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 →

darkknight111 ago

Decided to finally open my mouth since I’m getting tired of the drama, especially after what should have been a big victory for us. Gonna make my stance clear here and now.

The Rule Itself: I believe this rule should be a “Threshold Rule”. By that I mean, a rule of absolute last resort reserved for the most disruptive of assholes, psychopaths, and shills. The kind of people who only get emboldened by the lack of rules and know just far to push it without getting the axe.

Under this threshold, subhuman pig beasts like Donkey would most certainly qualify.

To prevent abuse, this is exactly the kind of rule that needs a “nuclear keys” safe guard. In this case, a majority vote by the non mod users is required before usage.

Regarding the situation with NOMO: Reinstate him. He does good research. I’d take this scenario as just flying off the handle for an understandable reason.

The incident that led to the above: In hindsight, I should have made my logic more clear in terms of my arguments. The reason I posted the relevant hits on v/pizzagate regarding Ed Buck was because I believed it could be logically inferred that posting about the arrest would qualify as a situation update to previous leads.

NOMOCHOMO ago

I appreciate you and your research. Sorry for the repeated pings. I understand the time it takes for a complete response.

To prevent abuse, this is exactly the kind of rule that needs a “nuclear keys” safe guard. In this case, a majority vote by the non mod users is required before usage.

I don't like rule 5, but if it must be implemented, this seems the only reasonable solution.

Distribution of the executive power

Reinstate him. He does good research. I’d take this scenario as just flying off the handle for an understandable reason.

<3333333 thank you kind sir.

The reason I posted the relevant hits on v/pizzagate regarding Ed Buck was because I believed it could be logically inferred that posting about the arrest would qualify as a situation update to previous leads.

I was also under this impression. It wasn't me trying to "trap" anyone.

darkknight111 ago

Remember, I also work graveyard. That shit saps the strength outta people.

NOMOCHOMO ago

my apologies for draining you. Wasn't my intention. And sorry, I wasn't aware.