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 →
kestrel9 ago
I believe the rule reflecting the Voat User Agreement should stay, but I'm going to consider alternatives for the name and/or the definition. 'Abusive comments' seems so broad that it could encompass just about anything. That title can cause more contention than the rule is supposed to help circumvent.
But having a rule to reflect what it's intended to accomplish is important, as current situation does demonstrate (no I am not planning on spending hours to forensically dissect the arguments over the @darkknight111 post where @Nomochomo decided to protest issues belonging somewhere else. I believe he stated that he used @darkknight111 post as a venue for his own agenda and initially didn't put effort into the research at hand to bring the original post into compliance with the rules about what constitutes a PG relevant post. The initial two links he provided as "research" did not accomplish the effort warranted in that situation, and clearly he didn't want to put in the time then to make it clear the links did accomplish that, and as it so happened, they didn't imo. Should I have to spend an hour or more combing through long involved links to tease out and apply a litmus test to the tiny bit of info that may or not hold up under the scrutiny of the case in hand because one user presenting it to a mod says it holds up? No. Are the mods supposed to do that for the user? No.
Did I have to spend way more time then I ever wanted to just make that last statement? Yes. Or I wouldn't have said it. Is this how a research board is supposed to operate? Not in my opinion no. Did it disrupt time spent on my own research? Yes, but since it became such an issue on the board, it seemed necessary to comment about it here.
Does the silence on behalf of researchers to comment in on the thread demonstrate a support of one side or the other over mod practices? No. In my case it only meant that I hoped there would be a return to the research, without the disruptions arguing the finer points of what constitutes a disruption (yet AGAIN, for the bizillionth time on voat research subs). In fact if a user hasn't been around long enough to make such distinctions perhaps they should be required to read the VOLUMES of arguing over it as opposed to presuming that every other user is supposed to litigate their disagreements for them. I've backed down when I've been in disagreement over interpreting research because it seemed at the time to benefit the board members (to refrain from further argument) in an area that became subjective, not empirically conclusive.
The goal is to be able to maintain the integrity of board in respect to the purpose of posting research that fits the criterion and discussing that. That takes an amount of 'in good faith' motivation, meaning that as individuals with a common purpose, we try to recognize the difference in our own motives with just as fine a tooth comb, as we are willing to subject others to our interpretation over their motives.
And within PG I presume one situation the 'No comment abuse' rule is supposed to circumvent is when posts are used to further personal agendas against other users, under the guise of "oh I'm just trying to research" when it's clear to the average researcher that the research is no longer the issue within the controversy a given dispute. PG researchers have gone through time and again dealing with the disruptions of personal agendas (@Esotericshade sticky stands as monument to that).
I will put time into considering a better title and/or definition of rule 5, 'No comment abuse', but my vote is to keep the rule for the time being.
NOMOCHOMO ago
then why repeat the accusation without looking at the evidence?
What comment was a "protest"? I asked why a flair was changed. link me?
"I believe"...But you can't link proof because you didn't examine the evidence? Link this comment^
You want it redefined and titled.....so you don't want it.....Do you believe in the 2A but not assault rifles?
kestrel9 ago
I requesting the rule stay as it was changed to, "No Comment Abuse"
NOMOCHOMO ago
I'm fine with you accepting the rule. So you dont want it edited or renamed? cool dude.
Please don't accuse me of "disruption" if you aren't willing to verify the posts/comments in which the "disruption" occurred
kestrel9 ago
If you had not been disruptive we wouldn't be having this conversation and you would have provided reasoning behind your choice of links here to show that the @darkknight111 about Ed Buck adheres to rule #1
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2643401
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2060461
NOMOCHOMO ago
We wouldn't be having this convo if I hadn't been banned.
jimmy savile (pedo) -> process church/best friends society-> Ed Buck
Link establishes Ed Buck's relevance in the comments. A user asks how Buck is relevant: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2060461/10166604. To which the poster provides additional Ed Buck relevance: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2060461/10166909
kestrel9 ago
I had started a response to your deleted comment:
I also think Ed Buck is (perhaps) relevant, but at the time of the post, the case had not been made. (I still have to read what @darkknight111 posted about the Standard Hotel connection).
you posted:
The title from the link is: " Jimmy Savile > the Process Church of the Final Judgement > the House of Rothschild > Alefantis and David Brock's ex boyfriend William Grey > Ed Buck
Did you just cite a partial title as proof that you read the thread?
Did you read the links within the threads?
He's associated with Social Compassion in Legislation which supports various animal rights groups https://worldanimalnews.com/breaking-social-compassion-in-legislation-is-working-with-ca-horse-racing-board-to-reform-horseracing-in-california/
He was at a council meeting regarding puppy mills and pet stores
Being at the same place at the same time on behalf of an animal rights issue is not proof that he's either closely associated or associated at all with the Best Friends Animal Society, neither does it tell us anything about him being a pedophile or associating with pedophiles.
The degree to which (if any) Ed Buck is linked to the charity beyond showing up at animal rights related events has not been established that I've seen. (haven't done a deep dive on the subject).
http://www.thedogplace.org/ii/Process-Church-Best-Friends.asp
more reading on Process Church
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3073483
I found the topic of Cuba/CIA area intriguing, have to look into that more.
Those links don't include info that Ed Buck is a pedophile. You must not have read the info. @cantsleepawink suspected that an author may have been alluding to that point, but that was a suspicion on the user's part. Not reflected in the info cited and the response to the user asking is misleading because it changes that 'suspicion' to declare it as though it's a fact by citing the original 'suspicion' quote!
That being said, I'm not saying that Ed Buck posts shouldn't be allowed, just that you gave yourself way too much credit without reading what you posted so when @crensch said "and?" in response you got pissed off instead of going back and reading the links. He wasn't off base to ask why those links were relevant and you didn't answer why they should be considered relevant, it would seem that you just read the title of the first one.
You had feedback from @shewhomustbeobeyed disagreeing with you on where the post belonged. From those two links, she was correct and so was @crensch. @Vindicator told you about the flair mix up, and that wasn't good enough to calm your righteous indignant ass down. Then in your deleted response to me you said if it wasn't for you @darkknight111 wouldn't have a post or something to that effect (since you deleted it I can't quote exactly). Is it your perspective that we should all just thank our lucky stars that you're here on top of things? /s
NOMOCHOMO ago
Liar. I didn't delete any comments
you want me to copy-paste the whole thread retard? Buck founded/directed SCIL: https://citywatchla.com/index.php/2016-01-01-13-17-00/animal-watch/16952-ed-buck-animal-activist-or-political-opportunist
So his fake charity raised money for the Best Friends/Process Church
If @letsdothis3 research is "relevant", that is reason alone for Buck's later arrest to be posted as an update.
I only got "pissed off" after I was banned. Link a comment where I'm pissy. You can't, I was exceedingly polite in darkknight's post.
I answered why they were relevant. (https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3432234/20631962) 2 years of prior relevant posts on Ed Buck legitimized an update on his arrest.
otherwise the old posts are also breaking "rule 1"....either our rules have changed and old posts are now "irrelevant" or they are deemed still relevant via old mod standards.
After I had been unfairly banned, he clarified. Despite admitting it was their mistake, he didn't reverse the ban.
I DIDN'T MAKE OR DELETE ANY COMMENT SAYING THAT. QUIT LYING!!!!
kestrel9 ago
This is what I saw in my response box
I've added a new rule to reflect the Voat User Agreement. Please share your thoughts.
context
It came right after your answers and I lost track of the first one, but I see it now. A bit of a mix up. my bad. You didn't delete, but there were two similar responses.
A mistake isn't lying, and to say quit lying implies I lied before that mix up.
NOPE
Show us the donation amount to Best Friends. No reference to Best Friends getting donation from Ed Buck.
We have proof he's a gay serial killer of black gay men in their twenties.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/3432234/20631962 Does not indicate that Ed Buck is a pedophile, or a victim of pedophiles.
I addressed your other proof (the two initial links) and why they were a bust. I don't think you are able to discern what constitutes proof vs. conjecture and correlation (he donates to democrats, he supports sex ed in schools). I believe you are so jacked up over your own ego, you've brought the ban upon yourself. The closest thing to supporting you that I can think of is that I agree the cabal takedown flair probably should be shelved. I've yet to see concrete proof that the original Ed Buck post should have stayed in PG as opposed to belonging in PGWE. @shewhomustbeobeyed And within all this, I suspect the standards of proof will suffer because of you, which makes @crensch correct when he tried to get you show proof and you never have (not that you haven't tried).
@vindicator
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
Hi kestrel9, I understand the other pings you sent me, but I'm not sure if this is an fyi, or an accusation?
Is there something that you want from me?
kestrel9 ago
Sorry, no it's neither. I got in the habit of just using @ when mentioning someone's name. (bad habit when their name comes up a lot :/
My apologies.
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
Okay, well I do not understand what it is that you tried to say. It's confusing me.
kestrel9 ago
I just did an edit to be more clear on why I put your name in and I removed the @
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
Thanks for explaining it. The context wasn't clear to me.
kestrel9 ago
np anytime. (hopefully no need for it, I'll watch out for using @ when I don't need to :)
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
If I'm being discussed, don't mind being pinged. Thank you for editing the comment.
NOMOCHOMO ago
I STAND CORRECTED.
I was mistaken regarding Buck fundraising for Best Friends/Process Church. He Co-Sponsored/Advocated Legislation with them.
@Letsdothis3 research is still a valid connection to establish Ed Buck as pizzagate player. He lobbied alongside a Satanic Pedo Cult.
Buck's advocacy of Sex Ed in schools is a valid pizzagate connection. It is Elite Organized sexual indoctrination of the youth. We have a long history of LGBTQ gay "activist" pedos. Buck admits his interest in Molding Child Sexuality
Being a TOP DONOR for HOLLYWOOD DEMS (Liddle Adam Schiff-pizzagate) and Hillary Clinton is different than "donates to democrats". @cantsleepawink post was deemed relevant.
he made my membership conditional on proving another members post. Not only did I do that, but he hasn't reversed the ban.
How? we're examining standards with a microscope?
You're arguing that previous posts are irrelevant...and simultaneously, stricter standards of proof will "suffer"
Why should a user be banned for somebody else's post? Relevancy was a submission standard. I was banned for relevancy for a comment....but the comment wasn't banned, nor the submission.
it's a farce
kestrel9 ago
All things considered I support having your ban revisited (due to the flair issue and what appeared to be evidence that turned out otherwise).
@crensch @vindicator
NOMOCHOMO ago
dude thank you thank you thank you
kestrel9 ago
you're welcome :)
NOMOCHOMO ago
sorry I was snappy, I've kind of been in fight or flight re: getting unbanned
kestrel9 ago
I understand np, this is how the process goes sometimes.
NOMOCHOMO ago
also regarding liddle'
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/27/20886829/liddle-adam-schiff-trump-tweet-hyphen-apostrophe
Trump is literally getting people to search "liddle"
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2414349
@vindicator @shewhomustbeobeyed
somebody ought to do a post on this in v/pizzagate
kestrel9 ago
Curious comment you have. Why is a Trump hit piece regarding Greta Thunberg (a snarky anti Q article, that is protecting Adam Schiff), something to post on PG? Curious that you are reposting a link from a user which was the same user you reposted 10 mos ago (without crediting them until an edit) and got in a dust up over it with @Vindicator https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2870370
Maybe you're kind of an unlucky person? /s Or one who likes to push their luck?
There are plenty of people here who don't like Trump and don't like GA. If they find something PG related in that article beyond the old post of you cited they may post it. I didn't see anything that would accomplish furthering the case against Adam Schiff, and nothing about Ed Buck. If there's a connection you want to make between the baby massage and sex education pushed in schools start in PGWE to see if it flies (babies aren't in school tho)
I did find an old link with intriguing info relating to Little Echoes. It's not something I can research at the moment. (Not involving Ed Buck)
You didn't provide proof that Buck is a pedo. Again I suggest learning how to research to make solid connections, or remain someone who appears to be a trollish snark right after I decided to support revisiting the fact that you were banned. Your decision. Good luck.
@crensch @vindicator @think-
NOMOCHOMO ago
keep reading. The second tweet it cites:
read the article in it's entirety b4 you comment bro. You just read the first paragraph
"Liddle" has already been established as a Pizzagate Research subject as Trump tweeted it so many times. I used @shadow322 research because I look only at the info. not the user. Even disinfo bots spread 20% truth to legitimize the fakery.
I've been accused of being an alt/brigade since I joined and w/ 7 piece submission series "The Vampires of Ahepa"
he doesn't have to be a pedo to be relevant to pizzagate. He is an elite advocating sexualizing children, who is a top donor to pizzagate players Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton, and affiliated with a pedo-satanic church.
hmmmmmmmm....https://voat.co/v/pizzagatemods/3433526/20649096
interesting word choice. There was literally no snark in my reply. Trump is signal boosting "liddle" of which there are many pizzagate posts. How is that snark?
@shewhomustbeobeyed
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
What am I supposed to be looking at? Search was down for me, haven't bothered to check it lately. Are you looking for posts with that word in them?
NOMOCHOMO ago
https://voat.co/v/pizzagatemods/2394295/11913955
https://searchvoat.co/?st=comments&t=snark&s=pizzagatemods
NOMOCHOMO ago
https://searchvoat.co/?st=comments&t=snark&s=pizzagate
look who uses that word over and over
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
Lol. I use that word all the time. Mostly cuz i am snarky, and have children.
It's a cool word, btw.
NOMOCHOMO ago
I agree! you use "snarky". It is a great word.
https://searchvoat.co/?st=comments&t=snarky&s=pizzagate
It seems like only 1 person regularly accuses others of snark as an insult
https://searchvoat.co/?st=comments&t=snark&s=pizzagate
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
Stop it.
NOMOCHOMO ago
lol. k.
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
ty
NOMOCHOMO ago
kestrel9 ago
Since this last comment of your claimed:
When it does nothing of the sort and you didn't prove that Ed Buck arrest post belongs in PG, the word snark came to mind.
More interesting is omitting relevant info when countering something
Post about it one of the Q related sites where you aren't banned (if you want to)
shewhomustbeobeyed ago
Well, you've been banned from PG and I don't contribute content. Maybe @kestrel9 will do it.
Good luck.
NOMOCHOMO ago
SEX EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN