Preface: I'm only responding here, as I was invited. I would have otherwise left this alone because I am admittedly quite confused as to @Jem777's situation... _{(herein: J = Jem777)}

I remember when J came to v/pizzagatewhatever saying she'd been banned from v/pizzagate, I was quite surprised to hear the news and even hurried over to check the banned users, for verification. I was surprised because even I had noticed a history of lengthy and seemingly well fleshed out and indeed useful submissions - she certainly had the support of many users I trust or have trusted and even I had pinged J to at least a few of my RoC entries. Unfortunately, I felt it best that I not rock the boat, hence not having much to say on the matter and subsequently ceasing to ping J in RoC.

I've kept an eye out for J's posts, though, including those under @Mej777 - I recall upvoating many of them.

I know that this was discussed at the time and it was very controversial and everyone made their appeals but the decision stood.

I think I missed that one...

On the 26th of October, Vindicator made the decision to ban Jem777 from the PizzaGate subverse due to disrespecting the rules of the subverse over and over. Specifically, it was rule 1 that was broken too many times in the eyes of the mods, and that warranted a ban.

I'm a lazy sod, but, can someone point me to the offending thread? (not important, just curious)

She advised me not to instantly say that Amazon was full of pedophiles because people wouldn't accept it, and therefore to drip information slowly so as the appear more rational. I ignored it because people here already know about PG, but that was her way of posting.

Sage advice in most cases, though, things are changing all the time - sometimes bombshells work, other times not so much...

Jem then made a post on Stephen Paddock the same day and decided to give her information in small breadcrumbs, since it was a very large post. She planned on updating it regularly with sources, but at the beginning, her post stood without any links. It was deleted and she was banned before she could update it at all.

This is where things probably started to come undone a bit. The Vegas shooting and Stephen Paddock 'episode' was fucked up... it took a lot of us off guard. I remember the night of the event and being here casually researching right as the situation began to unfold; I dropped everything and began feverishly spitting out updates, sidenotes and fleeting research into a special RoC entry... the whole thing left a lot of us pissed off and/or confused and having to dig in a hurry, with blatant shillery eating away at our rationality - I mean for fuck's sake... teleporting shooters... fuck me what a shit show...

The mods especially would have been frustrated with trying to discern fake from genuine...

Not that it's my place to question the mods' decision, but, perhaps emotions and confusion got the better of everyone at the time, which left a mark on J's name which is very hard to recover from?

This was a huge mistake. Jem has always been one of our best researchers, and is a federal witness and a whistleblower. Jem is one of the biggest risk-takers and an asset to our investigation. There are many things that she has shared with me that I can't tell you, but something that is objectively true is that she puts herself out there and, should she need a platform to leave her legacy were she in great danger (which I hate to be vague, but this is very likely), we should be the outlet to listen to her and give her a platform to speak on. She possesses the experience and knowledge to make this investigation speed up tenfold.

I don't really have much to say to this part other than to agree that J has provided some excellent work from what I remember. I've had my doubts at times and I think we've had disagreements on some topics, but, I can't doubt the effort.

Mods, unban Jem777. If anything, we need more users like her, not fewer.

Best I stay neutral on this bit; we do need researchers who put in the effort, that's for sure... not my place to comment further though.