Well, the glowies could just as easily have been active there as here ya know.
These people are highly disruptive in a very retarded kind of way. I of course don't know what is going on for sure. My comment was even half joking (but only half). But I do think it is reasonable to think it very possible this crowd has been under glowie surveillance, and given my views in particular I would not be surprised if they think I'm a terrorist or at least someone to disrupt and harass. Disruption is how counter-terrorism operations are conducted.
Well, YOU specifically did attempt to disrupt voat.co, to be fair.
If you recall, you did not want that porn posted in O.E. and we discussed it. We were unable to ban you from default subs when you posted it, all we asked was you mark is NSFW, which, again, you refused.
I think the issue here is that people did not forget, and now the karma they could not give you at voat.co they can now do to you on voat.xyz, and it has nothing to do with glowies or alphabets or agents. It's just when you are a complete indifferent asshole to hundreds of people, eventually it's going to come back on you.
It may or may not have anything to do with glowies. I think that is an open question.
In any case you are talking about what went on on ANOTHER website. This isn't Voat for all the talk that it is. We're in the now and I'm not the one being the asshole in this case, I dare say. I got the same attacks there anyway.
The userbase is relatively portable, so old things that happened elsewhere are remembered. That's just humanity at work.
You only get one shot at a first impression, and you, unfortunately, did that on another site. Is it fair? No, but life isn't fair. But it is a hole you dug yourself, and I do applaud you for doing the smart thing when you realize you are in a hole and stop digging.
The only restrictions here for negative accounts currently are a 5 minute post limiter, and they are unable to post links. Depending on conditions the limiter could increase or other changes could be implemented. But it would most likely revert back to current limitations when things calmed down. There is no additional penalty for going below -100. I urge people to use the block feature if they don't want to see something. The talk.lol domain used to not display nsfw content, but I could put that back in if it's something people actually use. Or maybe an option to automatically not display posts from accounts with negative -100 points? There has to be a solution that does not result in banning. This is a voat clone, and as such I don't feel I can outright say no adult content.
[ - ] paul_neri 1 point 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 20:31:47 ago (+1/-0)
That Women ought to goe naked. THough wee may justly incur the disā£pleasure of the Women in asserting this Thesis, by divesting of them of all that the Taylor contributes...
Yeah. Though if one reads on it takes a different tone. He is hedging and employing nuance as thinkers of course do. In this day and age I don't even think women would dislike it that much - at least if they could freely choose to do it or not. It touches on the outdated portions of his writing there that I'll mention again in a moment. Women of course do it now all the time. But on camera not so much outdoors. The point is to instill an affirmative ethic that they should do it. For me the attractive ones anyway.
His reasoning is different from mine. It is basically a product of the radical period of the English Revolution. A leveler tract or some such. Don't remember. Sort of premised on a kind of proto-socialist equality where by having women go naked it would remove the visible class distinctions that comes with clothes. He also argues that women going naked would not sexualize society and assumes that sexualization would be a bad thing.
These are ideas that I either disagree with, find unimportant, or think the ensuing 370 years have made outdated - but it is fascinating that such a thing was published that long ago at all.
He's not my pal. My job is to run the site and be as neutral as I can be. Why are you against blocking him? Why do you want me to curate the content you see?
Not that my opinion matters anymore than anyone elses but I have no problem with Joe posting his porn into a porn sub.
It's that he intentionally posted it into whatever, refused to mark in NSFW (because naked bodies are pretty, and everyone should watch them), and then told everybody to go fuck themselves, HAHA!
Now that he doesn't have 10,000 positive points from posting normal things and vote manipulation, he is feeling the hatred of voat.co remnants.
What goes around comes around.
I don't think he should be banned. I don't think he should be restricted from posting into his own subs. I also don't want there to be a way to silence someone simply by a group of people deciding that "I don't like THIS speech", and removing their ability to post or comment.
As long as they don't break the site rules, especially rule 3 of spamming, then there shouldn't be an issue. Voat is doing it's thing by dv'ing his posts. It's not stopping him, like you said, but he can't spam, either, at least using a bot.
For the record I did not engage in vote manipulation on old Voat. As you don't have any proof of that anyway you should avoid making that charge as if it is fact. Most of the rest of what you said attacking me is at least more plausible, even if it has a very negative slant of course. But I think I addressed most of that sufficiently in an earlier post to you.
Posting in negatives though, while having seemingly few restrictions, does appear to have some minor ones. Those may need to be lifted because these morons are brigading people that disagree with them in this stuff. Not just me either. As it stands the trolls get to censor speech to a mild extent.
One addendum to the vote manipulation by the way - very late in my time on Voat I made alts and experimented with trying to upvote myself. Didn't get anywhere with it though. I think at most I successfully gave myself a few upvotes. The mass brigading I was sustaining by then kinda made it an attractive option but I just ended up getting several friends to counter it with mass upvoting.
Not engaging in vote manipulation by using vote manipulation against vote brigading is still vote manipulation.
I never stated that all votes you ever received were fake, just that you, it appeared to an average user, virtually spat in everyone's faces not because you thought it was the right thing, but simply due to your large positive vote totals allowed you to flaunt your abuse of the site in front of everyone. Again, as one on the outside of the whole shenanigans, that is how it appeared to me. We discussed this on old voat when I posted porn into OE and you asked me to stop.
Well, sure. But it was like 10 manipulated upvotes total. The way you spoke it was as if my CCP was meaningfully impacted by me in the positives by vote manipulation. Maybe I could have worded what I said better but I don't think so. I think I made enough of a distinction in the context of addressing what you said.
The rest of it. I dunno. Good men can disagree I guess on the gravity of me posting nudes without a NSFW tag. For a few reasons I always thought it was a beef that if it probably had merit - it was a minor transgression on my part. I mean, I did think about this even then. And initially I did use the tag.
You are pulling the exact trick that he did on voat.co.
To be fair to you, your actions mimicked his so much that he won't be able to do that here on xyz. You get to be the most hated person on xyz over Joe and Crensch.
Downvoting that has negative consequences e.g. on Voat I think it can limit the number of Posts you can make in a certain period, has the effect of chilling free speech. I got into the minuses (-20?) and to stop the slide I had to stop posting about the benefits of mask-wearing. WTF does that achieve?
[ + ] GottaGasEmAll
[ - ] GottaGasEmAll 10 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:06:02 ago (+10/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:12:30 ago (+1/-5)
[ + ] cyclops1771
[ - ] cyclops1771 3 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 11:13:13 ago (+3/-0)
You pulled this shit on voat.co, and you were smug and smarmy about it because it you had all the v/OE positive points.
I think what you are seeing here is karma, sir.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 11:30:34 ago (+1/-1)*
These people are highly disruptive in a very retarded kind of way. I of course don't know what is going on for sure. My comment was even half joking (but only half). But I do think it is reasonable to think it very possible this crowd has been under glowie surveillance, and given my views in particular I would not be surprised if they think I'm a terrorist or at least someone to disrupt and harass. Disruption is how counter-terrorism operations are conducted.
[ + ] cyclops1771
[ - ] cyclops1771 4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 11:42:25 ago (+4/-0)
If you recall, you did not want that porn posted in O.E. and we discussed it. We were unable to ban you from default subs when you posted it, all we asked was you mark is NSFW, which, again, you refused.
I think the issue here is that people did not forget, and now the karma they could not give you at voat.co they can now do to you on voat.xyz, and it has nothing to do with glowies or alphabets or agents. It's just when you are a complete indifferent asshole to hundreds of people, eventually it's going to come back on you.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 11:58:31 ago (+1/-1)*
In any case you are talking about what went on on ANOTHER website. This isn't Voat for all the talk that it is. We're in the now and I'm not the one being the asshole in this case, I dare say. I got the same attacks there anyway.
[ + ] cyclops1771
[ - ] cyclops1771 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 12:06:30 ago (+0/-0)
You only get one shot at a first impression, and you, unfortunately, did that on another site. Is it fair? No, but life isn't fair. But it is a hole you dug yourself, and I do applaud you for doing the smart thing when you realize you are in a hole and stop digging.
[ + ] system
[ - ] system 5 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:09:04 ago (+5/-0)
[ + ] fightknightHERO
[ - ] fightknightHERO 6 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:42:36 ago (+6/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 01:52:27 ago (+0/-4)*
I think all such girls should do the same thing. More and more they even are. Pretty massively too.
[ + ] fightknightHERO
[ - ] fightknightHERO 4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 03:26:29 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 06:47:35 ago (+0/-4)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 3 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 12:26:39 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -1 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 12:32:09 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 03:48:08 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -2 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 06:56:59 ago (+0/-2)*
Here was an interesting item published in a book in England as far back as 1650 arguing that women should go about naked in public.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A45043.0001.001/1:11?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
It's a shame it didn't catch on back then and carry on down to now.
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 1 point 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 20:31:47 ago (+1/-0)
THough wee may
justly incur the disā£pleasure
of the Women
in asserting this Thesis,
by divesting of them
of all that the Taylor
contributes...
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 21:17:56 ago (+0/-0)*
His reasoning is different from mine. It is basically a product of the radical period of the English Revolution. A leveler tract or some such. Don't remember. Sort of premised on a kind of proto-socialist equality where by having women go naked it would remove the visible class distinctions that comes with clothes. He also argues that women going naked would not sexualize society and assumes that sexualization would be a bad thing.
These are ideas that I either disagree with, find unimportant, or think the ensuing 370 years have made outdated - but it is fascinating that such a thing was published that long ago at all.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 2 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:25:19 ago (+4/-2)
[ + ] system
[ - ] system 4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:29:39 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Shotinthedark
[ - ] Shotinthedark 4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 01:13:56 ago (+5/-1)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 1 point 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 03:46:47 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:39:46 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 1 point 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:35:32 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] cyclops1771
[ - ] cyclops1771 2 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 11:33:00 ago (+2/-0)
It's that he intentionally posted it into whatever, refused to mark in NSFW (because naked bodies are pretty, and everyone should watch them), and then told everybody to go fuck themselves, HAHA!
Now that he doesn't have 10,000 positive points from posting normal things and vote manipulation, he is feeling the hatred of voat.co remnants.
What goes around comes around.
I don't think he should be banned. I don't think he should be restricted from posting into his own subs. I also don't want there to be a way to silence someone simply by a group of people deciding that "I don't like THIS speech", and removing their ability to post or comment.
As long as they don't break the site rules, especially rule 3 of spamming, then there shouldn't be an issue. Voat is doing it's thing by dv'ing his posts. It's not stopping him, like you said, but he can't spam, either, at least using a bot.
I think it's fine as it is.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 11:51:25 ago (+0/-0)*
Posting in negatives though, while having seemingly few restrictions, does appear to have some minor ones. Those may need to be lifted because these morons are brigading people that disagree with them in this stuff. Not just me either. As it stands the trolls get to censor speech to a mild extent.
One addendum to the vote manipulation by the way - very late in my time on Voat I made alts and experimented with trying to upvote myself. Didn't get anywhere with it though. I think at most I successfully gave myself a few upvotes. The mass brigading I was sustaining by then kinda made it an attractive option but I just ended up getting several friends to counter it with mass upvoting.
[ + ] cyclops1771
[ - ] cyclops1771 2 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 12:13:25 ago (+2/-0)
I never stated that all votes you ever received were fake, just that you, it appeared to an average user, virtually spat in everyone's faces not because you thought it was the right thing, but simply due to your large positive vote totals allowed you to flaunt your abuse of the site in front of everyone. Again, as one on the outside of the whole shenanigans, that is how it appeared to me. We discussed this on old voat when I posted porn into OE and you asked me to stop.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 12:39:12 ago (+0/-0)*
The rest of it. I dunno. Good men can disagree I guess on the gravity of me posting nudes without a NSFW tag. For a few reasons I always thought it was a beef that if it probably had merit - it was a minor transgression on my part. I mean, I did think about this even then. And initially I did use the tag.
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -1 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:39:09 ago (+1/-2)
[ + ] ruck_feddit
[ - ] ruck_feddit 5 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:04:49 ago (+5/-0)*
Edit: -100 right now.
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user -1 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:44:00 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 3 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:00:34 ago (+6/-3)
[ + ] cyclops1771
[ - ] cyclops1771 3 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 11:15:05 ago (+3/-0)
You are pulling the exact trick that he did on voat.co.
To be fair to you, your actions mimicked his so much that he won't be able to do that here on xyz. You get to be the most hated person on xyz over Joe and Crensch.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 14:43:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 1 point 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 03:56:13 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] paul_neri
[ - ] paul_neri 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 03:34:36 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 0 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:26:23 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:07:11 ago (+1/-5)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:13:29 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 4 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:30:30 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Joe_McCarthy
[ - ] Joe_McCarthy [op] -1 points 3.9 yearsMay 23, 2021 00:45:20 ago (+1/-2)*