Profile overview for Didot.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

2 submissions to ideasforvoat

1 submissions to pizzagate

1 submissions to AskVoat

This user has so far shared a total of 0 links, started a total of 4 discussions and submitted a total of 48 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 15 and downvoted 0 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 15 and downvoted 0 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Is there an equivelent of the 'Controversial' tab in Voat?, submitted: 11/25/2016 1:36:19 PM, 14 points (+15|-1)

Default level of collapsed child comments restrict effectiveness of threads (only displays 2 levels deep), submitted: 11/23/2016 3:29:07 AM, 10 points (+11|-1)

Make upvoting/downvoting clicks more responsive, submitted: 11/23/2016 1:33:37 AM, 6 points (+8|-2)

Reddit is deleting posts highlighting hypocrisy, submitted: 11/23/2016 2:29:14 AM, 3 points (+3|-0)

5 lowest rated submissions:

Reddit is deleting posts highlighting hypocrisy, submitted: 11/23/2016 2:29:14 AM, 3 points (+3|-0)

Make upvoting/downvoting clicks more responsive, submitted: 11/23/2016 1:33:37 AM, 6 points (+8|-2)

Default level of collapsed child comments restrict effectiveness of threads (only displays 2 levels deep), submitted: 11/23/2016 3:29:07 AM, 10 points (+11|-1)

Is there an equivelent of the 'Controversial' tab in Voat?, submitted: 11/25/2016 1:36:19 PM, 14 points (+15|-1)

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

I have the sub backed up in it's entirety. submitted by erktheerk to pizzagate

Didot 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago

I've seen a few things recently to suggest so.

Could you provide some examples that make you think this?

Wonder why pizzagate was censored on Reddit and attacked in the press this week? It's because James Alefantis and Laura Silsby both have ties to the same anti trafficking group submitted by PleadingtheYiff to pizzagate

Didot 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago

You say Clintons, what did Hillary do for Silsby to "get her off the hook"? For that matter what exactly did Bill do?

There's an email history on WikiLeaks of Silsby's organization contacting Clinton's team, her staff then discussing how the media is reporting the news, and Aberdin forwarding details to Hillary.

The Americans were attempting to smuggle a planned 100 children to a hotel in the Dominican Republic until an orphanage was constructed nearby. Authorities found no paperwork for the orphanage or of their organization.

Shortly after almost the entire group were released, despite the Haitian court finding evidence of association with traffickers, the fact that none of the children were orphans, and without resolving the true intentions and destinations of the children, all without consequence due to the intervention of Bill Clinton.

The only member charged was Laura Silsby whose sentence was reduced to 3 months for 'organizing illegal travel'. She had previously attempted to smuggle a different group of children and her initial legal adviser in Haiti was himself arrested on child kidnapping charges.

BREAKING: Reddit admins are talking about how to ban /r/The_Donald entire subreddit!!!!! submitted by srayzie to pizzagate

Didot 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago

and Voat will be where intelligent adults actually discuss real issues without fear of censorship

Except from getting shitposts from some existing Voat users, apparently. I also wonder how censorship-proof Voat really is. Are there some examples of how Voat protects against censorship or are we just relying on the people moderating and the admins to be perfect?

3 lowest rated comments:

Please stick to posting evidence or leads. No more "yay we did it" or "thanks for not being pedos" or "lol nytimes is dumb." submitted by PizzaWars to pizzagate

Didot 6 points -3 points (+3|-6) ago

Yet the user of the top-voted post in this thread posted a thread criticizing the OP for this this very thing. The hell is this. So far I've read two submissions from /v/whatever claiming low-quality posts are frowned upon—the very thing this OP is criticizing—yet he gets criticized by that same sub. At this point Voat users are making themselves out to be hostile to any newcomers, regardless of what they post.

Some of these PizzaGate refugees are really... Reddit-y? submitted by TheodoreKent to whatever

Didot 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago

I can't even see the context of this, why are you asking for judgment? Especially considering you feature in the screencap.

Edit: appears to be this thread. Your contention is you think that sub shouldn't have "reddit-style moderation" when that's not even the OP's point, nor is he a mod. The suggestion was that the sub could use less fluff and self-congratulatory posts and more actual evidence-based submissions and comments. That's not a bad thing at all.

Please stick to posting evidence or leads. No more "yay we did it" or "thanks for not being pedos" or "lol nytimes is dumb." submitted by PizzaWars to pizzagate

Didot 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

It's less necessary because there are fewer low-information idiots killing the signal-to-noise with movie references

It's only been like that as Voat has had extremely low traffic until such migrations (which is obvious from nearly every sub on the site). With a mass migration the same issues that faced the Reddit sub equally apply here. And it's not an issue of censorship but both one of noise and also because this community is coming under closer scrutiny for its claims now that the mainstream media is aware of it and trying to make out the controversy has no strong evidence—hence the OP's call for more focus on evidence bases leads.

Someone suggesting that users could be more thoughtful in their posts is not censorship. Heck, I'm not even sure if anyone claiming it is is even a part of the pizzagate community, it seems they're just coming in to police the community–again, why does this even concern others on Voat? Voat is supposedly mean to have sub communities which work out things on their own.

In my parent post I'm explaining the hypocrisy of some Voat users who will simultaneously claim they shun low-quality posts while also whining on another sub about the very thing the OP is criticizing. It's like they're both in agreement yet because one is a newcomer they want to find something to criticize. Yes, the OP could have had better responses to some things but that doesn't invalidate the OP's original thread post.