're being honest.
tjarco ago
believe all you want son, you are not me. I'm not triggered by a title - I look what's inside
Investigate1999 ago
I don't like Pizzagate Gear. Therefore, I'm trying to remain impartial. I'd rather see him banned, but I also want him to be treated fairly. That's all.
Investigate1999 ago
DarkMath, I think that he actually 1 of us, but I think that he has genuine mental issues. I think that he means well, but he just doesn't have that credibility. All of the people on the list continue to participate, and none of us are worried.
[edit: while we're at it, I think that the majority of us mean well to a degree, and are not shills]
DarkMath ago
I hope your right.
VieBleu ago
@armyseer You have been identified by greater powers than I as having a pattern of harrassment towards solid posters.
Understand you are being watched, and your line of bull is not selling well.
DarkMath ago
Oh, sorry. I sent that message to you before I was informed by the mods you have nothing to do with /v/PizzaGate.You're like plankton to Sponge-Bob Square Pants. LOL
You mean nothing. You have zero, zilch, null-set, nada credibility.
Ba-bye armyseer, it was nice knowin' ya!
gopluckyourself ago
tbh armyseer isn't related to the /v/pizzagate sub in any way other than that he is a user any and all opinions exhibited by him are not necessarily representative of the pizzagate community as a whole. So just ignore him and continue contributing your work will speak for itself.
Sentastixc ago
@Armyseer maybe made a mistake, he will correct it when he sees it, I hope.
Investigate1999 ago
I doubt it. Nobody has hinted or claimed to have been removed from his list.