Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/16nxrg3/everyone_should_decide_for_themselves_how_they/
When Plan vs Book conversations come up, the superstonk mods have many rhetorical words they like to use such as “there is no wrong way to hold GME”.
And yet, a post like this shows up using similar rhetoric but concluding that shares should be put in pure DRS book, and this post gets removed without any explanation provided as to why. It’s as if they don’t actually believe the words when they say “there is no wrong way to hold GME”.
The reason why there is any significance to this is because it is part of a larger pattern of behaviors from the mod team of superstonk that demonstrates that those mods have an agenda that is not in alignment with the community itself.
with respect to Plan vs Book, superstonk mods:
- In late 2022 and for a while afterwards, in discussions of Plan vs Book, deliberately and persistently inserted their confusing template message into conversations that suggested that there is no real distinction between Plan and Book and in conclusion it’s okay and maybe even preferable to hold shares in Plan
- From 2023 onwards heavily censored all discussion of Plan vs Book
- Censored heatlamp DD that was posted on the DRSyourGME subreddit as heavily as possible though they ultimately failed to contain the discussions
- after their failed attempt to censor it, pretended as if the OP of the DD had always been welcome to post it on superstonk and that they were confused as to why that OP wouldn’t post it there even after they so graciously invited them to
- Publicly denounced and mischaracterized the DRSGME.org team for their actions regarding the stockholder list
- banned nearly everyonoe from the DRSGME.org team from superstonk
- banned many other individuals that resisted their authority
- to this day continue to advocate for Plan over Book
- to this day continue to accuse anyone that doesn’t agree with them of acting in bad faith
- to this day continue to remove posts and otherwise censor and contain the notion that shares should maybe be put in pure DRS book
It is sincerely questionable why those mods consider the Plan vs Book discussion to be so controversial and at the same time to use their authority to favor one side of the argument over the other. They either don’t see the damage that their actions have caused to the subreddit, or they see it but they are unconcerned about it. It seems as if Plan vs Book is the hill that they will destroy the subreddit on, if that is what it takes.
Actually I remember that post. I considered it pure fud. I’m glad they removed it. You post a big banner saying “direct buying is the cause of a shitty price”, then you post a meek title. It’s fud bro. If you didn’t actually intend to create fud, then you need to sharpen your media literacy, because that post was fud. There was an entire wave of pro-fidelity bullshit posts at the same time as you made yours. Coincidence?
It wasn’t my post, I’m just observing here that it was removed.
Whether or not it was a valid argument of getting a good price or not a good price, is besides the point in this case. The price is fake anyways.
The point of this post is: That superstonk post advocates for having shares in pure DRS book as opposed to DSPP, and the post gets removed.
Why was it removed?
Why can’t a person go on to superstonk and make a post saying that they agree that shares should be held in pure DRS book? The post had 1.6 thousand upvotes and over 200 comments. Clearly the community was in favor of having this discussion. The mods removed it.
Why did the mods remove it? Why not just let the community participants have the debate, and they can sort it out amongst themselves, rather than the mods unilaterally deciding that “we don’t want this content to be present in our subreddit that belongs to us”.Ultimately, as described above, this is part of a pattern of behavior of discussions of Plan versus Book.
2023-12-21
Another example of “Plan is not DRS” being removed from superstonk for rule 6.
Rule 6 states:
- Back Up Claims With Sources Our biggest strength is our ability to crowd-source information. For the Integrity of the sub, and in order to rule out Misinformation or FUD, please cite your sources when making claims. Making any Call-to-Action posts or comments without verifiable sources is not allowed. Speculation is allowed under the Speculation/Opinion flair.
Apparently, making the accurate distinction that plan is not DRS somehow violates that rule.
The simple fact is that superstonk mods have repeatedly demonstrated that they have an agenda, and that agenda includes censoring any discussion about the distinction of plan and book, and specifically the fact that Plan is not DRS.
