( pizzagate )

submitted by [deleted]

Vindicator

@Millennial_Faggot , I would love to leave up a post on Mossack Fonseca that actually met the submission guidelines, which do require that the user explain how the topic relates to the sexual abuse and trafficking of children by the global elite, and provide links to sources. Mods don't have time to do in-depth research on every post -- the onus is on you to state what you know up front and then show why you think it's likely. Are you claiming Podestas are using Panamanian firm to launder money gained through trafficking kids? You need to come right out and say this, and then provide links to the evidence, describing what we'll find at each link and why it's important. Spelling things out in the post rather than assuming people know what you know, isn't just for our sakes. New folks come here every time a new group of pedos is busted. If we want them to swallow the red pill, we have to make it as easy to take as possible. Who, what, when, where, why. Sourced.

Is that really such a burden?

Removing per Rule 1, 2 and 4. Half of this post is unsupported, the other half is pissy ranting about mods and belongs in v/pizzagatemods . If you really care about educating folks on your topic, please make the effort to follow the guidelines.

Also, would you care to enlighten me about which one of the sidebar links is a "known honeypot" as well as where that revelation is documented? If it's true, we will take it down.

JrSlimss

You'll soon realize that the new mod @kwijibo is brain dead. He hasn't made a meaningful post on this investigation in 2 months since being here and doesn't investigate, so he doesn't really understand where the investigation has gone. Not sure where they got him from. Other mods are good though.

But yeah, check out the Pizzagate.Wiki' s pages on the Panama Papers and the Swiss Leaks. There's some good info in there.

http://pizzagate.wiki/Panama_Papers http://pizzagate.wiki/Swiss_Leaks

Edit: Need to fix your links though - they came out messed up in that post.

Kwijibo

@jrSlimss can you point to one post in the "Removed Submissions" (other than your own) that you think is important and should not have been removed?

JrSlimss

I can't find it now - but when we had that post that would setup the moderation rules I specifically asked about allowing money laundering posts, as it shows evidence of crimes. The mods on that post assured me money laundering by actors implicated here would be allowed. You banned one specifically tying the Podestas - the prime focus of this investigation - to the world's largest money laundering scandal - the Panama Papers - committed by Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca.

You also banned a verified article by Snopes about Mel Reynolds - a statutory rapist that Bill Clinton pardoned and Jesse Jackson hired.

This is a simply resolved issue - if you don't know why something is relevant, just ask people to edit their post to state why the post is relevant to the investigation. If they don't respond in a few hours - delete it.

@Vindicator

Vindicator

Unfortunately, leaving posts up waiting for editing by OPs will bring down the wrath of Kevdude, who set up the rules. I almost was demodded for doing that -- was told it undermines the rules and the other mods, since the policy is remove the post and let the user repost with the proper explanation. One of the most frustrating parts of this job is having to remove posts that cover topics that are probably legit, but the user hasn't taken the time to explain such that the fulfill the submission guidelines. :-/

The user I banned last night who posted about Fonseca wasn't banned to prevent him from posting about that subject. He kept reposting the same non-compliant post which was filled with 50% mod-bashing, instead of adding the couple of sentences that would have allowed me to leave the post up. You are welcome to look in the removed submissions area to see for yourself.

The reality is, if we do not consistently apply the rules, we will not be able to remove the true shitposts, due to Voat sitewide rules. I tried in my comment the first time I removed his post to explain what he needed to do to make it fulfill the rules, but he was only interested in trying to have his way and call me a shill. Not much I can do about that.