0
0

[–] Millenium-Falcon [S] ago 

Just saying it is a violation of rule 1 doesn't make it so. The post was relevant to the sub, was relevant to the investigation, and he got mad and banned when he was called out on it. How do u think it violated anyways?

0
1

[–] OtisFirefly 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

"ALL submissions should be directly related to Pizzagate. It is the responsibility of the poster to demonstrate this relevance. In most cases this will require a Discussion post where you provide a brief explanation of how your content relates to the investigation. Sometimes there will be content (like an article on Pizzagate) where a link post with an accurate, descriptive title will be enough to satisfy this requirement."

This idiot posted that we should ask Martin for help on the basis that he "hated Clinton." He did not explain how it was related to pizzagate, it was not investigative or research based, he did not post a citation to prove this conjecture, or even say what the funding would go to. The burden of proof is on the poster this is the kind of garbage that should and will continue to be removed as it prevents actually researched investigative threads from getting exposure in addition to violating the rules.

1
-1

[–] Millenium-Falcon [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Asking the sub to ask Martin Shrkeli to help publicize pizza gate is in every way related to pizzagate. How would u imply that it is not. And the fact that users are not allowed to question moderator decisions is disgusting