So we let them over run complete threads and do nothing to stop it? And if anyone discusses it then they are at fault? That's a strange way of thinking.
Edit- I have posted 3 threads in my Reddit career about brigading, including this one. All were in the last 12 hours about an ongoing problem. I don't know who posted the other 76.
Defend your concepts to them. It might do you some good to test your ideas outside of an echochamber. To be fair there's plenty of links here that need to be brigaded.
Wrong. Vote brigading is against rediquette. To my knowledge there is not a single instance where Redit says it's ok to vote brigade. Try having some respect for the rules. Also, it makes it impossible to have free spirited discussions on topics when hundreds are organized to do everything in thier power to marginalize it. That's what r/conspiratard does. They are not interested in debate. They are interested in shutting debate down.
Your response would appear to consist of: glad they are breaking the rules, just fight fair against that which is unfair...is that about it or am I missing something?
Feel free to deflate your chest, because I have conducted myself in this fashion since time immamorial.
There was a question in my last statement:
Your response would appear to consist of: glad they are breaking the rules, just fight fair against that which is unfair...is that about it or am I missing something?
I don't believe it stop at "perspective". Reddit have such things have vote fuzzing explicitly for the purpose of messing up with brigading attempts. Furthermore, linking directly to a thread from a external site can induce shadow banning.
You've obviously not spent any time conversing with them or you'd know discussing actually topics is impossible. By virtue of the nature of their subreddit they already made up their mind before seeing the data.
So you've actually had one of them be receptive to your viewpoint and not call it crazy? Link please. I don't believe it. I've never even been able to engage one enough to even address the points I'm making. They either attack the source or just call me nuts.
But how do i know YOu aren't the conspiratard? I'm not getting upvoted, you're challenging everything I say. You're requiring me to substantiate claims. How are you different than those you oppose?
Well for one I'm challenging the positive light you shed on conspiratard subscribers, so right there should probably clue you in to the fact that I'm not one.
You're requiring me to substantiate claims. How are you different than those you oppose?
Because they require people to substantiate claims and then attack the source or something else when the claims are substantiated. If you were to substantiate your claims I'd assess them based on their merit and give you an honest response. I've made my intentions in this sub very clear and I've changed my mind on several topics. The post history is there to show it if you care enough. (not challenging you to go over my post history, not worth the time, just pointing out that I have nothing to hide and have changed my mind publicly several times)
If you can provide a sample of a known sub to conspiratard taking any conspiracy theory data and actually analysing it and not just shitting on it for the fact that it's a "conspiracy" I'd definitely be open to changing my mind.
As it stands though every single experience I've had with them was strawmen and ad hominem.
He is so obvious it is not even funny, every single reply of his is meant to derail your point and turn the subject in his favor, let me give you a run down.
That's true, they don't bug me. Or I didn't notice because i was able to defend myself properly.
So his first response to you is an ad hominem claiming that the reason you are never able to debate these people is because you do not have the ability to properly defend your claims.
This is a laughable psychological ploy to trick the reader into thinking you're not credible, and to trick you into being provoked into generating a response which will give a predetermined outcome wherein you try and defend your ability to debate them, which is exactly what you did.
So since you asked him to defend his assertion that it is your inability to defend yourself which leaves you encountering people who merely mock you, he takes this as an opportunity to further discredit you and try to flip this issue back at you.
He first starts by using hostility in referring to people who "investigate comment histories" as "some of you" which has a negative connotation.
He then tries to play the "I'm so smart" card by defining belief and fact as if you're an idiot and don't already know all that.
He then further defends himself as being "open minded and fair" and uses that to close the debate in a condescending manner, like you were really just benefiting him the whole time, he's the one that learned more and wins the debate ( or so he wants the reader to believe ).
The final part is a follow up to his preparation of "always consider all possibilities" by claiming you could be the conspiratard, and that you're just like your adversaries there, in an attempt to further marginalize you.
In his next reply to yours, in response to your "positive light" quote he reiterates "conspiritard subscribers have the same right to be here that you and I do." while completely ignoring the fact that we're not complaining about anybody who is from there that visits here that follows the rules, see in ignoring that he's directly derailing the subject and the argument.
He then tries to belittle and dismiss the shill problem by conflating the use of strawmen and ad hominems to only be used by time wasting kids.
I hope I have helped expose the tactics that people like this use to try and discredit and derail users such as yourself.
Thanks for having my back. I usually try to respond to things line by line in an effort to deconstruct and show where they are wrong with little wiggle room, but it seems I played into his hand a few times.
Did it seem like anyone in that thread was interested in having a conversation? I'm not here to CONVINCE anyone of anything, I'm here to have discussions with like minded people and point the way to those who ask.
You are a propagandist, /r/conspiracy is NOT an echo chamber.
Do not believe anybody making the claim that /r/conspiracy is an echo chamber, that is a tactic employed to deceive you into not putting credibility into the users of the sub.
I have been civil this entire time, your assertion that I have not been does not mean that it is true.
You are AGAIN making false allegations, claims that are unsubstantiated in an effort to make me look bad.
Again I will say that you are doing a bad job and it is coming across as extremely pathetic.
You can try and play victim as well or and try to say "well I tried to debate but you wouldn't cooperate" or try to dismiss me by claiming I'm being rude, but it's not going to work and I'm going to continue to call you out on these weak attempts at derailing and discrediting me because you have been flat out ignoring the content of my posts every single time.
I will ask you this as a question again which I hope you will actually give an answer to.
What do you propose that we do about preventing people from being able to manipulate the content of /r/conspiracy?
Calling you a propagandist is appropriate when you are espousing propaganda engineered to make people think in a very specific way which is detrimental towards their view of this subreddit.
There is no denying that, and it is not uncivil to have done so on my part.
Also, you are yet AGAIN taking my words out of context and purposely twisting them as I have not called you directly pathetic, I called your attempts to use rhetorical devices in an attempt to derail and discredit people pathetic, never you directly.
The fact that /r/conspiracy exposing conspiracies makes people come in here in order to attempt to discredit it, proves there is legitimacy behind these theories existences.
I am doing nothing toward /r/conspiratard past explaining what they are, a bastion of hate for those who wish to engage in ridiculing members of /r/conspiracy which also has members which engage in content manipulation which is against the rules among other activities which are clear violations of the rules which would normally get subreddits like /r/conspiratard banned.
I am not a propagandist because I am not throwing out deceptive assertions explicitly designed to manipulate the readers feelings on a subject manner so as to morph their opinion.
I engage in honest debate which plays off of speculation and facts in a search to get to the truth.
I am engaging in rational debate using logically sound principals and arguments.
What you are doing is trying desperately to play every single card you can to make yourself look the victim and make me look like the agitator, when it is in fact you who are the agitator.
Even at the end of your response you make ANOTHER false assertion that I don't encourage open thought.
It's like all you know how to do is attack people by making false projections.
You're lucky that I'm trying my hardest to remain a good Christian and even give you the time of day.
I am only doing this to expose what you're trying to do to everybody, and to firmly establish to you that your tactics will not work.
I am thoroughly exposing every psychological trick you are attempting to use to trick people into believing your deception of legitimately contributing to this conversation in a constructive and product manner, which you are not.
I am not attacking you, I am exposing to other users how your posts are specifically crafted to derail their arguments and discredit them.
I am using sound and reasoned logic to prove my claims of your psychological ploys.
You are manifesting a weak propagandist who doesn't know how to disguise his own trickery.
How is it that you never cease to make false assertions?
Where did I ever imply that was what I meant?
All I stated is "we'll let the readers decide.".
What that literally implies, and what I really meant, was that the people reading will be able to come to an informed decision from an outside perspective by reading these posts.
But how do i know YOu aren't the conspiratard? I'm not getting upvoted, you're challenging everything I say. You're requiring me to substantiate claims. How are you different than those you oppose?
I can substantiate this subversion, you are part of the proof, but more legitimately there are posts which clearly prove brigading and users who are shills.
Bans prevent an obstacle to those who wish to attempt to sabotage subreddits through means of account manipulation.
Banning is just one part of what should be a larger system aimed at preventing and discouraging the use of multiple accounts to manipulate a subreddit.
It does not stop malfeasance, but it makes it harder by eliminating accounts, thus narrowing the choice of user names down considerable which forces people who wish to continue to create a plethora of accounts for nefarious purposes to become more creative in forming what looks like an authentic user account.
Bans are pretty damn helpful, but they're not the final solution nor can they be.
We must engage in more measure to combat the problem of subreddit subversion.
Made me consider taking a couple of days off of reddit. I come here as part of my daily news intake, this high school shit is ridiculous. Then I just decided not to participate.
I did try one experiment though.
I made a comment about the OP who submitted tard as the sub of the day. Specifically, how many cocks could he stuff in his mouth at once. I wanted to see how fast it got downvoted. -7 20 minutes after I said it. -25 as of right now.
Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. I really don't see how action wouldn't be taken over that, it was undeniable and there are plenty of names in that thread of who was guilty.
EDIT- Ironically, the link I posted to that earlier has a huge amount of downvotes.
The people who now run reddit LOVE what is happening with r/conspiratard.
I am sure that entire subreddit was spearheaded by disinformation and propaganda experts. Why do all the work when you can rope 1000's of people into doing it with you.
I ALWAYS start with new and rarely if ever look at anything else. Yesterday I posted a Greenwald interview and within seconds it received downvotes without any comments. We all have to read this sub with a grain of salt and separating the wheat from the chaff requires a bit of effort.
yup. it starts to seem obvious to people who have been reading and contributing for a month or so. downvotes literally in seconds for no reason at all is not a normal human activity!
I am pleased to see this discussion here. I have noticed this kind of thing when the subject of Townsend Brown comes up regarding his work. Its almost as if instantly there is some sort of organized force against that information getting out. Controlling the input to the public consiousness is a big deal. When you are aware of it though its much tougher for those " forces" ( whoever they are) to implement.
Bot definitely, but I have been all over the world and met all levels of crazy, so I don't dismiss that there may be individuals doing it. Just doesn't seem plausible. Then again, taking the time to create a bot for that purpose seems equally odd.
There's someone out there putting most new posts to -3 more or less instantly. Once on a while they're busy or something and it won't happen and then boom,everything to -3,instantly again.
Yeah but that still requires someone to come in and downvote the topics on a regular basis. If you watch closely it tends to happen a lot faster in this sub than most others.
Negative one-liners with no responses afterwards. Or basically down right insults. Some mods just dont give a single shit anymore around here... a fucking shame. I would do a better job by myself.
They wouldn't be able to effectively brigade is there wasn't some merit to it ... The level of discussion in this sub should be stronger. There are a lot of good topics that get derailed.
So you've actually had one of them be receptive to your viewpoint and not call it crazy? Link please. I don't believe it. I've never even been able to engage one enough to even address the points I'm making. They either attack the source or just call me nuts.
49 comments
15 [deleted] 2014-02-12
That thread about r/conspiratard getting subreddit of the day. Holy shit.
5 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
7 [deleted] 2014-02-12
So we let them over run complete threads and do nothing to stop it? And if anyone discusses it then they are at fault? That's a strange way of thinking.
Edit- I have posted 3 threads in my Reddit career about brigading, including this one. All were in the last 12 hours about an ongoing problem. I don't know who posted the other 76.
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
8 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Wrong. Vote brigading is against rediquette. To my knowledge there is not a single instance where Redit says it's ok to vote brigade. Try having some respect for the rules. Also, it makes it impossible to have free spirited discussions on topics when hundreds are organized to do everything in thier power to marginalize it. That's what r/conspiratard does. They are not interested in debate. They are interested in shutting debate down.
Your response would appear to consist of: glad they are breaking the rules, just fight fair against that which is unfair...is that about it or am I missing something?
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
4 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Feel free to deflate your chest, because I have conducted myself in this fashion since time immamorial.
There was a question in my last statement:
1 virgule 2014-02-12
I don't believe it stop at "perspective". Reddit have such things have vote fuzzing explicitly for the purpose of messing up with brigading attempts. Furthermore, linking directly to a thread from a external site can induce shadow banning.
5 [deleted] 2014-02-12
You've obviously not spent any time conversing with them or you'd know discussing actually topics is impossible. By virtue of the nature of their subreddit they already made up their mind before seeing the data.
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
8 [deleted] 2014-02-12
So you've actually had one of them be receptive to your viewpoint and not call it crazy? Link please. I don't believe it. I've never even been able to engage one enough to even address the points I'm making. They either attack the source or just call me nuts.
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Well for one I'm challenging the positive light you shed on conspiratard subscribers, so right there should probably clue you in to the fact that I'm not one.
Because they require people to substantiate claims and then attack the source or something else when the claims are substantiated. If you were to substantiate your claims I'd assess them based on their merit and give you an honest response. I've made my intentions in this sub very clear and I've changed my mind on several topics. The post history is there to show it if you care enough. (not challenging you to go over my post history, not worth the time, just pointing out that I have nothing to hide and have changed my mind publicly several times)
If you can provide a sample of a known sub to conspiratard taking any conspiracy theory data and actually analysing it and not just shitting on it for the fact that it's a "conspiracy" I'd definitely be open to changing my mind.
As it stands though every single experience I've had with them was strawmen and ad hominem.
2 dsprox 2014-02-12
Dude why are you giving this guy any credibility?
He is so obvious it is not even funny, every single reply of his is meant to derail your point and turn the subject in his favor, let me give you a run down.
So his first response to you is an ad hominem claiming that the reason you are never able to debate these people is because you do not have the ability to properly defend your claims.
This is a laughable psychological ploy to trick the reader into thinking you're not credible, and to trick you into being provoked into generating a response which will give a predetermined outcome wherein you try and defend your ability to debate them, which is exactly what you did.
So since you asked him to defend his assertion that it is your inability to defend yourself which leaves you encountering people who merely mock you, he takes this as an opportunity to further discredit you and try to flip this issue back at you.
He first starts by using hostility in referring to people who "investigate comment histories" as "some of you" which has a negative connotation.
He then tries to play the "I'm so smart" card by defining belief and fact as if you're an idiot and don't already know all that.
He then further defends himself as being "open minded and fair" and uses that to close the debate in a condescending manner, like you were really just benefiting him the whole time, he's the one that learned more and wins the debate ( or so he wants the reader to believe ).
The final part is a follow up to his preparation of "always consider all possibilities" by claiming you could be the conspiratard, and that you're just like your adversaries there, in an attempt to further marginalize you.
In his next reply to yours, in response to your "positive light" quote he reiterates "conspiritard subscribers have the same right to be here that you and I do." while completely ignoring the fact that we're not complaining about anybody who is from there that visits here that follows the rules, see in ignoring that he's directly derailing the subject and the argument.
He then tries to belittle and dismiss the shill problem by conflating the use of strawmen and ad hominems to only be used by time wasting kids.
I hope I have helped expose the tactics that people like this use to try and discredit and derail users such as yourself.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Thanks for having my back. I usually try to respond to things line by line in an effort to deconstruct and show where they are wrong with little wiggle room, but it seems I played into his hand a few times.
1 dsprox 2014-02-12
If you would like to see how these people try to use language and rhetorical devices to derail arguments and discredit users then please do read all of my replies to /u/I_do_not_consent in this thread, and all of my responses to /u/Sachyriel in http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xq3xg/not_a_member_of_this_sub_but_why_are_the_mods_so/
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
I never said otherwise. I just will call them out if they don't approach a topic honestly which has been my experience thus far.
4 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Did it seem like anyone in that thread was interested in having a conversation? I'm not here to CONVINCE anyone of anything, I'm here to have discussions with like minded people and point the way to those who ask.
3 dsprox 2014-02-12
You are a propagandist, /r/conspiracy is NOT an echo chamber.
Do not believe anybody making the claim that /r/conspiracy is an echo chamber, that is a tactic employed to deceive you into not putting credibility into the users of the sub.
0 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
4 dsprox 2014-02-12
Because it is an ongoing problem that has yet to see a viable solution which can address it.
That's called there's a problem we're trying to fix, you can not correlate that to this subreddit being an echo chamber.
Nice try, you fail, so in fact no that was a pathetic and awful attempt.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
2 dsprox 2014-02-12
I have been civil this entire time, your assertion that I have not been does not mean that it is true.
You are AGAIN making false allegations, claims that are unsubstantiated in an effort to make me look bad.
Again I will say that you are doing a bad job and it is coming across as extremely pathetic.
You can try and play victim as well or and try to say "well I tried to debate but you wouldn't cooperate" or try to dismiss me by claiming I'm being rude, but it's not going to work and I'm going to continue to call you out on these weak attempts at derailing and discrediting me because you have been flat out ignoring the content of my posts every single time.
I will ask you this as a question again which I hope you will actually give an answer to.
What do you propose that we do about preventing people from being able to manipulate the content of /r/conspiracy?
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
1 dsprox 2014-02-12
Calling you a propagandist is appropriate when you are espousing propaganda engineered to make people think in a very specific way which is detrimental towards their view of this subreddit.
There is no denying that, and it is not uncivil to have done so on my part.
Also, you are yet AGAIN taking my words out of context and purposely twisting them as I have not called you directly pathetic, I called your attempts to use rhetorical devices in an attempt to derail and discredit people pathetic, never you directly.
The fact that /r/conspiracy exposing conspiracies makes people come in here in order to attempt to discredit it, proves there is legitimacy behind these theories existences.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
1 dsprox 2014-02-12
Explain in which manner and who is the man you are referring to.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
1 dsprox 2014-02-12
I am doing nothing toward /r/conspiratard past explaining what they are, a bastion of hate for those who wish to engage in ridiculing members of /r/conspiracy which also has members which engage in content manipulation which is against the rules among other activities which are clear violations of the rules which would normally get subreddits like /r/conspiratard banned.
I am not a propagandist because I am not throwing out deceptive assertions explicitly designed to manipulate the readers feelings on a subject manner so as to morph their opinion.
I engage in honest debate which plays off of speculation and facts in a search to get to the truth.
I am engaging in rational debate using logically sound principals and arguments.
What you are doing is trying desperately to play every single card you can to make yourself look the victim and make me look like the agitator, when it is in fact you who are the agitator.
Even at the end of your response you make ANOTHER false assertion that I don't encourage open thought.
It's like all you know how to do is attack people by making false projections.
You're lucky that I'm trying my hardest to remain a good Christian and even give you the time of day.
I am only doing this to expose what you're trying to do to everybody, and to firmly establish to you that your tactics will not work.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
2 dsprox 2014-02-12
I am thoroughly exposing every psychological trick you are attempting to use to trick people into believing your deception of legitimately contributing to this conversation in a constructive and product manner, which you are not.
I am not attacking you, I am exposing to other users how your posts are specifically crafted to derail their arguments and discredit them.
I am using sound and reasoned logic to prove my claims of your psychological ploys.
You are manifesting a weak propagandist who doesn't know how to disguise his own trickery.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
1 dsprox 2014-02-12
More weak attempts.
We'll let the readers decide.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
1 dsprox 2014-02-12
How is it that you never cease to make false assertions?
Where did I ever imply that was what I meant?
All I stated is "we'll let the readers decide.".
What that literally implies, and what I really meant, was that the people reading will be able to come to an informed decision from an outside perspective by reading these posts.
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
I find it ironic that you are saying this considering you attempted to use this tactic on me in this very thread.
http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xptqx/blatant_brigading_is_going_on_make_sure_you_are/cfdpueq
4 AssuredlyAThrowAway 2014-02-12
The admins give them validity by not banning the lot of them.
0 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Hear, hear!
1 dsprox 2014-02-12
Not engaging in discussions of groups who are actively subverting this subreddit does nothing to help solve that problem.
We need to have legitimate discussions about actions that can be taken to stop these activities from proliferating.
What in the hell are you trying to suggest to help this?
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
1 dsprox 2014-02-12
I can substantiate this subversion, you are part of the proof, but more legitimately there are posts which clearly prove brigading and users who are shills.
I don't need to post those, you can find that evidence yourself, there was a post from yesterday by /u/internetpropagandist which proves this, here's the link I changed my mind I will post you proof http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xnof9/rconspiratard_claims_they_dont_vote_brigade_heres/
Also, we CAN complain when people are BLATANTLY BREAKING THE RULES IN ORDER TO MANIPULATE CONTENT.
You know, it's kind of like how you go to jail for violating intoxicated driving laws.
On reddit, violating the rules can amount to a ban.
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
0 dsprox 2014-02-12
Bans prevent an obstacle to those who wish to attempt to sabotage subreddits through means of account manipulation.
Banning is just one part of what should be a larger system aimed at preventing and discouraging the use of multiple accounts to manipulate a subreddit.
It does not stop malfeasance, but it makes it harder by eliminating accounts, thus narrowing the choice of user names down considerable which forces people who wish to continue to create a plethora of accounts for nefarious purposes to become more creative in forming what looks like an authentic user account.
Bans are pretty damn helpful, but they're not the final solution nor can they be.
We must engage in more measure to combat the problem of subreddit subversion.
What do you propose we do?
0 [deleted] 2014-02-12
I don't disagree.. I was just adding my input to this post.
0 Scoled321 2014-02-12
Made me consider taking a couple of days off of reddit. I come here as part of my daily news intake, this high school shit is ridiculous. Then I just decided not to participate.
I did try one experiment though. I made a comment about the OP who submitted tard as the sub of the day. Specifically, how many cocks could he stuff in his mouth at once. I wanted to see how fast it got downvoted. -7 20 minutes after I said it. -25 as of right now.
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Target acquired. /u/scoled321 down. Lol
-1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. I really don't see how action wouldn't be taken over that, it was undeniable and there are plenty of names in that thread of who was guilty.
EDIT- Ironically, the link I posted to that earlier has a huge amount of downvotes.
-1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
The people who now run reddit LOVE what is happening with r/conspiratard.
I am sure that entire subreddit was spearheaded by disinformation and propaganda experts. Why do all the work when you can rope 1000's of people into doing it with you.
6 plato_thyself 2014-02-12
I ALWAYS start with new and rarely if ever look at anything else. Yesterday I posted a Greenwald interview and within seconds it received downvotes without any comments. We all have to read this sub with a grain of salt and separating the wheat from the chaff requires a bit of effort.
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
5 plato_thyself 2014-02-12
yup. it starts to seem obvious to people who have been reading and contributing for a month or so. downvotes literally in seconds for no reason at all is not a normal human activity!
3 Rittenhouse1 2014-02-12
I am pleased to see this discussion here. I have noticed this kind of thing when the subject of Townsend Brown comes up regarding his work. Its almost as if instantly there is some sort of organized force against that information getting out. Controlling the input to the public consiousness is a big deal. When you are aware of it though its much tougher for those " forces" ( whoever they are) to implement.
1 ventian 2014-02-12
Very awesome to see you here.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
2 Scoled321 2014-02-12
Or 1 bot.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
2 Scoled321 2014-02-12
Bot definitely, but I have been all over the world and met all levels of crazy, so I don't dismiss that there may be individuals doing it. Just doesn't seem plausible. Then again, taking the time to create a bot for that purpose seems equally odd.
4 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
2 Scoled321 2014-02-12
I miss the days when we were only around 60k users.
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
There's someone out there putting most new posts to -3 more or less instantly. Once on a while they're busy or something and it won't happen and then boom,everything to -3,instantly again.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Yeah but that still requires someone to come in and downvote the topics on a regular basis. If you watch closely it tends to happen a lot faster in this sub than most others.
6 yeahfuckthis 2014-02-12
Don't forget the "CONTROVERSIAL" section -- better than new!
2 Glitchface 2014-02-12
Negative one-liners with no responses afterwards. Or basically down right insults. Some mods just dont give a single shit anymore around here... a fucking shame. I would do a better job by myself.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
I just made a new post discussing this very issue, you should come give me your opinion there.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
I'm usually posted on new. Sometimes there's some good stuff that slips through the other categories, and in this case, down voted.
1 Richard_M_Lurkmoar 2014-02-12
report the thread to admins whenever they link to /r/conspiracy and don't use the np prefix
1 Amos_Quito 2014-02-12
The 'Tard Brigadiers are men on a mission.
Oh sure, there are a few clowns that are just in it for the lowbrow chuckles, but the overriding goal of the Brigadiers is to SHUT YOU UP.
There are things that they, personally and as a group, don't like being discussed.
Spend an hour or two lurking in 'Tarland. You'll find it quite enlightening.
1 Knoscrubs 2014-02-12
They wouldn't be able to effectively brigade is there wasn't some merit to it ... The level of discussion in this sub should be stronger. There are a lot of good topics that get derailed.
2 Scoled321 2014-02-12
Or 1 bot.
2 [deleted] 2014-02-12
Target acquired. /u/scoled321 down. Lol
8 [deleted] 2014-02-12
So you've actually had one of them be receptive to your viewpoint and not call it crazy? Link please. I don't believe it. I've never even been able to engage one enough to even address the points I'm making. They either attack the source or just call me nuts.
1 [deleted] 2014-02-12
I just made a new post discussing this very issue, you should come give me your opinion there.