EDIT: It should be noted that, at the very least, the theories of an account take-over can be disputed.
I have no interest in summarizing the drama itself as I think Putt handled the whole thing very well with only two replies.
I care about objective Truth, so let's take a look at the facts pertaining to this recent Voat drama that those involved consider over. I think it's irresponsible to create a drama and then just try to back away as if nothing has happened. Falsities were spread as facts, the falsities were outed as falsities, and the only response from the one who spread the falsities is to double down: "Everything I said I experienced was what I perceived it to be. I didn't post from a place of misleading or implying. And I'm not going to correct my wording because it was what I thought to be true." A refusal to even amend the falsities in the interests of spreading Truth.
I fail to see how the following three statements, made by /u/NeedleStack in the initial post, can be written off as mere "interpretation" or "what I perceived it to be":
What you write can be seen by one or more devs who’ve been given that special access.
This is not an interpretation of facts; this is a statement about reality -- a statement that proved to be false (therefore a falsity), and a falsity that the writer refused to correct. (EDIT: and before you say "she did specify one or more, where "one" would be just Putt", a statement would not have to be made of this sort if she were talking only of Putt. The substance was in the "or more" which, as Putt pointed out, was inflammatory.)
this ‘special access’ to see which user is writing “anon” comments creates an unfair advantage and in the wrong hands can be used against you.
Again, this isn't a matter of interpretation, this isn't a matter of perception; this is a statement of reality without the facts to back it up. "Creates an unfair advantage", "can be used against you"; where are these statements of fact even coming from, and why was Needle so reluctant to correct them once it was made clear these statements are false, especially after she said she would accept Putt's word on the matter? Was it an emotional response to being refuted in a not-so-polite way?
PuttItOut, users will never be free to “have their say” in anon subs until everyone but you is stripped of the ability to see who’s posting what in so-called anon subs.
Again, implying that others have been given special access and stating that Putt must revoke this access if Voat is to truly be free. Speaking as if her claims are already considered fact. Users aren't free? Needle reiterated this sentiment when she agreed that "puttitout needs to get some principles and integrity and make this site an actual place to "Have your say", rather than promoting it as such while that is fake news." . She agreed with this statement after Putt made it clear that her initial claims were false! Where is this sudden opposition to Putt coming from? What has he done for the past several months if not continue to devote and sacrifice time from his life into sustaining and working for this freedom platform? A man who does not get paid to sustain this place, a man with a life and a job, fighting for principles he believes in...and his thanks is for one of Voat's oldest and dearest users to agree with one who is calling Putt unprincipled? Disgraceful, as far as I am concerned.
More statements from Needle, in her more recent "tidying up some ends" submission:
The more they attack, the more they will prove my point.
So calling someone out for less than stellar behaviour (spreading falsities, refusing to correct them after the one person you said you would believe says you are wrong) just proves you right somehow? I'm trying to seek Truth, Needle, and you dismissing all of those who are disagreeing with you as somehow obviously in the wrong is intellectually irresponsible.
What I mean by this (from the second submission):
A few of the bigger standouts from yesterday: "if she doesn't respond to me I'm writing her off!". "I'm about to write her off because I think she's now under someone else's control and is not herself". "I'm so disappointed and done with her". Ha! So ridiculously comical and sad at the same time.
First off, this is her sweeping attempt to dismiss the likes of /u/Crensch, /u/heygeorge, /u/Trigglypuff, and myself, who all made I think legitimate critiques of her tact and responses. Now, she says "comical and sad" are those expressing discontent with the way she has handled this drama (which she created!). Here is a comment I wrote yesterday, in which I said: "If Needle doesn't respond to my objections I will also write her off." This is because I found her post disappointing, her response to Putt (as well as later comments) disgraceful, and I thought that a user like her (whom I respected quite a bit) would surely respond to my criticisms with an open mind. My thought was that if she refused, her account may very well have been compromised somehow. I no longer hold that view, but I would not dismiss all of my arguments as comical or sad because of that single sentiment.
Also from her second submission:
"But you made a speculation and framed it as fact!" Sure, I could have peppered the word "if" in my post to make the difference for you. "If this is what is happening", "perhaps", "maybe", etc. to have made it all better for certain palates. That I do take responsibility for because I let getting spooked preclude my objectivity a bit. You know, reacting as a human. Pesky business that is.
This is the closest she has come to admitting any wrongdoing, and she closes it off with a snarky comment about "being human", as if that excuses her from personal responsibility somehow. Yet she refused to correct via re-wording her misleading statements while her post was still on the front page? How apologetic is she truly about this whole thing? She certainly seems eager to move on. (EDIT: Furthermore, I feel the need to point out that the omission of "ifs" and "maybes" is no trivial matter. It radically changes the nature of the message. We have such words in our language for a reason.)
Here is one more comment that I personally find slightly strange:
Oh yes, I know the anon pings are SBBH but rPV does a shit ton of pinging (albeit in the open).
I see a lot of the anon ping threads (because I often, much to my annoyance, get ping-mentioned within them). Because it's anon, and it can be easy to impersonate internet personalities, I have no clue whether it's SBBH or rPV doing the pinging (I've been leaning towards: both groups are doing it). Yet Needle "knows" that SBBH is doing all the anon pinging, but when rPV pings, it's in the open? (SBBH also pings in the open all the time, by the way). You sure seem to "know" a great deal, Needle, without any basis for this "knowledge".
This, coupled with her accusations against SBBH in her first submission (on account of a single bad interaction with a single SBBH user
months over a year ago?), and I can't help but wonder what is really driving this attitude.
These are the comments and statements that I thought most noteworthy. I would very much like to know what others think. As annoying as dramas are, and as loath as I am to perpetuate it, I think a great wedge has unnecessarily been placed between the Voat community as a result of these reckless and unsubstantiated claims and suggestions, and I think Putt has been insulted throughout all of it, quite unjustifiably.
Stay vigilant, goats.