This rules discussion is a couple of months late. There were several factors contributing to the delay. Initially it looked like the site admin was going to roll out a new voting feature and we wanted to take advantage of that so we waited an extra couple of weeks. While waiting we implemented a flair system. The most notable feature of this system is a policy of flairing posts for editing rather than removing them outright. This allows a poster 24 hours to fix any errors of citation or relevance. Once this was implemented we wanted to give it some time for the community to form opinions on it. Finally a rule was introduced (after community discussion) to only allow posts made in the "Discussion" format. Voat has two submission options: a direct link submission with title or a text submission with title. A poster can still submit links as part of a discussion post, but it allows far greater flexibility with editing. Again, this allows posters to fix their submission rather than have them be deleted. See the thread on Rule 6 for more information.
The time has now come to have a community-wide discussion of the ruleset. (If you would like a bit of background on the current ruleset and subverse moderation policies please check this thread and follow the links.)
Below I have listed the points of discussion. Obviously Rule 5 is what it is (this is not an "NSFW" subverse) and Rule 6 was pretty well hashed out a month ago. So basically the highlighted areas are the 24 hour grace and rules 1-4. Of course if there is a topic not listed feel free to bring it up.
24 Hour Grace
Should we continue allowing a 24 hour grace period for submissions? If so should there be a set standard or should every single rule-breaking post be given 24 hours?
The benefit of course is that good faith posts that are missing a source or need some text revision to allow for clarification of relevance will have an opportunity to be fixed rather than face an arbitrary deletion. So far we have seen the 24 hour edit period provide opportunity for the mods and the rest of the community to work together to fix posts.
The drawback of allowing every post to get a 24 hour window is that it provides an opportunity for forum sliding. One could make a post claiming anything without sources and it will be left up for 24 hours. The idea of leaving it up to moderator discretion is unacceptable.
A middle ground between these two positions would be to set a threshold for number of rule violations that a post can break before it will be removed without a 24 hour grace. So a post that has sourced its claims but is somewhat ambiguous in terms of relevance could stay up to allow OP to fix the Rule 1 piece. Likewise a relevant post that is missing some citations could stay up to allow OP to fix the Rule 2 piece. But a post that broke 2 or more rules would be pulled.
1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, 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.
Any issue with this rule or the definition of pizzagate?
"Pizzagate" refers to the independent investigation of pedophilia and child trafficking by the certain members of the global elite. The leaked John Podesta Emails hint at deeply entrenched and protected pedophile networks operating with impunity at the top levels of government and politics in and through Washington, DC and the world at large. The investigation initially focused on a group of businesses on Connecticut Avenue in Washington DC and their potential connection to a child trafficking ring. While this investigation began and centers around Comet Ping Pong, it involves multiple businesses and numerous connections around the globe. The name pizzagate is simply an easy to remember convenience, referring to what has been called "Pedocracy" which is the suspected, likely informal, association of elite individuals that use pedophilia to organize, manage and discipline their efforts to dominate or disproportionately influence outcomes in matters of interest. That includes government as well as politics -- executive, legislative, judicial, lobbying, military, intelligence -- as well as media, business, finance, law, medicine, accounting, technology, academia, think tanks, philanthropy, endowments, etc.
Relevant submissions would be any content that can be linked (by the OP in a sourced explanation) to organized human trafficking of children, the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of those children, and/or the systematic cover up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities.
Relevant areas of research may include but are not limited to:
- John Podesta and his relations
- James Alefantis/Comet Pizza
- The Clinton Foundation/Clinton Family and associates
- Any entities or events with domestic or global connections to organized pedophilia and human trafficking of minors
- Official Law Enforcement Investigations
- Media or Government Cover Up
- Current Breaking News
- Tangential Pedophile info/stories (post MUST at least speculate how they might be linked to a network of some kind)
- Satanism/Occult as they relate to the ritualized sexual abuse/sacrifice of minors
- Code words and symbols related to pedophilia
- Any information about someone associated with pizzagate that may plausibly constitute or lead to new evidence or leads. Such as: art, people, food, habits, family, slang, partying, socializing, jokes, music, religion, politics, names, travel, affairs, etc.
Anything that needs to be added? Removed? Revised?
2: 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.
Pretty succinct. Any issues or suggestions?
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
This basically refers to providing an accurate description of links within your submission. Any suggestions on how this could be refined?
4: Please submit indirectly relevant posts to /v/pizzagatewhatever and unsourced questions to /v/AskPizzagate. Sourced activism / publicity posts and memes are allowed. Posts about the subverse itself go to /v/pizzagatemods.
This rule previously was worded as follows:
4. Meta submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed. To avoid diluting the front page, please make those sorts of submissions HERE. All other meta concern submissions will be removed. Please bring any meta concerns you have HERE (this is also where the mods will discuss moderating the sub so you are welcome to participate in those conversations as well).
I am not sure when it was changed to remove the direct prohibition on meta posts. We have seen several posts made attacking specific users and/or mods. We have also seen posts that make general statements without really contributing anything. This rule was intended to cut off this avenue of forum sliding.
Basically if we are going to permit unsourced meta posts then we might as well scrap Rules 2 and 3. If there are no objections Rule 4 will be restored to its original wording as there was no community discussion to support the significant alteration that was made to it.
Is there anything I missed? Is there a rule that you think is needed?
This sticky will remain up for the next two weeks. It will be followed by a second thread with the final proposed version of any changes. At that point I will step off the mod team.