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.
view the rest of the comments →
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
This is silly. All this over a mistake. Are you going to drop this rule?
Do you remember when I shitted up that post that neonrevolting tried to hijack? That was resubmitted without the drama. Neon stayed away, and I stayed away.
There are already ways submitters can censor the comments in their own posts without mods censoring users free speech.
Vindicator ago
Sure. If the majority of regular contributors don't want it. I disagree that it's silly or that it's "all over a mistake". This has been an issue for a very, very long time, one that the physical platform previously offered no mechanism to address. With the addition of the User Agreement to the ban and removal interfaces, it now becomes possible and should be discussed.
I do indeed. @Darkknight111's work was completely trashed, his meme campaign momentum was lost, and several of us had to deal with an inbox blizzard. He was ultimately forced to delete his post and resubmit it -- losing any relevant comments and all the original momentum. This would prevent exactly that kind of shitstorm from overtaking people's hard work in the future.
Also, Neon did not "stay away". He was downvoted into the negatives by an organized vote brigade, which permanently disabled his account when DK self-deleted.
This is an interesting observation. Unfortunately, the only way a submitter can censor comments is to self delete the entire submission (a huge, demoralizing act of self-censorship of real, evidence based content), and even that doesn't work if they have been marked for targeting, as @argosciv was by ES and his sock puppet brigade.
Perhaps, as someone who does not contribute content and only participates by commenting in other people's submissions, this seems like a fair sacrifice to you. Try looking at it from the OP's point of view.
Why can't users who want free speech just make their own submission?
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
Agreed.
Source?
Iirc, he deleted it and resubmitted because I asked him to. Pretty sure that I secret pinged you to that so you could help pesuade him to stay and resubmit the post.
Those can be added to the submission.
Check revolting's acct., it was not disabled. He was restricted to 10 comments per day, at that time.
I have deleted submissions from PG and PGWE because of the comments. I chose not to repost most of them. So I do know that feeling of loss that you speak of. Who ever told you that defense of free speech wasn't going to be extremely painful? Free speech is ugly, and hurtful and even dangerous.
What doesn't work, reposting?
Or maybe being too wordy and wrong in his opinions got him downvoted. I downvoted his dragonballsbullshit too.
Your writing has improved, argos.
Why don't you try looking at it from the point of view of someone who can't communicate in writing very well. I don't know what it feels like for someone as good with words as you are to have to do things over again. For me it is a nightmare, and yet if the post was important enough to me I deleted and did it over, or not. I did not: pitch a fit, cry to the mods, reee about my hurt feewings.
You know why.
If submitters don't believe in free speech, shouldn't they FUCK OFF BACK TO WHENCE THEY CAME.
I thought you supported 1A, I don't expect the canucks or eurotrash to understand, but i really thought you did. I was wrong, I apologize.
Vindicator ago
I think it's sad that you think so little of your writing and time that you are willing to self-censor because someone convinced you it was a noble sacrifice for the First Amendment. I'm now wondering what research I never got to read of yours due to this.
The First Amendment does not guarantee all speech is a right in all places at all times. It recognizes the right of communities to set local standards. College students, for example, can't turn a math classroom into their personal political soapbox. If this community wants to make it possible to protect research from egregious troll and shill attempts to divert discussion and collaboration, that is completely permissable under the First. This is not v/whatever. It's not the public square of Voat.
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
I think it's sad that you think i did it to be 'noble'. I did it because they had a right to say anything they wanted, and I had the right to delete my own submissions. The most important things I could write about would not pass submission rules, the evidence was never published.
This community didn't change the rules, you did.
Are you planning on leaving this sticky up until your friends can trickle enough upvotes to make it appear as though you have support?
Thank you for reminding me what it was that I wanted to tell @nomochomo about how he should post to whatever since the owner of PG isn't interested in anything he has.
I'll remove the rest of my submissions and comments as soon as i get my shit together on this end, it's been slow work, and may take me awhile.