I'd rather have the ugly truth than a pretty lie. He did do us a favor by exposing our own admin as one of his kind, as disappointing and frustrating as that is. It's better to police our own than our enemies catching us with it. It was his reactions that gave his true allegiances away.
This is not a democracy. ...or a dictatorship if you will
But then he said it's based on US law? Where the majority speaks? Let's compare the pedo shit to the dox, shall we?
CP is "free speech" and gets its own safe space, complete with pedo tags. He was warned 3 times for pedo trolling, and it took months to get any movement to reconsider the rules on it.
ONE complaint from (((Blume))) and SV threatened the whole userbase with a ban - for merely
REPEATING PUBLIC INFORMATION that (((Blume))) himself gave. Remember the "Sweet Grass" incident in which he gave his alt away by giving the same unique reference to location (((Blume))) did? I threw that in his face even back then (((Blume's))) response was "Come see me, I'll give you the 3 S treatment!"
But only one side was strictly enforced, a pic that had no proof was actually him - it was based on a name he gave that could still be fake. That's not even a 5th of the info @
TexasVet gave out. No one referenced his location, IP, family, etc.
But if one were actually fair and unbiased - all rules would be enforced equally.
US law? Let's put it on trial. (((Blume))) accuses me of doxxing him, how do I plead?
I plead innocent, not "Not Guilty" because that insinuates you can't prove guilt nor can I prove innocence. But in this case, I can prove it.
Burden of proof is on the accuser. All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - which this is a dictatorship right? Based on US law? I have a right to a fair trial. If banning is equal to a digital death sentence here, then I have appeals. Let's look at how it was handled:
Proof was immediately provided that showed (((Blume))) volunteered information that was private. Proof was ignored and deemed inadmissible despite its infallible credibility. That's the equivalent of a cop arresting you for drugs when it's legal to possess with a prescription, and despite showing him that prescription, he deems it still illegal and you get cited with a heavy fine, with a charge on your record, including one more charge and it's life in prison.
A public advisory is issued regarding the new law - which the majority of the populace disagrees with, and had no say in it. Plus - votes don't matter anymore.
Pedo shit is warned and warned and warned, and despite public outcry to outlaw it altogether, nothing is done but false promises.
Only after this bias is exposed, and the one acting as dictator is found to have committed the same offenses regarding public information - does he finally change the pedo rule and remove the pedo tags (which not even shady sites use those) BUT - no changes to the public information policy.
Does this model look like freedom loving leadership to you? What style of government acts this way?
Now if it was a legit trial, in order for me to be charged (warned with a ban) proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed. Where is it, the mere word of the known pedophile?
He reported to SV that "I can only assume" it was the glitch. Well, that's speculation. Inadmissible in a court. Plus even if that was the case, why am I on trial and not SV's negligence? Plus - (((Blume))) has to prove damage was incurred.
Where's the damage, or the verification he was actually doxxed? How do we know he isn't lying about that being his real name, or his pic which was a random google grab? Just because he's banned now doesn't mean this isn't a problem still.
That's where my investigation into all this began. That's when I remembered what SV himself did that put himself at risk, and why he moved the goalposts so hastily. It was enough motivation for him that sacrificing his userbase wasn't a concern; it was treated as the cost of doing business. "Soooo sorry to see you go but... Don't let the door hit you on the ass!"
Then he censored my posting this evidence which in court becomes public domain... A "Sorry, not sorry" admission.
