I've added a new rule to reflect the Voat User Agreement. Please share your thoughts. (pizzagatemods)

submitted ago by Vindicator

Yesterday, after this debacle, I added a rule about Comment Abuse for the sake of clarity.

The Voat User Agreement requires us all to Respect Other Users, both their privacy and their freedom of speech. People who work hard on their research submissions shouldn't have their work overshadowed, their free speech suppressed, and the discussion of their submission derailed by off-topic rants, flame wars or copypasta spam in the Comment section. It's not right.

This has actually been in place for several months under Voat's Sitewide Rules. If you check the banlog, you will see that Putt added the Voat User Agreement to the rule violations list moderators can cite some time ago, and Donkey and his many alts were banned for comment abuse under that -- at the request of multiple users -- after he impersonated another user to discredit her research. TrustTheTruth was also banned for comment abuse under the Voat UA spam clause because he spammed the same longwinded, evidence-free rants over and over again, regardless of the submission topic.

It's now spelled out in our sidebar. Thoughts?

Edit: Link to banlog fixed.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Fambida ago

This rule is fucking retarded and I can only assume you are acting in bad faith. Did the lessons of Reddit teach you nothing?

NOMOCHOMO ago

He's still trying to justify Crensch going powermod and banning me for repeatedly asking him a question, despite his evasive counterQ's

Vindicator ago

Happy to unban you, Nomo, just as soon as you are happy to accept Rule 1 and Rule 4 and the authority of mods to enforce them.

NOMOCHOMO ago

1: Relevance

Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities. See definition of Pizzagate and examples of relevant posts. You must label NSFW posts (“Not safe for work”; for example gore, nudity etc.) as such when submitting.

4: Indirectly Relevant / Meta

Meta submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed. Please submit indirectly relevant posts to /v/pizzagatewhatever and unsourced questions to /v/AskPizzagate. Sourced activism / publicity posts and memes are allowed. Posts about the subverse itself go to /v/pizzagatemods.

Thank you Vin.

Absolutely. I have, and continue to, accept these rules, (as they are currently written) and thereby, Mods authority to enforce them.

Vindicator ago

Wrong.

You insisted on claiming a rule-breaking post was legit when it wasn't (Rule 1), and then got in a fight about it in darkknight's submission instead of making a submission about it v/pizzagatemods (Rule 4). When you were warned to stop, you escalated. Your actions belie your claim.

Crensch laid out what you need to do to be unbanned. It's up to you.

NOMOCHOMO ago

You're deceitful

Provide a single quote from darkknight's post where I:

"insisted on claiming a rule-breaking post was legit"

"fight"

I asked why the post was removed, if another Mod approved/flaired "Swamp-Takedown". I also asked why prior posts didn't substantiate Ed Buck as a pizzagate figure.