When I put up the previous sticky, I said I would listen to pizzagate researchers. After a number of conversations with different longtime users I trust and respect, I have come to the conclusion that the way I handled this -- mainly changing the sidebar without first ensuring there was a consensus for it -- was completely backassward and wrong. Some of you have pointed out concerns with how a Comment Abuse rule could itself be abused. Others supported it -- but were afraid to do so publicly.
What I should have done is explain the problem I see, and engage the whole board in discussing how to address it. I hope you will forgive me for approaching this in the wrong way.
In my nearly three years modding here, I have been repeatedly humbled and deeply encouraged by the level of commitment so many of you have shown to exposing the truth about the evil abuse structure undergirding national and international politics, government, business, media, churches, charities, "health"care and education. Some of you research, many actively spread the word, many more mostly lurk and pray. But all of you have courageously refused to look away from a horror that turned out to be far more dark and pervasive than any of us imagined when we first read about Podesta's handkerchief with a "pizza-related map" on it. Together, we've amassed 33,036 submissions (as of today) which expose this web of filth like no other resource on the planet. It's no wonder there is always one or more people here trying to disrupt, discourage, distract, derail and divide.
Our requirements that contributors take the time to explain how their submissions are pizzagate related, source every major claim with a link that can be vetted, and keep unsourced discussion, disputes about moderation and other meta material in v/pizzagatemods or v/pizzagatewhatever, while somewhat of a pain for both users and mods, has resulted in strong content and a board that runs well much of the time.
It has forced those here to screw with us to go to great lengths to complete their mission. By and large, they have to create legitimate-seeming alts by submitting research exposing elite pedos or posing as advocates for other users before they attempt to run their divide-discourage-defame operation. The only place they can even get away with doing that is in the Comments because we were told by ProtectVoat we could not touch comments.
There is a whole story here going back to the banning of this subverse from Reddit, the herding of researchers to this subverse and the purging of all original moderators that I might get into when I have more time. But suffice it to say, that what ProtectVoat claims is not, actually, true. There is no Voat rule that says subverses that are not System subverses (such as v/whatever, v/news, v/funny etc.) cannot make rules or policies regarding Comments or remove those who are only there to disrupt. It has been done occasionally to deal with egregious "comment spammers" both locally and Voatwide". Here's how the Voat User Agreement FAQ puts it:
Each subverse has its own rules which are usually stated in the respective subverse's sidebar. If you ignore said rules, your account may be banned from submitting further content to the subverse or in some cases, globally.
We have a situation here in v/pizzagate in which anyone who wants to "ignore said rules" to attempt to sow division, stir up drama, or push unsupported disinfo can simply do so by using other people's submissions' Comment section. I'm not talking about normal discussion. I'm talking about exactly what we've always banned users for: a pattern of repeated disregard for subverse rules like Rule 4. I have always used an approach where the pattern is documented and the user warned before losing their posting privileges, so that no one gets shut down simply because they were having a bad day, or got discouraged about the subject matter, had a few drinks and vented, or whatever. So:
- Do you want to add a general warning to the sidebar that a pattern of repeated disregard for subverse rules may lead to a ban, and take it on a case by case basis when this becomes a problem in Comments?
- Or is that a terrible idea that ought to be completely scrapped, and we should continue to only respond to egregious disruptors with challenges in comments and/or informative stickies?
- Do you want a more limited version of #1, such as mods only be able to ban users for repeatedly using Comments to subvert Rule 4 instead of making a submission in the appropriate subverse?
I want this sub to run fairly and smoothly, with maximum effectiveness. I think the time is coming soon, in the run-up to 2020, when we will have unprecedented opportunities to share our research and make a public impact. With that, we can expect to be thwarted even worse than we have been so far. I want us to be ready!
Pizzagate contributors, please comment below and share your thoughts, or any others you might have.
view the rest of the comments →
Crensch ago
It has come to my attention that my presence here has had a silencing effect on many of the users of this sub. Many of you refused to participate in rule changes out of fear of being banned by me.
I find that a bit odd, since even when I was firmly on team ProtectVoat, I was not exactly ban-happy, but more likely to use my words to admonish/embarrass those that would sow discord and try to harm the users or sub. If this fear is borne from my recent antics on GA, ask any user there if they like it more now, without the ESOTERIC/NOMO types, than when the mods thought they had to let the trolls continue to troll.
If a random user were to ask any one of you about shills and trolls and Brock-operatives and spooks here, you'd probably tell them that the place is crawling with them. It's a little disheartening that my efforts to combat those types, who've racked up MANY legit-researcher victims, seems unappreciated and maybe even intimidating or scary to some. I get it, though. I'm not exactly a nice guy, and I am pretty rabid about evidence > feels to the point that it's overboard for many. One of your researchers originally HATED me, because she came at the mods with ESOTERICshade in tow, and no evidence to back up her/his claims; I gave her a textual thrashing so bad she later admitted that she cried about it. Once the bad guys whose comments heavily populate Vin's previous rule sticky, and NOMO's cryposts, doxxed that researcher off the site, she handed her beloved sub over to me, because she knew I would protect it.
I wasn't wrong to do what I did, and my particular flavor of communication has helped nail quite a few Es-types, so it's extremely useful to those that are also concerned with the bad guys right under our noses. I've never functioned like many of you, and many of you cannot even process why I am the way I am. I fight the bad guys here, even if I make mistakes now and then, I present my case to the users with logos, and they judge that on its merits. Given the general lack of interest in the meta in both this sub and GA, I stopped working on such things, and in GA, I simply ban/remove them and their narratives when I notice them. So far, I've had very few mistakes, and all were laughed off as the user thanked me for my vigilance.
While I may have directly engaged you and made you feel awful or scared, I never intended any harm upon you or what you do here. I stuck my neck out and lost countless nights of sleep when PG was banned on Reddit in order to calm the 'Voat Immunity System' from coming in and destroying this place like they have so many others; I KNEW what y'all were doing was important, and I wanted to help facilitate your continued operation in any way I possibly could. If I wasn't 'nice', it's for myriad reasons, including the fact that making nice with you all would have weakened my leverage/support with the aforementioned immune system. My original purpose was to be a peacemaker... KingKongWasWrong changed that eventually when he/she decided to leave and leave it all in my hands.
I know a lot of you are stating how what Vin and I did was not how PG is run or how things worked historically, and while there's some truth to that, PG was historically basically under the thumb of what I now perceive to be one of the worst groups of shills on the site: /v/ProtectVoat. Their 'rules' for subs were basically a license for trolls from SBBH to shit on any carpet they wanted, and everyone just had to suck it up. I liken the PV principles to globalists these days, and I find the analogy to be more accurate the more I look back on how things came about and were run.
I implore you to seek out your own ideas about how you want this place to function. A research submission is great, but without rules, without some kind of limits, the comments can be used to subvert users into either not bothering with them, being inundated with bullshit that simply does not need to be there, or, in many cases, convince users that the bullshit is what's legit.
~4 months ago something very big happened on the rest of Voat. I know many of you only come here, so you may not have seen anything at all. Vin and I (and others) thought it best to leave you all out of the drama, and let PG continue to function as it always has. At the time, that was the best idea we had. We may have been wrong to do that, because now, with you all completely oblivious to what has previously happened, that campaign seems to be ramping up against PG. You may all be unequipped to fight this, and unlike with GA, the people that could or would fight for you have slowly lost interest or motivation to fight the good fight.
If you want to know what a subverse can be... what it can feel like, I recommend looking at /v/GreatAwakening. I did there 4 months ago what Vin and I did here - started the party without the users. I banned and removed shit that simply didn't belong, and I quoted no rules in doing so. I asked for forgiveness, and explained to the users the two main possibilities of what the future would look like in their sub. They chose to trust me to get rid of the filth. I made a submission for you all to quickly see how happy the users are with their sub since then.
I won't ask you for your forgiveness for what I did. Whatever Vin says, it was my idea and my precedent in GA that he went along with, so if you think there's any need for it, forgive him. We both want what's best for all of you, and I'm actually thankful for this recent NOMO horseshit, because it came to light that perhaps my time as [O] here should come to an end.
I'm not one of you - never have been, never will be - but it has been a great honor to do everything I possibly could to make this place ideal for the important work you all do; it has also become a great shame that I was directly responsible for some of you staying silent when you should have felt free to speak your minds. For that last part, I am deeply sorry.
Fortunately in all of this, you now have a top-level [O] that is purely one of you. I ask that you treat him well and take what he as to say very seriously. He's seen a MASSIVE amount of bullshit from the Brock+-types right here on Voat that most of you couldn't even imagine really exists. I don't mean this as a slight against you all, but the number of you that can recognize, work against, fight, and have any chance of winning can be counted on one hand. Learn from him, for god's sake. Take an interest in your own back yard, and fight for the only place on the net where you can find PG research. USE YOUR DOWNVOTES and SPEAK UP. Don't let PG/Trolls/BIGBADCRENSCH silence you!
P.S. Nomo is a bad dude. His research might seem legit, but his motive in being here is to divide the community against the mods when the mods are simply doing their job enforcing the rules. This is undeniable in even just the recent dustup - it's also a historical trend. Find a way to keep users like him out, or those of you that cannot tell the difference will side with usernames like his and elbow out your legit research, leftist/democrat/socialist/communist-style. (That's happened before in PG, too)
There are many well-known usernames among you that also seem well-liked... and they function as legitimizers of the Brock/alphabet usernames and the disinfo they push. "Oh, what GREAT research and how LEGIT is the info on this PERSON who is(totally not) relevant/useful as a lead!" Please, please, please keep your eyes open.
NOMOCHOMO ago
^Claims to employ "logos"
.....
writes a persuasive essay full of appeals to emotion, appeals to fear, and "I'm a good Mod" anecdotes.
heygeorge ago
Well stated. (It’s why you received no response.) There is a cavernous disconnect between what Crenschiepoo presents as and what he really is.