@kevdude @Vindicator @VictorSteinerDavion
Post in question
@Millennial_Falcon cited rule 3 for removal, so I'm going to operate as if that's the litmus test here.
All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate.
All the title does is list 4 things, one being pizzagate. It insinuates a link, but does not say for sure, or how, or through what new source or info.
Still, possibly acceptable on its own merits if we take the insinuation into account.
EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post
I rest my case.
view the rest of the comments →
ESOTERICshade ago
These links are administrators and board members affiliated with Welcome Trust. The rest of us understood it. The link itself is descriptive. It says what it is. "governance, board, governors, chathamhouse, academy, board."
Rule 3:
We don't think scrapping hours of a person's work is worth it for you to nitpick posts with this much research. This post refers to one of the tops of the food chain at the top of the pyramid. Down from there it spreads out and gets very tedious and complicated. Researchers must be allowed to follow the trails, research, for it to be fully understood. We used to be a crowd sources investigative sub. Now we are a sub that has to attempt to pass Falcon's almost impossible barriers. The diminished crowd speaks for how tired of this people are.
The OP is well known as not being a shill and should be given a little leeway. Its a small sub. If the mod is not familiar with the regular posters by now then the mod is not paying enough attention. Burning off this much time of a good researcher and regular poster is not OK.
You might argue other reasons for people having left and stopped bringing their investigations. This is my opinion and its the one I have.
@swordfish69 @kevdude @vindicator @think- @letsdothis1
Crensch ago
I'm going to respond to you exactly once.
YOU ARE PERSONA NON GRATA. I don't give a SHIT about you, or what you say. In fact, the more you support something, the more likely I am to think the opposite, because every time you show up you are wrong.
Dungles ago
If this comment was on Reddit, I'd post it to v/meanwhileonreddit. Been a big supporter of PV over the years @Kevdude @Mickgoestojail @Disappointed but looking through here you are hypocrites. @Puttitout what do you think of this and the way he's talking to users here to justify thread removals? This wasn't his sub he was given it by someone else after the users were here. Hows that different to v/chicago or v/canada? If I posted this in PV would I get a an SRS shill flair? No better than sanegoat calling everyone shills who criticises this sub.
Crensch ago
Nice try with the concern trolling. PG has very specific rules SET UP BY THE USERS.
And my tone? Fuck you. I speak to people how I want to. This is Voat, not your safe space.
I'm RIGHT, and that's all that matters. I WRECKED the user in OP, and all you faggots want to do is complain about my invective.
Realz > Feelz
Dungles ago
And dictated by someone who thinks they are better than the users. Why are you arguing over technicalities in deletions. When in doubt leave it up. Just answer that if you can.
Crensch ago
Every. Single. Time.
Every single time the "users" come to us with some problem, THEY ARE WRONG. Objectively.
Technicalities? OP was wiping his ass with rule 3, and that's the only rule I even checked it against. MOST of the links in that post violated rule 3.
THERE IS NO DOUBT
Leave the snark to people that can pull it off. It just makes you look like a tryhard.
Dungles ago
@Kevdude @MickgoestoJail @Puttiout @Disappointed
Crensch ago
@ExpertShitposter @Trigglypuff @Hey_Sunshine @heygeorge
I can do that, too!
ExpertShitposter ago
Why are people so hell bent on deleting this. Its not like one post that MIGHT be child abuse that is not 100% directly related to elites is instantly "spam interfering with pizagate investigation" come the fuck on. Someone is being a fag here.
Crensch ago
Ehh, not sure about discussing that kind of reasoning. My thing is, PG has rules the users helped set up for themselves. If a submission obviously runs afoul of that, is it not on the mods to delete it?
PG wasn't designed to be just a whatever subverse, it was designed to be a legit-research-repository. With that, the creator and users agreed that rules and active rule-enforcing mods were needed.
There's a sticky on PG about possibly changing mods or rules, or getting rid of one or both.
ExpertShitposter ago
I'm just saying, if something seems to be on the edge, isn't it better to not delete? Especially if its potentially part of the investigation.
Crensch ago
If it was on the edge, sure. I posit this was a pretty gross violation. Just a bunch of unexplained links people would have to click through in order to get a sense of what OP was trying to connect or say.
Dungles ago
@puttitout mis pinged above