I'm not crying over IMCHAD getting banned except that the ban is apparently just for doxxing and that's all that is noted so I assume that its the entire reason, limited to just doxxing. I have not seen the alleged doxxing from any of the people shown in the doxxing ban today.
Doxxing is not against the PUBLISHED rules. Should people be banned for an unpublished rule ?
I understand, however as the initial ban applied by u/trigglypuff (unjustly I might add) was for that reason and then u/zyklon_b was also banned for the same reason, these users also deserved the ban.
But I agree a clear rule on Doxxing needs to be specified on the user agreement. Which is something that I have been trying to get done by engaging on dialogue with all the drama going on, despite of the different character assassinations thrown at me from the supporters of the previous post. So maybe, just maybe we can reach a common ground now.
People have been arguing over what is allowed and not for a while.
I'm hoping that the Voat update clears this up. Then people can decide what to do from there.
People have been posting threads about the people who clunked that guy in the head at a Antifa or some such gathering where the guy allegedly go a cracked skull. And of the doxxing of those alleged attackers. No one cried over that twitter doxxing being re-published here. Would the new rules prohibit the "importing" of doxxing from another place ? Would a no-doxxing policy be applicable to only goats (and maybe those 3 people doxxed on twitter are goats ~ no one knows). So we'll see.
And I am for a better clarification of the rules in order to avoid subjective application and look for a literal application of rules. At least this is my take. If a rule is subjective enough it opens the door to misrepresentations and "legal" voids.
Indeed and this is a problem that translates to subverses also.
A better moderator culture should be brought to Voat making sure that the literal application of the rules and the objectivity of such application is respected, avoiding to go through this public drama.
A due process needs to be specified insuring the channels of communication for both parties without the influence from 3rd parties on the matter that haven't been invited to the conversation.
view the rest of the comments →
sguevar ago
I am honestly glad the got it.
Because as u/zyklon_b deserved the ban so did these users.
thelma ago
I'm not crying over IMCHAD getting banned except that the ban is apparently just for doxxing and that's all that is noted so I assume that its the entire reason, limited to just doxxing. I have not seen the alleged doxxing from any of the people shown in the doxxing ban today.
Doxxing is not against the PUBLISHED rules. Should people be banned for an unpublished rule ?
That's the question.
sguevar ago
I understand, however as the initial ban applied by u/trigglypuff (unjustly I might add) was for that reason and then u/zyklon_b was also banned for the same reason, these users also deserved the ban.
Specially after this post https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3274560 done by u/ScrubbinOutOldBlue and supported by u/Crensch and his supporters also.
But I agree a clear rule on Doxxing needs to be specified on the user agreement. Which is something that I have been trying to get done by engaging on dialogue with all the drama going on, despite of the different character assassinations thrown at me from the supporters of the previous post. So maybe, just maybe we can reach a common ground now.
thelma ago
People have been arguing over what is allowed and not for a while.
I'm hoping that the Voat update clears this up. Then people can decide what to do from there.
People have been posting threads about the people who clunked that guy in the head at a Antifa or some such gathering where the guy allegedly go a cracked skull. And of the doxxing of those alleged attackers. No one cried over that twitter doxxing being re-published here. Would the new rules prohibit the "importing" of doxxing from another place ? Would a no-doxxing policy be applicable to only goats (and maybe those 3 people doxxed on twitter are goats ~ no one knows). So we'll see.
sguevar ago
I hear you.
And I am for a better clarification of the rules in order to avoid subjective application and look for a literal application of rules. At least this is my take. If a rule is subjective enough it opens the door to misrepresentations and "legal" voids.
thelma ago
And tons of shitposting ! LOL
Vague non-descriptive rules ? Expect wild threads to be made and lots of shit posting and a few deliberative threads that people can participate in.
sguevar ago
Indeed and this is a problem that translates to subverses also.
A better moderator culture should be brought to Voat making sure that the literal application of the rules and the objectivity of such application is respected, avoiding to go through this public drama.
A due process needs to be specified insuring the channels of communication for both parties without the influence from 3rd parties on the matter that haven't been invited to the conversation.