Conspiracyv2 never got back to me about my invite... Honestly, I don't think conspiracyv2 is even worth your time, and I do see the point you're trying to make.

Only problem with r/conspiritard is that a lot of them don't use sources and rely on attacking people's character to make there point.

I like r/conspiracy because it's very diverse in its users views. You get a large selection of ideas and generally speaking, people are respectable.

I like v2 the best honestly, it's basically a more condensed /r/conspiracy without downing voting. To encourage you to upvote only on post you find informative.

Shhh, the whole sub is actually just me and my sockpuppets who shill for Alex Jones.

I am the left hand sock puppet named Scribbles.

Yeah, I just got access and I'm digging it :D

They got back to me, but it took a long time, after I had already forgotten about it.

can you post some images of the forum?

It's nothing special to see. It's like /r/conspiracy but there are fewer people.

If it's nothing special you wouldn't mind posting some pictures, no?

http://imgur.com/a/hzuYx

ZOMG secretes out!!!!111one

You make a joke of it, but your whole premise is antithetical with what most of those browsing /r/conspiracy believe in.

That's that information should be left open.

Right, because "open" means allowing people who have nothing to share with the sub but are instead here to stiffle discussion to sit around on our new tab and downvote, while that same "open" discussion is rife with censorship of links that can readily be cataloged through /r/uncensorship. Believe me I get your Orwellian doublespeak on "open" loud and clear.

Look, I'm a bit confused here, you bring up "open" three times in 3 separate contexts. The last of which is just utter bullshit. How is anything I say Orwellian.

I'd like to believe we're on the same side here, but you didn't address philophically the topic of my concern. That's that a private subreddit falls under the same sort of generally egomaniacal "morality" that caused what you protest against.

Of course a subreddit is small potatoes, but if you don't get what I'm saying and take heed... Well I don't know how I could make myself any clearer.

I get what you are saying, I'm saying it's Orwellian in the context of the regular goings on around here. May be I've seen something that you haven't here, but as open as this sub is comparatively to the rest of reddit, it is still largely farcical in context of real openness. For example most of the hardcore conspiracy related topics get regularly buried here. May be I jumped the gun on attributing this to you and I apologize for that. I parused your comments and you seem to know your stuff so how about I approve you and you can decide for yourself how you feel about v2.

Will you extend the same offer to me? My first post was more accusatory and divisive than it should have been. I jumped the gun.

Ultimately my concern is with secrecy and more than anything else I am interested in seeing what is posted in v2. That's why I requested to join a while ago.

If you think that this post has "shown my shill colors" or something like that, I'm more than willing to refrain from posting anything within the sub if you let me in.

Haha yeah, they ignored my request too. And I'm with you on preferring r/conspiracy over r/conspiratard. I subscribe to both though, if for no other reason than to keep from missing out on what people are saying about conspiracies.

There is quite a backlog of requests, try it now.

Oh sweet! Thanks OWNtheNWO :D

[deleted]

So if the alex jones = cia agent theory is true, wouldn't this be ironic in the extreme? An overtly anti-shill subreddit used to covertly spread misinfo?

By claiming to be "shill free" anyone who is allowed in thinks they are getting closer to the truth, when exactly the opposite may be the case...

A Conspiratard mad they can't come into our sub, SHOCKER!.

COINTELPRO 101

Dat level of COINTELPRO

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/1ihuuq/official_announcement_from_a_rconspiracy_mod/cb4y2dm

/r/conspiracyv2 is the enemy or /r/conspiracy, not /r/conspiratard. /r/conspiratard encourages skepticism towards conspiracy theories, which is incredibly important if for no other reason than because WE KNOW that the cia et al spread fake conspiracy theories as a part of their disinformation campaigns.

/r/conspiracyv2 is a SECRET forum run by mods who have the unilateral power to decide who is and isn't a shill... sounds like a conspiracy, no? sounds antithetical to the purposes of both /r/conspiratard and /r/conspiracy, no?

tl;dr /r/conspiracyv2 is a conspiracy and /r/conspiracy and /r/conspiratard should unite against it

Yeah, I don't like the idea of closed subreddits either. That's the definition of conspiracy, "conspiring" to keep knowledge away from others. Conspiracy version 2 could probably function just as well as an open subreddit, I mean /r/games is essentially an open /r/gaming number 2 and the quality of content is much better on there.

I agree with what you say in that it's completely antithetical to the whole concept of being anti-conspiracy... to make a secret, exclusive subreddit.

Very silly, hopefully. An ego trip for the mods, most likely.

[Also, funny how iam_sancho2, one of those "always comments on /r/conspiracy, nothing else" accounts I keep seeing when I care to check, picks out one comment from your entire history to belittle, rather than respond to the message, OP.]

Haha yea I thought that was pretty funny too. He even cut out the part of that comment where I said they looked like planes.

It's kind of strange because his post reflects the "conspiracists = crazy" attitude. But why would someone defending (functionally, by attacking my credibility) /r/conspiracyv2 want to appeal to that attitude?

Well since this is up here and I'm the mod in question I guess I should explain their disinformation so that /r/conspiracy users don't adopt this lie as true.

1. You are all welcome to post in /r/conspiratard.

2. If you are going to post in conspiratard you should understand up front that any linking to posts/comments that exist in conspiracy is a bannable offense due to the context, and as outlined by rule #9.

3. The reason for this is because conspiratard has a tendency to leak into conspiracy directly related to cross posts. And that conspiratard users, when down voted here, tend to link to their own argument and the vote supports rush in to rescue them.

4. Some conspiratard users will post the original article, a non conspiracy link, and then direct attention to us in the comments or by editing the title to mention us. This is the same as cross posting. If I detect patterns that suggest you're trying to draw negative attention here, it may result in a ban.

5. Criticisms of specific conspiracy theories are welcome, criticisms/attacks on individual users are not. Its important when discussing unpopular speech (conspiracies) to be civil to everyone, even if you disagree with them, otherwise the "discussion" turns into a flame war where nothing interesting or important can be discussed.

This link http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/1if4y7/apparently_pointing_out_that_an_article_is/cb456hb

Is the source of OP's conspiratard link. As you can see, I didn't say that posting in conspiratard is grounds for a ban, I copy pasted rule 9 from our sidebar and then tried to apply the context in which a conspiratard user might be banned under rule 9.

Of course the only logical reaction for the extremely angry and dishonest users and a few mods of conspiratard was to misquote me, take a screen shot that didn't include the context of my statement, ban me (oh noes!) And start a new thread where they try to frame me as unwilling to discuss things with conspiratard users.

Whatever, now you have the truth.

It reminded me of the UFOs I saw the first time I tripped

Thank you for your input.