I preface the following by acknowledging that I'm no longer a regular v/pizzagate contributor and that my opinion on the matters discussed ahead should not have much, if any, bearing on any associated outcomes.

---

 

On the subject at hand; "Comment Abuse Rule":

This is going to contrast slightly, in some places, with Points of Amusement at the bottom – but here's my take...

I'll start with one of the points of contention (because it's easier to get from there to the end), the changing of v/pizzagate's rule 5.

The old Rule 5 was about making sure you self-flair your content if it is NSFW, with the "NSFW" flair:

• Very rarely is this invoked as a rule that results in removal of content or user punishment, as it is very rare that someone maliciously posts un-flaired NSFW content.
• Moreover, the rule is a tad archaic now that submission authors and Owners/Moderators (inc. Janitors?) have the ability to toggle NSFW on/off.

In terms of shuffling the NSFW flair clause out of its own rule and into another: I say go for it, but I would say that it would be more appropriate to instead append it to Rule 3 (and Rule 6 for good measure).

 

The new Rule 5:

5: Comment Abuse

Do not derail topical discussion of a submission. Use v/pizzagatemods for disputes with moderators.

Totally acceptable in its concept though I would caution against regular use of it unless clear intent to derail is displayed. I think there is some merit to concern if the rule is not further refined before its first (next?) citation.

I would encourage steering the definition and utilization away from punishing people just for having a shitty attitude, as this would be tone policing(?). It should be practical in terms of stamping out blatant disruption but it also shouldn't be something which can be invoked because someone said something coarse to someone sensitive. More on this ahead.

Incidentally: If you think about it, Rule 5 as it stands now was actually 50% covered by Rule 4 (which applies to all and seemingly has not changed for 1.3+ years) already – long before the other point of contention;

 

The banning of Nomochomo:

^{InB4 "Ping me you coward!": See bottom of comment.}

It's no secret that I'm not in any rush to defend Nomo, but looking at things chronologically speaking for a moment and given a pre-existing understanding that 'best conduct' is to only ban for violations of rules that were already defined before the incident in question:

• It's true, Nomo was banned from v/pizzagate before the explicit creation of the "Comment Abuse" rule there.
• I think I read that the ban was originally for the "Relevance" clause in comments – this isn't a ban I can rightly stand behind if it's truly the case, as comments are supposed to be largely off limits. That said, no comments were deleted so that's something. The point being is (and this applies to other users too) it's not Nomo's responsibility to prove the submission's relevance; he's not obliged to do the author's job, his assistance to the author is voluntary and as such he should not be banned on the grounds of the Relevance clause (note also that the Relevance clause does not apply to comments).
• It's also true (iirc) that the Voat User Agreement has had its "Respect Other Users" clause for a while now if not since I've been here. However;
• Yourself (or @Crensch?) citing the Voat UA "Respect Other Users" clause (VUA ROU) as a bridging reason for the ban in lieu of the presence of the "Comment Abuse" rule, is just barely sufficient – allow me to elaborate:

The VUA ROU is barely efficient in that, although it forms a basis for the creation of the "Comment Abuse" rule and the title of the VUA ROU is something you'd like to think we can all abide by at least in v/pizzagate on the surface, the wording of the clause is not properly suited the situation in full. There's a misstep in translating it to a contextually appropriate, beneficial extension of the VUA ROU for inclusion in the v/pizzagate rules, but I think we can nail it.

For example's sake: I would add a note to Rule 5's definition stating that it is based on the VUA ROU, with a reminder that the VUA ROU is in effect. I would also, whether included in the written definition or not, consider interference with the 24h grace/edit/deletion process by "comment abuse" in the form of meta-themed disruption (Rule 4) instead of assisting by either presenting sufficient supporting material for the author to add to their submission or creating their own better submission in the case of an uncooperative author, an affront to this rule; a violation of Rules 4 and 5.

 

Which leads me to my final points on the banning of Nomochomo and the subsequent new Rule 5:

• Nomochomo should not be banned for Rule 1 "Relevance" clause.
• Rule 4 has, for at least 1.3 years, applied to comments.
• Nomochomo did break Rule 4 – it isn't the first time, if I recall – and he could be banned for that, but by that measure so can many others... I'm not going to push in any direction there.
• Rule 5 (as "Comments Abuse") should be tailored in a way to promote positive input when a submission is in dispute (24h Grace flaired).

 

And now it's time for...

 

Points of Amusement:

This: link

• All of the "REE!" with zero acknowledgement of, or remorse for, running a sockpuppet-driven campaign of intimidation, defamation/disinformation and manipulation against me. Simple response:

Oh and what is this?

Amazing how hard you tried to make everyone think that you're not [LA]RP[ing], ES...

This one really aged well when contrasted with the above 2, didn't it?:

Hey, ES, remember that time you threatened me via private message using your RP account? You're so very lucky I deleted the message. It gives you the perfect opportunity to deny doing it, but, you're surely not a liar, are you?

Doesn't matter, though, you went to the effort of stalking me in public comments too:

• https://archive.fo/zEvFI
• https://archive.fo/WA3UY

 

Also this: link

• Because, in conjunction with above, lol.

 

Also because of both above points of amusement:

Continued attempts to capitalize on my providing material on a discussion suppression/manipulation tactic which is known to be regularly used against myself, Crensch, yourself (the latter 2 of which most noticeably of late) and many others who have found themselves at odds with users who have a particular association with ES.

_Previously:

• Sep 04, 2019 @ 06:53:23 PM UTC

_{In comments here:}

• Sep 22, 2019 @ 06:45:05 PM UTC
• Sep 23, 2019 @ 01:26:47 PM UTC

---

RE: "Ping me you coward!": You say that as if you aren't checking in regularly anyway and as if we don't (or shouldn't) all have each other on block. Ultimately I'm in no rush to see or be notified of your replies – we're not going to be nice to one another, so frankly I don't care (I'm surprised if you do, to either) – I'll read them eventually and maybe ^{(probably not)} respond though.

PS: Downvote away, trickle or otherwise; this comment is a child of a Vindicator comment you're already downvoting near to the point of not being visible, which is itself a child of a comment which isn't exactly near the top when sorting by top first.