0
18

[–] Factfinder2 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I concur with @VictorSteinerDavion’s comment that use of the word “elites” is a problem. He suggests instead “those with authority and power, meaning; political, judicial, religious or corporate.”

That would be a start, but the entertainment/broadcast industry would need to be added. But even with that, people like James Alefantis and Jorge Puello would not be included. Add the hospitality industry, and you pick up Alefantis but still exclude Puello. To include him, you'd need to add child help organizations. And then there's the medical industry, fraternal organizations, the military, intelligence, the transportation industry, and on and on.

The point is, whenever you start listing, you're bound to miss something and you complicate the mods' job, not to mention limiting the scope of the research.

We need to face the reality that almost every facet of society today has the potential to harbor abusers because of the extreme infiltration that has taken place.

I'm in favor of combining Pizzagate and P Whatever because the division between them hampers research. It’s true that small-town pedo ring members aren't the ones in charge at the top, but they might be directed by string-pullers higher up, whether they are aware of being directed or not. A huge element of this is the possibility that some of the perps are mind-controlled patsies carrying out the dictates of an "invisible" hierachy.

Also, an abuser who has been caught victimizing his or her own child or a neighbor kid cannot realistically be deemed by us not to be involved in an organized ring. The fact that we don’t know about it yet doesn’t mean it’s not happening. We must remain open to the possibility if we’re serious about the research.

I think it's likely that many people who visit Pizzagate don't routinely visit P Whatever, and so connections that might have been useful are never made.

In my opinion, mods should not be censoring/deleting anything except obvious shillage and things that have nothing even tangentially to do with abuse or murder of children.


My proposal for the wording of Rule #1:

Relevance: The goal of Pizzagate research is to identify and expose the specific persons and organizations who are directly responsible at the highest levels for ordering and/or perpetrating the abuse and/or murder of children in the U.S. and globally.

Posts must be relevant to the goal of Pizzagate research and may include sourced information about conditions and circumstances that enable or have the potential to enable abuse as well as sourced information about perpetrators who are or have the potential to be abusing at the direction of others.

[edited for clarity]


The Pizzagate definition and examples of relevant posts would need to be modified.

1
4

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

I agree with @factfinder2 and emphasize this:

In my opinion, mods should not be censoring/deleting anything except obvious shillage and things that have nothing even tangentially to do with abuse or murder of children.

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

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] Jem777 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I agree completely with the above information. The issue about sourcing also comes up because there are many whistleblowers on here who are trying to get information out without being directly linked. Some of us have been targeted and worse to silence us. The only way for us to help is dropping breadcrumbs. There are amongst us victims as well who are trying to leave information without being tracked. Many victims are so traumatized that even speaking is earth shattering much less putting together details of already fractured minds. We need these survivors. Some of us our them.

It would be great to have a sub for that purpose. I could moderate that and quickly determine what information should be funneled to investigators in this forum.

0
7

[–] Factfinder2 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I agree that the factual claims sourcing requirement in Rule #2 as written might inhibit victims who want to come forward. We could simply drop the requirement for victims who are telling their stories, but that would assuredly increase the shill activity dramatically. Because some of them are put off by having to work at searching for a relevant source, the link requirement helps weed them out.

Still, I continue to believe that separating into different subverses hampers the research. I think Voat users should be the ones deciding the quality of posts, not mods, and most people don't visit other subverses.

Instead, we could smooth the path for victims to tell their stories by rewriting Rule #2. As it stands now, the rule doesn't actually prevent victims from coming forward. They can already link to any one of vast numbers of research papers and testimonies that have something in common with what they went through, but that should be explained in the rule.

Now it reads:

Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.

I propose we change it to this:

Factual Claims: EACH factual claim in a post that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If the post is a victim’s personal story with no direct source to link, it is permissible to provide a link that has something in common with the victim’s experience along with a note explaining the connection (for example, “I experienced something like this.”) If you ask a question, explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.

0
1

[–] Cigarette5mokingman 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Replace "may include sourced information..." for "must include..."

0
1

[–] Factfinder2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

In this context, "may include" means "these specific things are permissible components of Pizzagate research posts:"

1) Sourced information about conditions and circumstances that enable to have the potential to enable users.

2) Sourced information about perpetrators who are or have the potential to be abusing at the direction of others.

The overall requirement for sourcing of all factual claims made in Pizzagate posts is covered in submission Rule #2.

0
11

[–] VictorSteinerDavion 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

My issue is with the definition of the word "elites".

The word has different connotations in different regions, and as such different readers have different ideas about who the word refers to.

Swapping elites for "Those with authority and power, meaning political, judicial, religious or corporate"

Semantically it means the same thing, but any connotations and assumptions are removed by the expanded sentence.

For many the word elites focuses attention on the visible people at the top of the pile and omits the non-visible people that support actively them but few people know about.

For example a possible draft could be:


1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of the organised and systemic sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by those with authority and power, meaning; political, judicial, religious or corporate.
Topics in focus are: child trafficking, systemic & ritualised abuse of children, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities.
See definition of Pizzagate and examples of relevant posts.


It is a bit overly broad in this first rough attempt, maybe some word-smith can find a way to tighten it up.
The re-wording is intended to avoid the flood of posts about singular individuals who do these things and force a focus on systematised groups that do these things and use their positions in government, churches and big corporations to hide the activity.
By going for the organised abuse the singular individuals will be exposed anyway, but the applied effort of the community has a greater effect.

This is pretty much the same thing as the definition in the sidebar rules, but maybe it's enough of a change to move past this issue without opening the barn door to disruptors and wagon hopping agenda pushers.

0
10

[–] twistedmac11 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

This makes the most sense to me. I understand not wanting to allow shill posts and I agree 100%, but at the same time, I think there are quality posts getting deleted because they fall just outside of the small umbrella that is Rule 1.

0
3

[–] Dressage2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I have to agree as well. Many well-researched posts by respected researchers get deleted. We know these people are not shills and should be allowed to post their well-intended research.

2
9

[–] argosciv 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Include "community services" (ie police, fire, medical, neighborhood watch, childcare, etc) and it's perfect, imo.

0
2

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

Imo, what you just said is very important. Children look up to these people. They trust them, and they hold a position of power.

0
1

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

I agree with this as well.

3
0

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

Obviously . they are the henchmen of the elite. The big players don't do their own dirty work. It's foolish and ignorant to ignore this aspect of PG. But of course if we start looking into the practical ways PG plays out rather than the theoretical/esoteric, something might actually get done/get discovered... Not surprising mods have consistently shot down this line of investigation.

0
0

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

Oh God, why would anyone downvoat your comment? I guess that is obvious to All True Warriors.

0
1

[–] darkknight111 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Excellent idea. You earned an Aye from me on that.

0
7

[–] HighLevelInsider 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I'd like to know why the moderators have removed my posts about confirmed child pedophile rings, an NBA mascot that is a pedophile symbol, and footage of a Satanic orgy in progress?

0
2

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

Links, please?

0
1

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

0
4

[–] 10508217? 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I agree with all that want to change rule #1 when it's blatantly obvious it's pizza gate related but it gets deleted by MF before you can get a chance to post the obvious relation !

0
2

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

Cc1914, we HAVE to have users make the connection clear in the headline or description of the post, not in the Comments, because comments get buried.

0
2

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

it gets deleted by MF before you can get a chance to post the obvious relation !

Post it as a discussion post. Put the link into the post along with the relation.

If you are doing a link post with the idea that you will put the relation in a comment then it should get pulled.

1
0

[–] 10510999? 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

If it's obvious that it's PG related in the title, but you don't specify why it's related , it should be removed ? OK

0
4

[–] Eyezopen 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I can't stand all this elites stuff. Posts should be relevant to child sex abuse/ enabling child sex abuse/child murder/organ harvesting/sketchy organizations/sketchy people .The investigation of the smaller, will lead to mid,to big, to elite. There are obviously many layers of operation here. To me it involves peeling off the layers. It seems we're getting closer to a big breakthrough, but posts can't be getting deleted for stupid reasons. Obviously anything that doesn't touch these subjects should be deleted.

0
1

[–] Factfinder2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Well said.

0
3

[–] JimmyLionstar1 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

This investigation has grown in scale from what it was in the beginning. This epidemic of child abuse is a much wider net of corruption then first was realized.

So i agree the rule/rules must also change to fit the investigation.

0
1

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

Also, any other words or explanation you'd like to add would be awesome.

0
2

[–] JimmyLionstar1 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Btw, Great post! @Crensch /tumbs up

0
1

[–] JimmyLionstar1 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hmm.. ill give it a shoot.

  • Rule 1: Should probably now include. Deepstate, Satanic Cult, Elite Bankers, Pedophiles. This also includs: James Comey, Clinton´s, Bushe´s, Podesta´s, Royalty´s, CIA, NSA, FBI, Interpool, MI6, MI5, Mosad, Etc.. Satanic Cult, MSM, Dyncorp, Fondation´s (Clinton´s, Sandler Foundation, Etc), Awan Scandal, Huma and Weiner, Al-qaeda, ISIS, Mexican Cartels, MS-13, Madeleine Mccann, Hammpsted Case, Franklin Scandal, MK Ultra, Senators, Politicians, Community services and many more... This is a shit storm of trafficked victims and a lot of high level people involved in some way or another.

  • PizzaGate - PedoGate it all connects.

Its hard to just point to a few subjects, This has been going on for age´s and it stretches around the world and parts of almost every institution at the highest levels. And it is highly covered-up, something we also need to look at.

Just my thoughts..

0
3

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

EVERY POST ABOUT SATANISM SHOULD BE ALLOWED, FUCK THIS RULE #1 CRAP! WE ALL KNOW SATANISM KILLS KIDS!

0
4

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

Maybe instead of CAPS LOCK CRUISE CONTROL you could elucidate on why you hold your position?

0
3

[–] UgTr2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Swapping elites for "Those with authority and power, meaning political, judicial, religious or corporate"

A problem with this language is that it implicitly endorses the role of "the authorities" as being legitimate. Instead, I'd suggest "those with apparent power with the political, judicial, religious or corporate heirarchy".

load more comments ▼ (33 remaining)