(aka the reason Voat was under investigation recently, which is probably why Putt made the post).

Why not just ban them for illegal content? Why differentiate between builders and destroyers if it's just about legal threats?

while "destroyers" are fedposters/glowniggers

I don't like resorting to assumptions.

I believe that voat, even if it loves unfiltered speech, would be very understanding when it comes to deleting (possibly) illegal threats and content. I see no reason to be vague if that were the case.

However it's easy to argue that people who are hostile to newcomers (calling them "niggerfaggots") or who are overly annoying to outsiders (ie. mocking and trolling in v/QRV, which admittedly I occasionally do) are "destroyers" in the eyes of puttitout for turning people away from voat.

I recall that puttitout voiced in the past that he dislikes the way voat treats newcomers and is disappointed in it's growth.

Voat has remained stagnate from a growth perspective for 2+ years and this won't change if nothing changes. Voat has to be a market leader or it won't last and we don't have much time to act.

The reality is Free Speech isn't important enough in and of itself to be a factor for growth, it's a liability that requires us to be creative.

@puttitout

.

Voat's current attitude towards new members only inflicts self-harm, and as an owner of a site that has accepted groups I'd rather not have here, it pisses me off that these former people are less accepting than Voat was towards them. It's bullshit.

@puttitout

If I'm right about this interpretation of destroyer it could easily explain why he is kinda vague as it would alienate a good chunk of voat. As far as I can tell many (most?) here value unfiltered speech more than sharing content. @TheodoreKent