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

Angelis_Solaris ago

Well it would be useful for NOMOCHOMO to reply on one of his comment chains which is being wrecked by a New Age priest claiming that Wilhelm Reich was not advocating pedophilia when he clearly was. What does NOMO need to do to be unbanned?

NOMOCHOMO ago

Rule Violation in v/pizzagate:

1: Relevance; Description: Causing problems with the removal of things that have not been proven to be pizzagate. Using divisive tactics against the mods. Arguing dishonestly, even after being warned that this was not a joke. Constant pattern of disruptive behavior and supporting users like esoteric

provide a single link of me doing any of these things in @darkknight111 's post and I will apologize.

Otherwise. Unban me, because your ban has no basis.

"things that have not been proven to be pizzagate"

Ed Buck has been proven to be Pizzagate.

Crensch ago

No.

NOMOCHOMO ago

-bans user

-refuses to substantiate ban

Crensch ago

Your ban was explained in depth by 2 mods. You're being deliberately obtuse, and I'm looking at amending the unban stipulations based on your continued attempts to Jew the situation.

NOMOCHOMO ago

(((explained)))

link the proof of me "arguing", or it's just a narrative.

amending the unban stipulations

like you just "amended rule 5" by adding a new rule? What extra hoops?

(((attempts to Jew the situation.)))

accuse accuse accuse. refuse to link proof of accused behavior.

Crensch ago

@vindicator

Looks like he wants to play games again today. Should we just call it a permanent ban at this point?

I can think of a few more restrictions on his unbanning still, but he seems like he'd rather just start shit.

SearchVoatBot ago

This comment was linked from this v/pizzagatemods comment by @NOMOCHOMO.

Posted automatically (#65228) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@Crensch: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @NOMOCHOMO)

NOMOCHOMO ago

I'm not apologizing to either of you. Not a single user has spoken in favor of my ban.

Crensch ago

Welcome to Voat.

NOMOCHOMO ago

you sad soul.