Reminder: Rule 1 of this site: No doxxing of site members

[Thisismyaccount]

We as a community had your back last month and supported you during your troubles with the law. Now I am wondering the wisdom of my decision to back you. You have turned on us and now support that CP posting degenerate. I guess that old saying is true. The devil does take care of his own.

[Deleted User 2149]

What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

Why don't YOU ask him, he's your pal and you're the one who is so concerned about his wellbeing. Why not ask his permission for us to dv him too. Your post is retarded. Oh please mr pedophile can you kindly confirm youre ok with the fact you posted your own name online. Wtf is wrong with you? Hell Why not just give him access to your kids. It's over.
We're done so do what the fuck you want in your safe space for pedos.

[MadWorld]

What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

The whole redefining "no doxxing of site members" to include self-dox, does it have to do with your own IRL identity being exposed, because of recent events? Maybe you are trying to reclaim your privacy, but the damage was already done. Normally, a user could choose to start over under a new username with some additional adjustment. This is not easy for an admin to do, especially on a small site (we could probably smell you from a mile away ).

If you have to redefine the rule to protect the stupid self-doxxers, with all due respect, how far are you willing to go to keep them "safe" from their own stupidity?

>The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

Are you willing to go as far as deleting or redacting those entries from the archive, in order to achieve that no-doxxing rule? This sounds like the next logical step to take. And what happens when users start redefining what constitutes private info? Shall we ask for permission every step of the way, just to be on the safe side? And are we required to maintain this "permission" list to protect ourselves from the rule?

[Deleted User 2149]

What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

If they weren't okay with being identified THEY WOULDN'T HAVE POSTED THE SELF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE, WOULD THEY....

Schmuck.

This feels like splitting hair . Even on gay ass site like poal, they acknowledge that users are responsible for their own self-dox.

Even poal bans pedos.

[antiliberalsociety]

...it wouldn't be cool to parachute into a sub and delete old posts. If you want a sub that doesn't have that content, create a new one.

Meanwhile, in chat:

antiliberalsociety • Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:49 pm

SearchVoat • Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:46 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022 12:28
And you're willing to go down with the ship over a fucking jew pedophile?

Yes, if that's what happens. But who's sinking the ship?

That original comment I made was deleted. No wonder he disabled the chat, he had to purge incriminating content - including Blumes pic.

antiliberalsociety • Mon Aug 29, 2022 5:57 pm
We can't delete our own shit. @SearchVoat did it. Look:

sguevar • Mon Aug 29, 2022 1:06 pm
likes this message
antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022 13:00
https://www.voat.xyz/viewpost?postid=60f8946901b84

He also deleted my comment proving a self dox isn't a dox.

[antiliberalsociety]

What I'm thinking moving forward is that the self-doxer must explicitly indicate they are ok with being identified. Covers the cases you describe. B4A (is that the same as b4p?) hasn't done that. If you can persuade him to I'll probably reverse.

The issues with the talk.lol and voat.co posts in the archive are more problematic.

The whole redefining "no doxxing of site members" to include self-dox, does it have to do with your own IRL identity being exposed, because of recent events? Maybe you are trying to reclaim your privacy, but the damage was already done. Normally, a user could choose to start over under a new username with some additional adjustment. This is not easy for an admin to do, especially on a small site (we could probably smell you from a mile away ).

If you have to redefine the rule to protect the stupid self-doxxers, with all due respect, how far are you willing to go to keep them "safe" from their own stupidity?

*ahem*

SearchVoat • Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:46 pm

antiliberalsociety wrote: ↑29 Aug 2022 12:28
And you're willing to go down with the ship over a fucking jew pedophile?

Yes, if that's what happens. But who's sinking the ship?