1
32

[–] elgindelta 1 points 32 points (+33|-1) ago 

Besides it being wrong to delete them. Take it as an opportunity to learn the talking points they have been fed. And then out them as shills.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
6

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

Very true,

0
0

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

Why bother 'outing' anyone? You're nuts on this site sometimes with all the 'oh there's a shill' 'found the Jew', 'guess we've spotted the xyz' stuff. Why not just address the merits or lack thereof of what someone is saying rather than just trying to blanket dismiss whatever is said 'cause "oh they're one of Them". Is that not better? If You're really right, and They're really wrong it should be easy no? They're should be no need to resort to that kind of thing? Leftists and Shills and CTR and Libtards are all idiot retards who's arguments have no merit, right? So why not just dismantle their points with counterpoints of your own?

0
0

[–] 6575883? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

CTR posts have no merits. it's a rehash of MSM shock statements and whatever the latest talking points are from their memo. It's clear to me when its a paid-for post because they are 100% transparent; I am seeing the words "well, when one brave rape victim comes forward, it usually prompts others to finally come forward" but I'm reading it as "today, mention that one rape victim coming forward will trigger others to when someone mentions that these victims are suddenly popping up just in time for the election".

I haven't read anything pro-hillary, even paid for. Everything is pro-trump and anti-trump; it's actually been very amusing to see nothing pro-hillary even from shills.

2
17

[–] gazillions 2 points 17 points (+19|-2) ago 

The shills don't matter anyway. They don't win arguments or anything else.

0
11

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

Shills lose debates when confronted with hard truth. Don't let them silence you!

0
0

[–] 6575896? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

they only exist to make it seem like there is a large amount of people who are saying the same things as mainstream media; it works on reddit and facebook where the users are generally in the dark but the users of voat gravitated here to get away from those "communities".

they post their nonsense and we see through it immediately like any other form of propaganda. they don't care because they are only paid to post, not care.

it's amazing how effective it is though. people will go to reddit and see something on the front page then assume that's what the majority of people like/believe but these posts have tens of hundreds of upvotes at most

2
13

[–] Baconmon 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago 

I will give my opinion on this matter:
I believe voat's system already has fairly adequate tools for combating shills, such as down-voting, and not being able to post much with low CCP, and being able to check the age of an account to see if it was just created a few minutes or hours ago..
Although the "up-vote old content" LOOPHOLE NEEDS TO BE FIXED.. Shills can create alternate accounts and then up-vote their other accounts to give them lots of CCP.. That really needs to have limits just like down-voting old posts does..

When moderators start making all the decisions of what should be seen or not seen, you start entering in to a dangerous territory.. Whether you call it "deleting" or "censoring" is just semantics.. It is information that 1 person (a mod) decides should be seen or not, instead of the many users deciding (via voting).. Thankfully though, voat has an other tool that reddit never had, which is being able to see the deleted comments, so that if a mod ever really does start over-censoring excessively, the users will still be able to check and see exactly what is being deleted and can call the mods out for it..

Actually, I wouldn't mind if the CCP system was altered a bit to make it more difficult to post a lot of crap right after you have just created a new account.. I think it would be beneficial for the voat community as a whole if new users were encouraged to lurk for a bit (maybe few days or weeks) before being able to post too much.. They could still post a few things at first, but not tons.. And as their CCP goes up they would be able to post more stuff..

Also, notice that 4chan /pol/ doesn't really have any mods removing shill posts, and doesn't even have a voting system, yet the shills on there always get spotted very quickly and get made fun of because people aren't stupid and many times can detect when some one has a weak argument that they are trying to push..

One more thing I would like to add: I also think voat mods should be able to create their own subverses that delete/censor shills' posts IF they put a warning on the right side stating some disclaimer like "This is a huge Trump echo-chamber and CTR posts WILL be deleted, so if you can't handle that BTFO", because I think people should still have the option to have a lot of control over their own personal subverse that they created if they want to..
AND, one more tool voat has that reddit doesn't is the "whatever" subverse, where nothing is censored.. So it isn't like any one can be completely locked out of every major sub on the whole site (unlike reddit)..

0
1

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

Agreed. It's the spirit of the sub that needs to be stated. If you claim freedom, you need to follow it. At the same time if you're like we are fph level of ban hammer for Clinton sympathy because we're pro trump, it's fine as long as you make that very clear and not try to pretend to be neutral.

5
1

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

Putting restrictions on new users is an elitist practice. This isn't a goddamn school, there's nothing hard to learn about this. Post content that people like you get upvotes, post the opposite and you get downvotes, post something neutral and you may receive downvotes anyway. I know nobody likes shills but if you don't like, downvote. This kind of "soft" censorship is ridiculous.

1
4

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

That is true for a normal person that intends to submit content of their own volition.. But I was saying it in the context of trying to figure out a reasonable way to combat shills that create new accounts solely to continue shilling because their old accounts don't have enough CCP to post very well any more..

It seems like you are arguing that as soon as some one creates an account, they should have unlimited and unrestricted posting abilities.. And that would work wonderfully in a perfect world.. But in this world, it creates a loophole that the shills can knowingly take advantage of, and they do..

You can call it censorship if you want to, but it would only be a temporary limit to new accounts only, and as they accrue more CCP, they would be able to post more and more.. I mean, we actually have that system in place now actually, so I'm sorry if you don't appreciate it very much..
But look at it from the perspective of a non-shill normal person: Most people are only going to create 1 account.. There are already anonymous subverses on voat, so it would be rare that some one needs more than 1 account.. They would only have to go through that initial period of having their posting-rate limited one time.. Even if some one wants to make 2 accounts for some reason, they would only have to go through that short posting-rate limit period once (for each account) and then they would be fine for the rest of their entire account history..

I hope that you understand the positions that I am taking.. I don't consider it an elitist practice as you claim.. I only consider it a type of hedging against would-be shills that want to pour in and spam their money-backed opinions every where in an unlimited supply.. That type of thing really deserves some type of counter-measure..

0
0

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

I disagree about preventing upvotes of old content. It would hurt the small subs

7
13

[–] frankenmine 7 points 13 points (+20|-7) ago 

blatent adverstisement

They're getting paid millions of dollars to promote Hillary. It doesn't get more blatant.

0
10

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

Nonsense, the shill itself makes no more than minimum wage and actually most likely less via straight pp payouts

2
4

[–] frankenmine 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

CtR's budget was most recently confirmed as $6 million. That was as of a couple of months ago. It's probably increased since then.

1
0

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

An individual shill is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what real users have to put up with, and that's some portion of $6m worth of shills.

0
0

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

Yeah and I make $0/hr on Voat. Some of us actually pay Voat.

2
0

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

So anyone found to be a trump staffer must also be banned?

1
1

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

There is no Trump equivalent of CtR.

10
6

[–] dismalinterest 10 points 6 points (+16|-10) ago 

9
2

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

https://i.sli.mg/buc368.jpg

Your meme is disingenuous. Using the phrase "listen to" implies people are demanding you agree. That's horseshit, nobody is saying that. People are, however, demanding that Voat remain a place where posts are not deleted for not fitting a narrative.

1
4

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

God forbid we use that little downward-facing arrow to the right of comments, right?

3
-1

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

You are paranoid as fuck.

2
4

[–] pacman2000 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

The fact they want to censor opinions and view any pro-Clinton opinion as a paid shill is ridiculous. They are just as bad as the users on reddit but from the flipside. I am a liberal and I'm on voat because I hate censorship. I hope voat stays that way.

0
4

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

I don't get your link. They haven't deleted a comment for 3 months? Besides the Donald is a hugbox sub and have in their sidebar that they delete anti trump comments. They are hardly representing the typical approach on Voat

Nvm, I see what you are saying. As as the current rumblings stay rumblings then it's fine. There's barely any way to prove who is a paid shill anyway so any ban would be bullshit.

0
3

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

Just downvoat and berate with facts. Easy peasy. The more discussion the better, ya?

load more comments ▼ (12 remaining)