Dox drama

[antiliberalsociety]

Did you act honorably? Or did you act in your own self interest?...

With respect to the dox rule, that's me putting users first. With respect to the confessions screenshot, that's me acting in my own self interest. No justification other than that.

I am forced to compare it to your confession in which you said your wife accused you of abusing your boys.

I never said that. I said I didn't have access to them, and that's because of the police report about the confessions post. No-one has accused anyone of abuse.

Funny, that's not what the screenshot of YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS says. This is where your trustworthiness ended. I knew there was something fucky about that.

[SearchVoat]

Funny, that's not what the screenshot of YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS says. This is where your trustworthiness ended. I knew there was something fucky about that.

PM it to me, let me see. I don't have a copy.

[antiliberalsociety]

Funny, that's not what the screenshot of YOUR OWN FUCKING WORDS says. This is where your trustworthiness ended. I knew there was something fucky about that.

PM it to me, let me see. I don't have a copy.

Oh I doubt that, it was YOUR post FFS and you deleted the pic from chat. Don't tell me you "don't have a copy".

[kestrel9]

So yes - I am forced to compare it to your confession in which you said your wife accused you of abusing your boys. It's quite evident you've pulled some dirty shit in the past and you're deathly afraid it'll catch up to you even on here.

Just 2 cents...

I don't recall SV ever saying he was accused by his wife of abusing the kids.

SV did confess to being an asshole, so maybe she accused him of that.

/2cents

EDIT: I was not privy to what was said on the pedo's NSFW subverse when the conversation was moved off of regular confessions sub.

[antiliberalsociety]

So yes - I am forced to compare it to your confession in which you said your wife accused you of abusing your boys. It's quite evident you've pulled some dirty shit in the past and you're deathly afraid it'll catch up to you even on here.

Just 2 cents...

I don't recall SV ever saying he was accused by his wife of abusing the kids.

SV did confess to being an asshole, so maybe she accused him of that.

/2cents

EDIT: I was not privy to what was said on the pedo's NSFW subverse when the conversation was moved off of regular confessions sub.

The screenshot I have it on he keeps deleting. It's got dirt he's trying to hide and perfectly explains why he suddenly flipped to pedo protection and blatant censorship. He said he can only see his kids 2 hours at a time - which means CPS is involved.

That doesn't happen without cause.

[SearchVoat]

The screenshot I have it on he keeps deleting. It's got dirt he's trying to hide and perfectly explains why he suddenly flipped to pedo protection and blatant censorship. He said he can only see his kids 2 hours at a time - which means CPS is involved.

Feel free to share it, just please don't post it publicly.

[antiliberalsociety]

The screenshot I have it on he keeps deleting. It's got dirt he's trying to hide and perfectly explains why he suddenly flipped to pedo protection and blatant censorship. He said he can only see his kids 2 hours at a time - which means CPS is involved.

Feel free to share it, just please don't post it publicly.

That's no longer up to you. It's going to make the rounds outside of here so people will know why you betrayed the very people supporting you.

[MadWorld]

These messages were from mchat earlier.

MadWorld • Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:07 pm

“Algorithm” – poal.co
“Violence Advocacy” – ruqqus.com
“Spam” – votal.net
“SBBH” – voat.xyz

Remember we had good time laughing at them. I just hope that SVF does not make it to the list, using "No Dox" as a reason to remove content. However, he has clarified the no-dox rule to include self-dox, unless explicitly consented by the first party. Then I have a question of how far does it go, now that the rule is clear. Does it include the archives predated to this forum/rule?

MadWorld • Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:08 pm
And what would happen to existing "dox" posts, if the party involved suddenly shows up and creates an account here?

MadWorld • Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:30 pm
If the answer is keeping existing "dox" posts, then there is no reason to delete existing archives. And if the answer is deleting existing "dox" posts, including entries in archives, then anyone could create an account for the sake of removing "personal info".

The concern was what would happen to existing data if the person decided to show up on SVF.

[SearchVoat]

The concern was what would happen to existing data if the person decided to show up on SVF.

Hmm tricky. I think to be consistent I'd have to say it would be deleted [Edit: assuming you mean a red verified voat user who hasn't been active till now].

I consider the no-dox rule to be absolutely essential on a free speech site, because it protects all users so that they can feel free to say anything without it coming back to them IRL. It should be enforced rigorously. Considerations about "this guy deserves to be outed IRL because he's done so-and-so or he is a so-and-so" should always(?) come second.

[SearchVoat]

Sorry, there was more to your post:

Does it include the archives predated to this forum/rule?

I'm inclined to say the archives should remain. That leaves the challenge of what to about posts linking to archived dox, if it comes to that.

And what would happen to existing "dox" posts, if the party involved suddenly shows up and creates an account here?

A new account could never prove that the dox was about them so nothing would happen. One advantage of being a "verified voat user".

If the answer is keeping existing "dox" posts, then there is no reason to delete existing archives.

That is correct. The only circumstance warranting deleting info from the archive is a red voat user here asking for it.