I'm not jiving with some of the names on that ban log. EdSnowden was here for over 4 years, and I'd gotten used to seeing his name around. He just posted a few days ago about how much he 'loved Voat.' And he's globally banned for something vague? Same goes for a few other names on that list. I'm having a hard time buying into it.
One suspicious situation isn't enough to pull the trigger, but how many do you need in order for it to be enough?
I looked through 3 or 4 pages of that ban log, and there were at least a half dozen people I'd grown used to seeing around. Smokratez is another one who'd been here for quite a while. It raises the hairs on the back of my neck when people who are really 'part of the group' get suddenly shut out like that, with no fanfare, no warning, etc. I really think Theodore is onto something here.
It's a common tactic for infiltrators though, they need to build reputation. Like who would you tend to believe if we were arguing, me or Smokratez? I wouldn't even blame you for casually siding with Smokratez. I'm what not even a two month old account? I've security minded though. I like to swap out accounts. I prefer my arguments to stand on their own merit and not my reputation. I know there's nothing malicious about me or my account, but if I ended up in an argument with Smoke and neither of us had hard evidence...
I don't consider that I have 'friends' or 'favorites' on Voat, because I'm just a lurker. I don't know anybody all that well. I was just used to seeing Smokratez around. I had one nice interaction with him a few years ago, and a number of bad ones. I've up-voated and down-voated him plenty of times. If you were to argue with him, I'd like to think I'd consider whose argument was actually correct, and side with that person.
My great concern with the ban log is just that there were numerous familiar names on it, all of whom had been around about as long as I have. It's not a great loss for me, personally, but it's a little upsetting.
Think of it like this: Your neighbor, and old man that you've maybe said two words to over the past five years, is suddenly gone one day. You go out to pick up your morning paper/collect the mail from the mailbox/etc. and you see a bunch of people moving shit out of his house into a box truck. You ask what's going on, and somebody says that he just died. You didn't know him very well, didn't even know his name, but he was a fixture. He was your neighbor. And now he's gone. That doesn't really change your life at all, things will continue as well as they ever did, but it ought to make you feel bad for a minute or two. And then you move on, and every so often you might think of the guy. Or you might not.
If some of those guys were legitimately doing things that violated Voat's rules, then the bans should stand, of course.
Yeah, that's probably a better analogy. At some point, the question should be asked if one trusts the authority enough to take their word for it. In the case of my example, I would trust the authority that my neighbor had been justly arrested, so I take your point.
I honestly don't know what's going on. I've been highly skeptical of a lot of stuff around here. I'm struggling with my personal bias here because several of the people banned were users I had been incredibly suspicious of for a very long time. So it's easy for me to feel A.) Personally validated in my suspicions and B.) That "the neighbor had been justly arrested"
But at the end of the day, I know nothing. Literally nothing. I have suspicions but I never had evidence. I kind of want to see the evidence that they were legitimately breaking rules and to what level of severity.
view the rest of the comments →
Zenhael ago
I'm not jiving with some of the names on that ban log. EdSnowden was here for over 4 years, and I'd gotten used to seeing his name around. He just posted a few days ago about how much he 'loved Voat.' And he's globally banned for something vague? Same goes for a few other names on that list. I'm having a hard time buying into it.
One suspicious situation isn't enough to pull the trigger, but how many do you need in order for it to be enough?
Croat_Goat ago
Like u/ruck_feddit. No warning, just banned. Then putt is MIA from posting all day today.
Zenhael ago
I looked through 3 or 4 pages of that ban log, and there were at least a half dozen people I'd grown used to seeing around. Smokratez is another one who'd been here for quite a while. It raises the hairs on the back of my neck when people who are really 'part of the group' get suddenly shut out like that, with no fanfare, no warning, etc. I really think Theodore is onto something here.
Hysterical ago
It's a common tactic for infiltrators though, they need to build reputation. Like who would you tend to believe if we were arguing, me or Smokratez? I wouldn't even blame you for casually siding with Smokratez. I'm what not even a two month old account? I've security minded though. I like to swap out accounts. I prefer my arguments to stand on their own merit and not my reputation. I know there's nothing malicious about me or my account, but if I ended up in an argument with Smoke and neither of us had hard evidence...
Zenhael ago
I don't consider that I have 'friends' or 'favorites' on Voat, because I'm just a lurker. I don't know anybody all that well. I was just used to seeing Smokratez around. I had one nice interaction with him a few years ago, and a number of bad ones. I've up-voated and down-voated him plenty of times. If you were to argue with him, I'd like to think I'd consider whose argument was actually correct, and side with that person.
My great concern with the ban log is just that there were numerous familiar names on it, all of whom had been around about as long as I have. It's not a great loss for me, personally, but it's a little upsetting.
Think of it like this: Your neighbor, and old man that you've maybe said two words to over the past five years, is suddenly gone one day. You go out to pick up your morning paper/collect the mail from the mailbox/etc. and you see a bunch of people moving shit out of his house into a box truck. You ask what's going on, and somebody says that he just died. You didn't know him very well, didn't even know his name, but he was a fixture. He was your neighbor. And now he's gone. That doesn't really change your life at all, things will continue as well as they ever did, but it ought to make you feel bad for a minute or two. And then you move on, and every so often you might think of the guy. Or you might not.
If some of those guys were legitimately doing things that violated Voat's rules, then the bans should stand, of course.
Hysterical ago
Fair enough, but what if instead of dying he was say arrested and sent to prison. You were told he had committed tax fraud.
I understand the sentiment though.
Zenhael ago
Yeah, that's probably a better analogy. At some point, the question should be asked if one trusts the authority enough to take their word for it. In the case of my example, I would trust the authority that my neighbor had been justly arrested, so I take your point.
Hysterical ago
I honestly don't know what's going on. I've been highly skeptical of a lot of stuff around here. I'm struggling with my personal bias here because several of the people banned were users I had been incredibly suspicious of for a very long time. So it's easy for me to feel A.) Personally validated in my suspicions and B.) That "the neighbor had been justly arrested"
But at the end of the day, I know nothing. Literally nothing. I have suspicions but I never had evidence. I kind of want to see the evidence that they were legitimately breaking rules and to what level of severity.
I dunno.