all 10 comments

[–]magnora7 20 insightful - 4 fun20 insightful - 3 fun21 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

He broke site rules by constantly arguing in bad faith, accusing others of promoting their websites while simultaneously promoting his book and blog at every opportunity. He's banned because he drags down the quality of discussion on this website noticeably which is against site rules. He was also calling anyone who disagreed with him about anything a "shill". Furthermore he started regularly attacking me when I called him out this. Sorry we had to ban him, but site rules are site rules.

[–]danuker[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for your reply.

I believe he writes in a brutal and savage form, but also that he is honest.

I think he dragged down only the form and tone, but not the ideas. I believe he was trying to expose "shills" which are corporate or gov actors undermining the discourse; I think "shill" was a bad use of the word; he had no trouble with anyone promoting their own work (actual shills).

This, and because the ban was sudden, is why I think you should give him another chance. Of course, I will still respect your decision since it's your site, and have explained why you banned him.

The prospect of a shadow mute/ban is chilling to me. Thanks for the explanation!

[–]magnora7 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Sorry, he should respect the pyramid of debate if he wants to participate on the website. I don't mind directness, but going around insulting others, while simultaneously being hypocritical (literally shilling for his book while constantly accusing others of shilling) doesn't sit highly on the pyramid of debate. Sorry we had to take action, but we must take care of the culture of this website, lest we become voat.

[–]holy_goat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–]whereswhat 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Imo, /u/jmichaelhudsondotnet was just here to try and sell stuff and troll people. I doubt voat would have banned him but am glad saidit did.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

He called ME a shill, and when I kept asking him to clarify his position, he only brought more insults to the table. I am as honest and straightforward as people come, and a proud National Socialist (or Nazi if you prefer). Shills aren't Nazis, not visibly so. And yet he kept coming at me with this ill faith, making it impossible to discuss anything.

My opinion counts for absolutely zero, but here it is: when somebody shuts down discussions on a site made for discussing things, they don't belong there.

[–]discountmeat 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Banning people like him represents the glory of saidit.

[–]yellow_algebra_31 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for posting about this. I saw him claim on notabug that he was unable to post here, and I actually did not believe him because it didn't seem like something that would happen here.

I would really really love to see more transparency (built-in or manually noted for the time being) with regard to warnings, mutes, and bans.