I've replied below, sorry for the delay

That doesn't make it OK to link the removed submission, for reasons already mentioned.

you didn't address this issue of whether we have any evidence that @AaronDover is really Aaron Dover.

Not your job. That is what the research community does. Since when do you become the judge of what topics can be investigated if they are pizzagate related?

Yes, 'allowed.' My role here is to enforce rules decided on by the community. What word would you prefer? Are you really going to police my choice of words? Has everyone here lost their minds?

Your job is not to determine what "gets to stay" but rather weed out posts that A) don't cite sources and B) don't explain relevance.

My job is to decide what "gets to stay" based on whether it meets the rules, so what are you even saying? It seems you're stubbornly trying to avoid acknowledging that allowing users to repost removed submissions allows them to flout the rules. Maybe all this focus on my perfectly appropriate choice of words is actually a bit of projection, because you seem to have abandoned logic in order to posture for dominance.

I agree that it was a dick move of the user to throw you under the bus like that, but that isn't justification to pull the post.

Throw me under the bus? Again, I pulled the post because he re-linked the removed submission. Stop trying to make it something that it's not. If the community wants to allow users to link deleted submissions, it's fine with me, but it would need to be discussed in a sticky. I think even raising the question would be ridiculous, though, because if users can re-link deleted submissions on the main sub, the rules are nearly pointless. I would probably in fact resign as a mod if that were to be allowed . The shills and trolls would have a field day.

It is frustrating for many to have their posts removed.

I understand that, but that doesn't mean they should be allowed to essentially repost them. What's the point of the rules if users can sidestep them by posting a link to their removed submission? I think what I was asking of the submitter was also easy and straight-forward. If users want to vent and raise moderation concerns, they should do it in the appropriate place (i.e. /pizzagatemods), as I always direct them, or in the comments. Linking to the removed post just flouts the rules.

I got over a dozen pings (Crimany @dragonkiller !) to this post and the previous one and tried to make sense of what went down and still am not quite clear where we ended up. The original thread looked legit to me, and it appeared that efforts were made to meet the submission rules (to me, whether it's disinfo or true, Hampstead is clearly pizzagate-related). It didn't jump out at me as being swiss cheese intentionally full of holes with a bunch of unsourced claims, especially when the second version went up with the additional links.

It's my understanding we don't remove such posts, even if we think they might be disinfo. We flair them as such and point out the problems. Removal really does nothing to fight shills. It just gives them ammo to claim censorship. ( @letsdothis1 , I am not implying you are shill...I'm speaking in general terms).

I personally would like someone to make a Hampstead megathread rounding up all the research that's been done and weighing it disinfo vs. real. The kids seemed coached to me and not traumatized when I watched their video. And there have definitely been suspicious accounts flogging this topic in the past (again, not you OP). I once thought it had been debunked. But I honestly couldn't say, now, because new research keeps turning up like this that make me wonder.

This is a great example of needing votes and comment discussion on a subject.

He did it again @kevdude . He has set an unusually high bar that he does not think OP can meet. Technically OP did not violate rule 4 because he did not complain, all he did was point to the reason he reposted. But just to let Falcon have that victory that is easily fixed by not doing it again.

Now he is demanding that a victim be identified by positive ID when he knows it would take a birth certificate to meet his demands. We post about people all the time in name only even when we have multiple people with the same name. Then the narrowing process starts and people start ruling out individuals that don't fit the criteria. That is why this is known as a RESEARCH SUB. We want to know if this guy was really a victim or if somebody made it up. It will take several talented people to come up with the answer.

I don't see anything wrong with that because we know Christ Church's history already. We research a lot of Hillary's victims with only a name, and we do it regularly. Why can't we do the same on Christ Church?

@Millennial_Falcon is saying he does not know if Aaron is a victim or not. He needs to prove that Aaron is not a victim or back up out of the way and let us prove it.

@letsdothis1 @vindicator

@letsdothis1 what @Millennial_Falcon is doing is obvious. He is setting a bar he does not think you can cross. He is demanding that you practically have Aaron's birth certificate or something to get it posted.

The theory is that Aaron's mother was a tavistock spook and she helped with his abuse when he was a kid.. After he started to testify and remember they drove him crazy and killed him.If this is real it needs to be known. The only way to know is to let the community investigate it and Falcon does not want that to happen. He nukes Christ Church in the past too. Of course the shills that set up the "hoaxtead" site have pummeled Aaron's reputation as hard as possible which is indication that it needs research. Falcon is jumping on the bandwagon with these shills from Hoaxtead.

Falcon its up to you to prove that Aaron is not real. We investigate tons of people on much more flimsy associations than what we have here. In other investigations you don't demand proof like this because quite frankly it most often cannot be provided. People sit on this site and hash through similar names all the time in a process to narrow down and make sure the right person is selected. You are denying the community their RIGHT TO DO SO.

Just because the perps probably slandered Aaron does not mean he was not abused. You know full well that slandering victims is a full time job for the perps. Your adamant demands on Christ Church are "interesting" to say the least.

Rule 2: Good on two out of three, but you didn't address this issue of whether we have any evidence that @AaronDover is really Aaron Dover. Again, many people in the original thread suspected it was a disinfo post, and with good reason.

Here's the original post which was deleted (I highly recommend the comments section too)

Rule 4: Since the only thing in the comments is another user (or yourself using another account) complaining about the removal (while trying to equivocate and acting like Rule 1 was cited, I might add), this post violates Rule 4. Mod complaints and discussion of moderation belong on v/pizzagatemods .

https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=DtAuWQHgUvo :

Hampstead Christ Church Satanic Ritual Child Abuse Cover-up - Police testimony of Child 1 (reupload) - YouTube

https://www.hooktube.com/watch?v=xSJI_qfI-es :

Hampstead Christ Church Satanic Ritual Child Abuse Cover-up - Police testimony of Child 2 (reupload) - YouTube

https://archive.fo/uwmr2 :

Cannabis-smoking City worker fell to his death in Malaysia | Daily Mail Online

This has been an automated message.