The way I see it "builders" are just effortposters or high-quality OC posters, while "destroyers" are fedposters/glowniggers (aka the reason Voat was under investigation recently, which is probably why Putt made the post). Putt is totally justified in that respect.
(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.
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
as an owner of a site that has accepted groups I'd rather not have here
This paints a picture that putt is trying to make voat into "reddit but right-leaning" instead of "reddit but everyone calls you a nigger and a faggot and posts about hitler and white pride", which I understand from a business perspective.
That explains why Q shit is being propped up. Conservative but still more marketable than posting "the greatest story never told". Come to think of it that's probably why antivax stuff is spinning up here, you get to feel subversive but it's still marketable.
"Builder" and "Destroyer" are thought terminating cliches that can be used to purge accounts for resisting the new, more marketable voat. We're a couple of rounds of bans away from "Destroyer" being used colloquially on voat in the same way that "nazi" is used in western society. "It just means that's the bad guy and we need to get rid of them don't ask why what are you a Destroyer or something?"
The VPN giveaway was literally asking people to submit pictures of themselves, which could be benign but would be absolutely intolerable in the kind of place where people are doing subversive things. You don't go on the chans and ask everyone in an "it's ok to be white" op to post a fun selfie.
it pisses me off that these former people are less accepting than Voat was towards them. It's bullshit.
Sounds like he's mad that people aren't falling in line with the direction he wants the site to go in, so we're gonna get some vague explanations, account purges, fun badges for complying, we'll get a couple of enemies to rally against, the rules will start to change out from under us, and voat will turn to a bland, inoffensive reddit clone full of boomer memes where the trump is ripped and has a full head of hair but you can get banned if you say it's ok to be white or criticize israel.
and anecdotally - "less accepting?" all I had to do was create an account and scroll through without posting for a while, get the feel of the place, and then start posting. Pretty sure that track still works. Yes I've been called a faggot, nigger, jewish shill, etc. if that's enough to make you shut down and leave then the world around you is going to kick your teeth in for decades without ever making eye contact. I'd like to not be called those things. I'd also like to never get fired or lose at anything, but you can't ban slings, arrows and outrageous fortune.
I don't know, this doesn't strike me as the place to start banning people for being meanie-heads. But I guess that's the change that management's trying to affect.
"Builder" and "Destroyer" are thought terminating cliches
I agree.
Now when he originally posted that Poem I hoped he merely wanted to encourage more original content ("building") over us grumbling about the current state of society all the time. Voat does lack non-political or positive content. I understand for voats admin to encourage more original and positive content.
And that he would not focus on "destroyers". I'd like to have more people like Empress around but I don't want voats free speech absolutism and radical aspects to be banned or contained.
I also think users here should always have the right to complain about reddit style moderators on v/all. But this means that it will be very difficult to establish safe spaces and containment subverses and therefore to attract more normies.
In an edit to his latest update he called people who downvoated his submission Destroyers. https://voat.co/v/Voat/3239483 I don't think that's a good sign.
We're a couple of rounds of bans away from "Destroyer" being used colloquially on voat in the same way that "nazi" is used in western society.
He will have to wait more years before he can do that and not alienate most of his "customers".
view the rest of the comments →
Delacourt ago
The way I see it "builders" are just effortposters or high-quality OC posters, while "destroyers" are fedposters/glowniggers (aka the reason Voat was under investigation recently, which is probably why Putt made the post). Putt is totally justified in that respect.
VoatsNewfag ago
Why not just ban them for illegal content? Why differentiate between builders and destroyers if it's just about legal threats?
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.
.
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
6cd6beb ago
This paints a picture that putt is trying to make voat into "reddit but right-leaning" instead of "reddit but everyone calls you a nigger and a faggot and posts about hitler and white pride", which I understand from a business perspective.
That explains why Q shit is being propped up. Conservative but still more marketable than posting "the greatest story never told". Come to think of it that's probably why antivax stuff is spinning up here, you get to feel subversive but it's still marketable.
"Builder" and "Destroyer" are thought terminating cliches that can be used to purge accounts for resisting the new, more marketable voat. We're a couple of rounds of bans away from "Destroyer" being used colloquially on voat in the same way that "nazi" is used in western society. "It just means that's the bad guy and we need to get rid of them don't ask why what are you a Destroyer or something?"
The VPN giveaway was literally asking people to submit pictures of themselves, which could be benign but would be absolutely intolerable in the kind of place where people are doing subversive things. You don't go on the chans and ask everyone in an "it's ok to be white" op to post a fun selfie.
Sounds like he's mad that people aren't falling in line with the direction he wants the site to go in, so we're gonna get some vague explanations, account purges, fun badges for complying, we'll get a couple of enemies to rally against, the rules will start to change out from under us, and voat will turn to a bland, inoffensive reddit clone full of boomer memes where the trump is ripped and has a full head of hair but you can get banned if you say it's ok to be white or criticize israel.
and anecdotally - "less accepting?" all I had to do was create an account and scroll through without posting for a while, get the feel of the place, and then start posting. Pretty sure that track still works. Yes I've been called a faggot, nigger, jewish shill, etc. if that's enough to make you shut down and leave then the world around you is going to kick your teeth in for decades without ever making eye contact. I'd like to not be called those things. I'd also like to never get fired or lose at anything, but you can't ban slings, arrows and outrageous fortune.
I don't know, this doesn't strike me as the place to start banning people for being meanie-heads. But I guess that's the change that management's trying to affect.
VoatsNewfag ago
I agree.
Now when he originally posted that Poem I hoped he merely wanted to encourage more original content ("building") over us grumbling about the current state of society all the time. Voat does lack non-political or positive content. I understand for voats admin to encourage more original and positive content.
I also think users here should always have the right to complain about reddit style moderators on v/all. But this means that it will be very difficult to establish safe spaces and containment subverses and therefore to attract more normies.
In an edit to his latest update he called people who downvoated his submission Destroyers. https://voat.co/v/Voat/3239483 I don't think that's a good sign.
He will have to wait more years before he can do that and not alienate most of his "customers".