2
14

[–] justanotherpizza 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago 

Adressing 3.1

I vote for minimals standards enforced by moderation . Because accounts can be built up and multiplied by people with less than good intentions, voting power becomes a weapon against us. The balance of power can only be restored by affective moderation to keep content submission within the framework of this subs intention / purpose.

Addressing 3.2

I vote for separate subs to be created, which address specific aspects of pizza gate. I would even be in favour of having something called pizza gate shitposts where anything goes . Shills can post all they want there. But the title makes it clear that nothing is to be taken seriously .

As to the content of the rules to be applied for moderation , I would suggest looking closely at the documents published regarding how Shills operate . This kind of destructive behaviour can be profiled and actively defended against.

For the moderation of the janitors you pick , you should consider how to manage complaints in a transparent and effective way . Shills will inevitably try to bog down the system by escalating every single moderated post. Between the principles of transparency objectivity and fairness, Focus on transparency because objectivity and fairness are still subject of concepts and you will never be able to create a process that is both lightweight and fulfills all three of these principles.

I work with quality control of IT requirements management , so I have quite a bit of experience of assessing text based on a predefined checklist. I am not sure if I would be willing to put myself on a limb and do janitor cleanup , but I agree that it is necessary and a step in the right direction

1
4

[–] Millennial_Falcon [M] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Addressing 3.1 I vote for minimals standards enforced by moderation . Because accounts can be built up and multiplied by people with less than good intentions, voting power becomes a weapon against us. The balance of power can only be restored by affective moderation to keep content submission within the framework of this subs intention / purpose.

I just want to add another reason for minimum standards: if we rely on downvotes alone, shills can easily destroy this forum by flooding it with shitposts (known as forum sliding). We have already experienced such attacks. This is why we need more janitors. Right now, there isn't always someone on duty watching pizzagate/new.

1
1

[–] ThePuppetShow 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Why do we keep removing the informative sticky for plan making? Is this not forum sliding at it's best?

7
-5

0
4

[–] kevdude [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Based on the goals I am sure you see how the current sidebar is redundant and overly broad. If you want to created a set of bullet points to address the spirit of the standards for this sub it would be most welcome.

1
3

[–] justanotherpizza 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I have attempted to condense and simplify the 12 rules into 6. I believe that they represent the 12 rules in full. For Posts not about Pizzagate I suggest repeated offenders are treated the same way as spammers.

  1. CP LINKS, DOXXING will result in deletion and ban
  2. SPAM or Posts not about PIZZAGATE will be deleted and repeat offenders banned
  3. META posts will be removed. They should be posted as comments here. (https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1467885))
  4. TITLE must describe content and include NSFW if necessary
  5. CONTENTS must cite source(s) and be able to explain relevance to PIZZAGATE.
  6. VIDEO post titles must describe video content or be submitted as discussion posts.

Let’s look at COINTELPRO techniques (see http://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5 ) and list what rules address them:

Topic Dilution

  • SPAM or Posts not about PIZZAGATE will be deleted and repeat offenders banned
  • Meta posts will be removed. They should be posted as comments here.
  • VIDEO post titles must describe video content or be submitted as discussion posts.

Forum sliding

• SPAM or Posts not about PIZZAGATE will be deleted and repeat offenders banned

Consensus cracking

• CONTENTS must cite source(s) and be able to explain relevance to PIZZAGATE.

Information collection

• No rule addressing it

Anger trolling

• No rule addressing it, some discussion of self moderation of tone and language to facilitate serious discussion

Gaining full control

• Responsibility of Moderators to be vigilant • CP LINKS, DOXXING will result in deletion and ban

I want to focus in particular on Forum sliding and Consensus cracking in terms of janitorial / moderation activity

FORUM SLIDING:

Relevant rule: Posts not about PIZZAGATE specifically will be removed

ISSUE: The scope of PIZZAGATE has not been formally defined. Leaving janitors without clear guidelines. You WILL end up with different opinions about what is within scope of the forum. Some will be too strict, most will be too inclusive.

POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Janitors apply rules as they understand them. ONE moderator and one backup is appointed to review daily the result and re-open submissions that are judged to be within scope of investigation. That moderator is responsible for updating guidelines on what is the scope of pizzagate. You can have this post as a one week assignment for a moderator before the job goes to the next moderator, but that moderator, that week has the authority to do the job. Understand that the scope is evolving, case-by-case. Both better understanding of investigative angles as well as shill themes can inform the evolving scope guidelines.

'CONSENSUS CRACKING'

Relevant rule: CONTENTS must cite source(s) and be able to explain relevance to PIZZAGATE.

ISSUE: Janitors MUST be able to assess if the post presents a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof. Problem is, most posts deal with evidence that is circumstantial, and confirmation bias will often tilt in favour of a weak submission. I want to list three examples of possible consensus cracking activity, just to show how difficult this is to assess.

Coffeegate: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1482211 Relatively straightforward. This was deemed to be shill activity almost immediately

James a. legal rep Andrew Kline Is actually DOJ : multiple threads, search on Andrew kline to find them. Initially it was thought to be true, until someone demonstrated that they were two different people that shared the same name. the legal rep of J.A. turned out to be interesting, but DOJ angle is dead end. The other DOJ guy which was found in J.A. instragram posts on the other hand is still interesting.

Podesta brothers and McCann: search on Madeline and Madeleine to find them. The jury is still out on this one. There is no consensus, or you could say that consensus was successfully cracked here. The two drawings of one guy that look like each of the brothers, etc etc… lots of circumstance, but arguably not as solid as Instagram links etc shown in other leads.

my point in bringing up these 3 examples is that it can be easy, to almost impossible to judge an assertion, but some things can be assessed without resorting to a binary true/false judgement.

Possible solution: posts that are developing into consensus cracks need to be analysed from 3 angles.

  • What are the supporting facts,

  • what speaks against, and

  • what negative impact could PIZZAGATE community face if the assertion is proven false or used against them.

In the coffeegate case, if the community had accepted the assertion that coffee related emails were ALSO codewords, it could be used to ridicule the community. In the Andrew Kline case, if the DOJ guy was vilified, despite not being associated except by same name, AND some kind of false flag was carried out against him (like at the restaurant) it would warrant crackdown on the community. In the Podesta / McCann case, we have already seen it being using as an example of sensationalist conclusions without merit to the detriment of the legitimacy of the open source investigation.

This post is far too long as it is, so I will stop now. willing to discuss any of the above.

0
2

[–] justanotherpizza 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Thank you, I will give your suggestion some thought and see if I can come up with something useful.

0
1

[–] rodeo13 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you both!

0
1

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

I think the infographic does that. But maybe a mini version for that would also be good.

1
2

[–] gopluckyourself 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I made /v/pizzagaterelated for offtopic/shitpost type stuff. There used to be a list of pizzagate related subs way down the page but it's gone now as they were basically all copies of this sub.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] kevdude [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Give posters a reminder and chance to edit posts

In the case of link submissions it's hard because the only editing they can do is in a comment that can get buried.

delete and encourage resubmission

that is pretty much the SOP in most subverses.

0
1

[–] Julian55 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I agree. Don't like these crazy rules. Don't like any rules if I don't trust the judger of the rules.

9
0

[–] Phobos_Mothership 9 points 0 points (+9|-9) ago  (edited ago)

Give posters a reminder and chance to edit posts (ive seen lots of rule 3 violations on otherwise decent posts)?

I try to do that, the only time I personally do not give someone a chance to either fix it or delete it themselves is when they are spamming.

Rule 3 is very important, and there is room for some 'speculation' as long as your post it as a discussion with a linked source in it and an explanation as to how you believe something is related/important to pizzagate. If you do those things, which are simple, then your post will not be deleted unless it violates some other rule.

Or delete and encourage resubmission?

I know many mods do this, I personally do it (sometimes I even message the user and tell them that I would upvote the submission if it were on v/conspiracy instead of here)

2
0

[–] Forgetmenot 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

I don't agree not everything has a source. I don't want to read a persons blog or watch the video they are advertising. We are searching for leads and exposing dead ends. these rules are a shill tactic to help cover up their trail. There are not always going to be sources.

5
-5

1
5

[–] justiceforever 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Maybe I'm missing it and sorry if I am, but since there can be only one sticky at a time, please link this at the top of the post for newcomers:

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1497611

Also it should be in the sidebar.

1
1

[–] kevdude [S] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Done. Thanks for catching that.

0
3

[–] kevdude [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

2
2

[–] golly 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Obvious trolls should be banned from this sub.

See: https://voat.co/user/grlldcheese/comments

0
0

[–] grlldcheese 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Why are you witchhunting me you fucking faggot?

1
1

[–] golly 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

All you want to do is rile people up that are working on a serious investigation. We don't need trolls here. Hence; you should be banned form this sub.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Mickgoestojail 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not many subs have 3k active users at times as well as being flooded with upvoted shitposts

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

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] kevdude [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

some are not active and need to be removed

0
2

[–] christa 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I am fully available for mod or janitorial work -- I have a submission history to indicate I'm serious when it comes to the topic at hand, and as of right now, am shamelessly unemployed so I have the time to dedicate, and I do not work anonymously so there is no concern over who I truly am - fully willing to give out my full name, etc. Just throwing my availability out there.

0
2

[–] kevdude [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Can you uniformly enforce the final ruleset and commit to being hands off on the comments?

0
2

[–] christa 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

yeah absolutely - I think the latter is completely inexcusable and totally counterproductive btw.

0
2

[–] Grotbag 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think an investigative resources sticky would be most helpful: Website tracking- Corporate searches- Gov data searches- Financial investigation- etc. etc. Guidelines for verifying evidence and sources etc.

0
1

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

I would love this. Also geneology and immigration history research tool suggestions.

load more comments ▼ (27 remaining)