0
6

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

i like the 24 hours grace

i also think the mods should give me an hours grace before Deleting my absolute guff like this https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2543240 for people to have a chance at titter before it's deservingly axed

0
0

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

Maybe we should create a new sub - v/pizzagatehumour? ;-)

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2505437

0
1

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

2
-2

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

No, "We" should. You and the mods need to stay away from that one. Why would we make a new one and bring you guys with it?

0
4

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

I think the rules are pretty good the way they are. I would not change anything. Just my opinion.

@think- @vindicator @kevdude @srayzie and Crensch does not get a ping because fuck Crensch's young juvenile ass

0
4

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

@think- and @vindicator and @kevdude and @srayzie do a great job. I have no complaints. I appreciate you for the good people that you are,

0
3

[–] Factfinder2 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I’d like a v/pizzagate where the following things were true:

  1. The block button works to block not just comments from an individual user but also submissions posted by that user.

  2. Users subscribe to one or more of the Pizzagate network subs, which are then integrated into a single feed customized to that user.

  3. More network subs are added, potentially to include things like child organ trafficking, Q-related pizzagate, undocumented (no links) for pizzagate brainstorming/speculation, etc.

  4. The primary duty of a mod is to assign each new submission to the relevant sub. One submission may be assigned to multiple subs.

  5. Users moderate their own feeds to fit their own “rules” by using the submission/comment block button.

0
4

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

The block button works to block not just comments from an individual user but also submissions posted by that user.

I'm not sure whether this would be technically possible, Factfinder2. @heygeorge - this would have to be changed Voat wide - do you think it would be possible to introduce this? @PeaceSeeker

More network subs are added, potentially to include things like child organ trafficking, Q-related pizzagate, undocumented (no links) for pizzagate brainstorming/speculation, etc.

Child organ trafficking posts can be posted to v/pizzagate; Q-related pizzagate mainly go to v/GreatAwakening, and undocumented posts for pizzagate brainstorming go to v/pizzagatewhatever.

The problem is that people know v/pizzagate, and come here, if we would create a sub like v/childorgantrafficking, most people wouldn't go there.

The primary duty of a mod is to assign each new submission to the relevant sub. One submission may be assigned to multiple subs.

We have that basically now - when posts are speculative, we invite to repost to v/pizzagatewhatever, when they are Q posts, but don't cover pedophilia, submitters can repost to v/GreatAwakening, and other posts may go to v/politics or v/conspiracy.

@Vindicator @ben_matlock @EricKaliberhall

0
3

[–] 12784263? 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

this would have to be changed Voat wide - do you think it would be possible to introduce this?

I think this is a reasonably highly requested feature, and has been for some time. Perhaps it's on the list. I have no idea whether or not this change is in the works; I suspect that Voat administrative issues will have to be worked out before something like this is implemented. You are correct it would have to be addressed Voat-wide.

0
2

[–] Factfinder2 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

See my wish list #2. The main idea is to integrate into one v/pizzagate feed the pizzagate network subs that a user subscribes to.

In other words, a user would subscribe to various pizzagate subs such as elite, brainstorm, etc., and when they sign in to v/pizzagate, the subscribed subs are integrated into one customized feed at v/pizzagate. This would eliminate what I consider to be a major problem, which is fragmentation of information among separate subverses. Most people do not visit the other subverses, as you know, and potentially important connections can therefore be missed.

I didn't say I thought this or a block submission button were doable with the current setup. I said I'd like to see v/pizzagate function this way.

0
0

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

Those tools are not available to mods. You can subscribe to the subs you want on your own though.

0
3

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

I think you should include body parts trafficking, all relevant implications thereof, all uses of the pedo code words, etc.

0
2

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

Yeah, like adremachrome. Not Empirical enough. Good start though.

0
0

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

1
3

[–] kevdude [S] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

0
2

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

I agree that organ trafficking be included. There are several politicians and wives who are on boards of hospitals that have connections to "charities" that are suspect of trafficking organs. I am referring to the Mayo Clinic.

0
2

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

Just don't call this an INVESTIGATION when intelligent speculation is not permitted.

I wonder how effective Police investigations would be if Investigators were not permitted to brain storm and speculate. There has been so much information scrubbing by Black Hats, requiring mandatory links from the fully compromised MSM is a garbage in, garbage out proposition.

0
2

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

Ian, the problem is that everybody has different conceptions of 'intelligent speculation'. We would be overrun by shills in no time when we wouldn't vet posts anymore, requiring sources.

@Vindicator @ben_matlock @EricKaliberhall @factfinder2 @Tanngrisnir

0
2

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

when intelligent speculation is not permitted.

How is it not? If someone is speculating is it too much to ask for them to link to where their ideas come from?

3
0

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

I have a perfect example of a post that was deleted over a year ago by the former main mod MF because he 'didn't think it was relevant'. Pure opinion.

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1857671 ( I made the post under my initial account that was locked out during the password reset fiasco. )

Are we autists or gatekeepers? It gets very frustrating to have hours of work deleted because of limited thinking by a gatekeeper mod. It's clear in this submission that I was way ahead of the Main Mod in understanding the bigger picture, the tactics of the Elite Cabal, and the scope and reach of Pizzagate.

Time after time, I attempted to broaden the investigation and help others see what I can see clearly. Time after time MF deleted my posts even after I PROVED they satisfied each and every rule. ( I was way ahead of everybody on his lack of credibility, too )

Pizzagate was always much, much bigger than the tiny outpost of Comet Pizza, Mr. Alefantis and John Podesta. Pizzagate has been left behind as the QAnon and the Great Awakening gather up followers that are more interested in the larger global conspiracy than individual stories about perverts and their victims.

0
1

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

Suggestion, Could VOAT construct a Standard Template 'Opening Statement' (simple check list) with blanks for people to input their link/info/finding etc., As long as each of these requirements are filled in/met, the VOAT Rules Criteria is covered. If they are not fill inthey get the 24 hour warning. This would be less confusing for people wondering what the Rules are and how to make up their own thoughts of what VOAT Rules mean. For example: RULES: 1: Relevance Direct link relevance to investigation of Pizzagate: 2: Empiricism EACH factual claim that is not common source link: 3: Clarity Does the title adequately describe post content (relevant to pizzagate) [..yes/no..] Explain EACH Link Description of how it relates to this post: 4: *Check that Indirect Posts are NOT posted here. (check Rule 4 if unsure)

0
2

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

I've long thought having a submission form to fill out would be awesome, Trisha. I don't know if that would work with the Voat codebase, since the submission buttons are Voat-wide. I have never gotten around to submitting a "would this be possible" post to v/voatdev.

There is a subset of users who would scream bloody murder about censorship if we made them fill out a form. LOL. :-)

0
1

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

Hi, I never thought of it as being a 'Submission Form', I can see how that could be construed as 'official and controlling'. I see it more of a users help 'Tick List or user 'Help List'. After all the time and effort users spend compiling a submission, to have it deleted for something like forgetting to add a link or a short explanation, in order to meet Voat Rules, which are necessary, it would be much easier to have a check list. It would give peace of mind knowing that a users submission is not going to be deleted. In the beginning for me on voat I was so confused I stopped posting because I could not get the rules into my way of thinking. Actually, you @Vindicator know that you were the one helping me out along with @srayzie and @Carmencita lol. I have always thought, probably because I have worked years in primary schools, that people should make their wording/explanations/forms etc., so simple the least uneducated person can understand and the most educated has no excuse not to understand. haha Well thats my thoughts - as I said before, Well done Mods, you all do a great job and I hope more users are grateful and say it, than the haters you have to deal with. Thank God for VOAT a fantastic forum!

0
2

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

Aarrgh the above looked better as when I put it as a 'list' of 1,2,3,4 instead of looking all lumped together. lol

0
1

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

The rules are in the sidebar. If you are on mobile click the little box with three horizontal lines in the upper left corner.

0
2

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

Yes I know that, was just thinking of a way to make everyone 'have to check them' :)

load more comments ▼ (8 remaining)