Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

519

seems petty and dishonest to me. seems like he's being targeted as a user by site admin

EDIT: automatic tag flagging? no manual review? faith in auto-algorithms? y'all are fucking glowniggers! turn off automatic, and go for manual review, you dingus. every fucking shill ever can and will exploit the system to label innocent users

seems petty and dishonest to me. seems like he's being targeted as a user by site admin EDIT: automatic tag flagging? no manual review? faith in auto-algorithms? y'all are fucking glowniggers! turn off automatic, and go for manual review, you dingus. every fucking shill ever can and will exploit the system to label innocent users

(post is archived)

[–] • 9 pts

I don't recall labeling anyone anything.

[–] • -1 pt (edited )

it occurs to me that one of your systems currently set to automatic, perhaps needs to be switched off automatic, and done only on manual review.

shill exploitation

they can trigger conditions and label an innocent user as suspicious in the eyes of the whole site. thats a huge design problem.

crensh is innocent and didnt do anything suspicious , but i still see him labelled like it. you gonna do something about that or not?

[–] • 3 pts

I'm going to contact him first and see what he would like me to do, if he wants to get rid of it himself or not. Its easy to do. I do not think that the flair should be applied to a user with a single post(or very few comments/posts) I would consider that a flaw in the way its setup.

[–] • 6 pts (edited )

Yes, this is all clearly a big, super serious plot! We're an evil hive of doxxers!

Edit: The suspicious behavior tag has existed for months and you said nothing.

[–] • 0 pt

crensh didnt have it applied to him last time i checked, and now its there, would someone like to fucking explain that?

[–] • 4 pts

It's assigned by an algorithm due to the algorithm detecting certain behaviors, hon.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

i heard it was nano tech thru the food

[–] • -1 pt (edited )

2 words

shill exploitation

A.set shillbots onto a target

B. kick them below a certain threshold

C. innocent users now labeled suspicious

why the fuck is that even automated if shills can it exploit is so damn hard? thats the most retarded fucking shit ive seen in planning, ever.

why the fuck does poal have such a glaring loophole sitting there to be exploited by? fix it and turn it off then

[–] • 1 pt

lol

You think it is just based on score? You don't get that flag by just getting down voted. You need to actually do suspicious things.

[–] • 0 pt

The only thread I read related to crensch and pmyb2 was on related to crensch asking for a user here to be banned for actions of the user on another site, I think it was doxxing and voat. It appears that at the time on voat, doxxing was OK (doxxing alone is not illegal).

pmyb2 told crensch that he was not going to punish a poal user for what the user allegedly does on another forum outside of his control.

crensch did not like the answer and there was more back and forth; I'm sure crensch was not delighted at not getting what he wanted

I've had issues with some of my threads being moved from one sub to another; I tried to get a full examination of why the moving was wrong but I was never able to get pmyb2 to recognize the full TOS; I presumed afterward that he does not know the full TOS. Oh well, that's life. In that query I think I was called an "asshole" or something like that -- all in good fun, I say. And in the crensch thread asking for a user to be banned, pmyb2 did not call crensch any derogatory terms in that thread (looks like I'm special -- my mom was right !)

I say, fuck-em ! Don't be asking to ban someone without merit. Not saying to ban crensch but I would not take anything he says with any veracity...he's quick to complain about stuff that occurred elsewhere; nor do I wish to read any more "books" written by him of series of links that lead the reader to the conclusion that this user is trying to dictate what happens here due to what happens somewhere else.

If he wishes to continue on with his attack of a voat user who may be banned over there, he should petition the voat admin to re-instate that user's voat account so that the arguments can continue there, where it should happen, if anywhere. I don't have access to the voat forum and luckily would not see this drama queen any further, hopefully.

[–] • 2 pts

The only thread I read related to crensch and pmyb2 was on related to crensch asking for a user here to be banned for actions of the user on another site, I think it was doxxing and voat.

I was invited here by a user that doxxed and continues to try to doxx users on another site. And may or may not have dropped a continued doxx on this site, but didn't link it to that username so nothing can be done, as far as I can tell.

crensch did not like the answer and there was more back and forth; I'm sure crensch was not delighted at not getting what he wanted

Nonsense. Once it was fully explained to me, I was quite delighted. All I ask for is consistency, and once we stopped talking past each other, PMYB2 explained his position and what could or could not happen.

And in the crensch thread asking for a user to be banned, pmyb2 did not call crensch any derogatory terms in that thread (looks like I'm special -- my mom was right !)

I don't quite understand this. In my entire username's history on Voat, I've never given two fucks about derogatory terms, and use them liberally myself when I choose to.

I say, fuck-em ! Don't be asking to ban someone without merit.

Oh, but there was. And if the lines were drawn ever so slightly differently, TWOS would not be here. Which is fine, because I like that line right where it is, I was merely under the impression it was in another place.

Not saying to ban crensch but I would not take anything he says with any veracity...he's quick to complain about stuff that occurred elsewhere

Like TWOS did in his thread that got multiple upvotes despite being nothing but claim after unsupported claim? I can verify my claims. I bet you're one of those that can't, and that's why you don't like what I have to say.

nor do I wish to read any more "books" written by him of series of links that lead the reader to the conclusion that this user is trying to dictate what happens here due to what happens somewhere else.

Books? Responding to every point of his is a "book"? Your attention span is rather short, isn't it?

If he wishes to continue on with his attack of a voat user who may be banned over there, he should petition the voat admin to re-instate that user's voat account so that the arguments can continue there, where it should happen, if anywhere.

I quite understand the playing field here, and I'll be sure to ping you when I wreck TWOS for not supporting his claims, going forward.

I don't have access to the voat forum and luckily would not see this drama queen any further, hopefully.

We're going to be the best of friends, you and me.

[–] • 0 pt

there's plenty of merit to consider putting TWOS under a judgment microscope.

[–] • -2 pt (edited )

wtf is this estrogen-riddled move of targeting your users with petty account tags?

crensch hasnt done anything suspicious to earn the label his account has. it would be fair to consider clearing said label away. so TWOS gets to doxx people all day but we merely show up and get branded? that's not fair or justified treatment.

i think you're playing favorites and protecting certain people over others.

[–] • 3 pts

I like Crensch I quite enjoyed the conversation I had with him yesterday, I've just reviewed the only post on his account and I see why the tag was applied. It is completely automated I can remove it, it wouldn't be hard for him to remove it himself either. Once I get home from work I'll see where things are if the tag is still applied and I'll attempt to contact him while I'm at work today and see what he says. I'll plan on moving forward from there.

[–] • -2 pt

ok thank you, its a bit alarming to know an open exploit in the system exists

[–] • 4 pts

The system was put in place because it was better than the alternative at the time. I'll admit it could need to be tweaked.

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

From what I understand that tag is automated. is this still true?

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

this being just a mistake of the machine would be the good and ideal explanation.

users get downvoted brigaded, and if its automated, that can obviously be exploited to label innocent users. automating that account falg should probably be halted immediately.

its too ripe for shill abuse.

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

You're assuming that its some vote threshold. You have no idea what the criteria are, but you speak as if that theory is an absolute.