This place is a fucking joke. I miss old conspiracy

Agreed.

and who the fuck are you?

This place is a fucking joke.

Rule 10 - Posts that attack the sub, users or mods will be removed. Repeat offenders are subject to a ban.

Comment removed.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/conspiratard] Censorship double standard in /r/conspiracy

^{I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!}

They're slowly downvoting the above link over time.

That isn't fair, in my opinion. That's like censoring a post solely for swearing, which is nonsensical. If he said "This place is a joke" you wouldn't have done the same I'd bet. An opinion isn't an attack either, his opinion matters and shouldn't be censored man. The moderators here can remove and ban whoever they want based on their interpretation of an "attack." Anybody criticizing this subreddit could be censored or banned, which is bullshit. Criticize is a good thing, and a subreddit like this one needs it to keep it in line at times.

If he said "This place is a joke" you wouldn't have done the same I'd bet.

If I had seen it, then yes, I would have. None of us mods have the time it takes to read through every single thread here so generally it's only the comments that get reported that get reviewed. In fact, since I've become a mod, I have had very little free time left to actually look for new submissions to post and read linked articles and the comments here. That makes it a bit frustrating when trying to read a thread then having to wade through personal ad hominem attacks on other users, mods and the sub. This sub is for discussing conspiracies. Every ad hominem or verbally abusive comment really derails discussions.

I now understand where you're coming from. Although, I have differing viewpoint regarding moderation but it may be because I'm not a moderator myself. I believe anybody who criticizes the subreddit, or the moderators, shouldn't be immediately censored; even if it is ad hominem. If somebody makes a blunt generalization about either subjects, they should be at the very least allowed to elaborate their opinion. If they don't, than yeah I suppose it's fair to delete the comment. I just don't want moderators to delete comments based solely on the fact they disagree with moderation or subreddit practices. I think that kind of discussion is important in a subreddit like this, in order to keep it accountable.

I know you and other moderators wouldn't delete a comment that actually keeps the discussion civil, so maybe it's alight after all. However, If it were up to me, I'd change the rules here so that it said "criticism about the subreddit or moderators must be kept civil and must be elaborated upon or it will be removed." Otherwise, moderators are free to delete whatever they feel is an attack, which could cause abuses. You didn't abuse your power, I can now understand your actions. It's just that the board term "attacks" reminds me of how our Government has a loose broad definition of Terrorism. Now, comparing you to the U.S. Government is obviously an attack. Just kidding, haha.

When I see longer comments pertaining to the discussion but also includes violations I generally remove and ask for it to be edited. When that editing occurs, I re-approve the comment. When a comment is solely about abusing another user or mod, then I remove it permanently.

It's just that the board term "attacks" reminds me

Perhaps we need to consider another word that better describes the problem.

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them.

Which mod did this or took this action? What do the other mods think of it? We need an open and transparent discussion about what is going on!

An open and transparent discussion occurred yesterday: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xb1er/i_want_my_moderator_spot_backand_the_other_mods/

Every mod that weighed in on it (modmail) agreed to let him return as a mod.

[deleted]

What criteria did you use to determine whether or not to reinstate 9000sins?

The error of his shadowban by the admins and consequent reinstatement. His previous well-liked moderation and participation.

Can we please have some proof

The mods have been discussing it ever since his shadowban appeal was successful. This has taken place over numerous modmail threads. I don't have the time to spend hours hunting back through everything in our modmail so no, no screenshots. If another mod wants to take the time then that's up to them.

Why was his reinstatement so quiet?

As you should be able to see by the link I provided, it wasn't quiet at all.The other issues in your last paragraph were also considered.

What it all came down to was that there was a mod consensus and a user consensus (until that thread got linked to in other subs).

[deleted]

You certainly have the right to not accept my explanation if you choose.

As a new user that has made no previous submissions or comments here, I find it odd that you're so offended by the situation.

[deleted]

Alright then.

Subreddits are not democracies. This particular one happens to be "owned" by illuminatedwax. He and any mods he approves of get to make decisions. When he's not around then the other mods get to make the decisions. If the mods decide to give the subscribers a voice in certain matters then that's okay. If the mods decide that certain things need to be done for what they think is best for the sub in the long run then that's just the way it is. If you want drama then there are plenty of other subs for you to create and/or participate in drama.

where is another mod to substantiate your claims?

Send a PM to /r/conspiracy and ask them.

Well someone better be running the show so we don't have dumb ass mods shadow banning people or posts unnecessarily or over exerting their control. Delete obvious shills and ban them, but no more discretion is really needed. We don't need fringe topics like Snowden, Assange, or Aliens to draw our focus too on stickies or whatnot. The mainstream media does enough of that for us as it is. The sidebar image should be strictly used for the best of the best we have that is backed up by evidence and not something the mainstream is already trying to feed us into. Adios. Thanks.

I think it was the right decision. /r/conspiritard just vote brigaded the thread. They do it slowly over time. That tote bot commented on the thread with links to their cross-posts on /r/conspiritard. That's where they organize to do their vote brigading. They even target individual comments for down voting.

I don't understand why the admins allow this.

9000sins appears to be their mortal enemy.

The way he replied to the comments in that thread is really weird and the fact that he can't even be on very much or even reply to the comments in that thread shows that there is no reason for him to even be a mod.

Its like in real life where the popular vote doesn't count, but the electoral college's. So hopefully he'll do a good job, what ever that means.

I suppose I haven't been here long enough to understand why some feel hes a good, or bad mod.

[deleted]

the moderators here are the same sort of overly-emotional un-intellectual types

Rule 10 - Posts that attack the sub, users or mods will be removed. Repeat offenders are subject to a ban.

Comment removed.

Case in point. Whatever sort of 'attack' this might be is benign. It's my opinion of the behavior of many moderators as evidenced here.

This is a subreddit that decries the structures of government left and right, yet we have a rule that says 'you can't say bad things about moderators'? The irony is outstanding!

The object of this sub is to discuss conspiracies. Any attack or verbal abuse of other users, mods or the sub in general only serves to derail discussions.

Well in this case, the conspiracy 'is why the moderators reinstated 9k sins again' and I've provided my reasoning. So I think my commentary was absolutely in-line with what was being discussed and not me rambling about the mods in a thread that wasn't about them.

Heck, I'm the one here saying it's a conspiracy.

This what was OUR CURRENT MODS asked him to do...He was not begging.....................................

This thread may get brigaded.

Here is what i found.

We have been mentioned 17 times by our fans since I started counting.

If this was an error, send me a message

Could you point out the 17 times we were mentioned>

I don't doubt that his thread was brigaded. This entire website has become a joke, anything that isn't bullshit is downvoted and suppressed. Our voices are systematically being silenced by many different factions.

as in who it came from?

As in what was mentioned or said, if you don't mind.

Hmmm maybe I can have the bot cross post the link to /r/conspiracy?

If not /r/conspiracy, maybe a subreddit for that very purpose.

I just don't want to list everything on every comment. Once it adds up it will take up a lot of space.

I think it would be a good improvement. You're doing good work man, and any improvement is worth it; then again, I don't know how bots work really. If the coding is too much bullshit, than forget it.

What happens is my bot creates a list of all the posts and if /r/conspiracy is in the title or the text post portion of the post, it counts it as one.

It saves a couple files and reads from files to see what it has already commented on and how many times they have mentioned /r/conspiracy.

If it has already counted a mention, it won't count it again. Same goes for if it has commented on a post.

as far as where it counts from, it is /r/conspiratard.

Ah, alright. That's a great thing you're doing; keep spreading the awareness so we can hold these brigaders accountable for their perpetual biases.

Because the majority spoke in favor of it? http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xb1er/i_want_my_moderator_spot_backand_the_other_mods/

[deleted]

Votes are not enough. We all agree voting is rigged here. I'm talking users that directly stated yay or nay. Anyone can log into multiple accounts and sway votes.

Votes are not enough. We all agree voting is rigged here. I'm talking users that directly stated yay or nay. Anyone can log into multiple accounts and sway votes.

And anyone can log into multiple accounts and say yay or nay...

At least with the votes, reddit's algorithm attempts to disregard multiple votes from the same IP address. So which do you think would be more accurate?

Why would you think the consensus is no? For most of the time that post was up the vast majority said yes to him coming back, it wasn't until the end that a bunch of No's started appearing(in what seems to be a pretty organized series of naysaying) Even with the bunch of "No's" that appeared towards the end it still looks like there's more for yes.

4 day old account, who are you?

You thought it was "no'". However I think 9000SINS is okay. Deal with it.

Dude what's the big problem. Just let him be a mod. The mods think he's good enough so he is. There's no point in making a big deal about it.

A lot of us don't think he's good enough, and don't want somebody so desperate for a moderation position to be in one. Not only that, but the community seemed to agree that he shouldn't be allowed back. Even so, he was stealthily put back into moderation. That's bullshit, and there was truly no point in asking us if they didn't give a fuck to begin with.

"The mods think he's good enough so he is." We were asked if we thought he was good enough, and we mostly said no. Besides, the mods opinions of a fellow moderator are moot when the community's is negative.

Why do you think he should be allowed back into moderation? Is it simply because the mods did it?

What did he do exactly to warrant removal initially?

The story goes he posted a picture on WTF which some admin construed as CP. Said admin shadowbanned him. He appealed it as it was apparently not CP, but a midget tranny (?). He was eventually unshadowbanned.

Almost better entertainment than the Kardashians.

I only know what I read of course, so I may have the story wrong. :) You can look up a thread 9000sins created a few hours ago to see some links about this incident.

Oh, in that case, sounds silly to not allow him to be a mod, unless he's abused his mod powers.

A lot of us don't think he's good enough, and don't want somebody so desperate for a moderation position to be in one. Not only that, but the community seemed to agree that he shouldn't be allowed back. Even so, he was stealthily put back into moderation. That's bullshit, and there was truly no point in asking us if they didn't give a fuck to begin with.

"The mods think he's good enough so he is." We were asked if we thought he was good enough, and we mostly said no. Besides, the mods opinions of a fellow moderator are moot when the community's is negative.

Why do you think he should be allowed back into moderation? Is it simply because the mods did it?

Votes are not enough. We all agree voting is rigged here. I'm talking users that directly stated yay or nay. Anyone can log into multiple accounts and sway votes.

And anyone can log into multiple accounts and say yay or nay...

At least with the votes, reddit's algorithm attempts to disregard multiple votes from the same IP address. So which do you think would be more accurate?