Sounds waaaaay too "1984" / Macarthy witch-hunt to me. You're pushing for active censorship here. I mean honestly:

They disagree with what I'm saying! They must be wrong! Find out everything about them, and smear them and ad hominem instead of looking at any evidence they bring up!

Instead of that crap, just downvote them to oblivion and move on. Also, if people seem to be straight trolling, just report them. Let the mods take care of it.

Whoa, you are really making a false correlation here.

A witch-hunt is based on nothing more than an accusation. I am talking about a solution that would be very cut and dry and based on facts. If Reddit Inspector shows you post on conspiratard then you are banned from posting here.

It is quite simple. Either post here and ignore that subreddit, a sub that is the polar opposite of this one, or post there and ignore this subreddit.

There is no "grey" area regarding r/conspiratard. They are literally the exact opposite of r/conspiracy. They exist to mock our sub and 2 minutes on their front page will show numerous posts linking to our posts.

Give me one good reason why someone should post in a sub that makes fun of conspiracy theorist while simultaneously posting in one that is supposed to encourage them?

And lets not forget that this sub is currently being destroyed. And of course it is not all from conspiratard. But guess what, we either start seeking solutions and trying to fix things with baby steps, or I can promise you that very soon, everybody who takes this sub seriously is going to find somewhere else to go.

That doesn't fix the vote-brigading problem, as voting is open to anyone.

People can vote even if they are not a subscriber?

And if so, like I said, the point is to make it harder. So them only being able to vote is still better than them being able to vote AND comment.

You can definitely vote and comment even if you aren't subscribed. Not sure what happens when you get banned though, as I've never been.

I don't think you can comment if you are banned. But I could be wrong.

I was banned from r/military yesterday. I can't comment on any post there.

ha ha, good stuff. What were you banned for?

This is why

Wow, you seemed incredibly respectful throughout that whole thing.

Thanks. My mom raised me as best as she could :)

congratulations on your banning.

Yes, people can vote if they're not a subscriber.

I thought the main issue with r/conspiratard was that it was VOTE-brigading, not comment-brigading. So what happens when threads are sill buried and comment sections fill up with three-day-old accounts?

It is trivial to make new accounts unfortunately. Restricting activity in this sub to older and active accounts is a possibility, but what happens when a new redditor wants to contribute or an older account is compromised or wrongly banned or something? I don't see an easy way of excluding the bad influence.

Conspirator is where they gather.

If we have to force them to do an extra step to fuck with us, that's fine with me.

I know it is easy to make new accounts. But that doesn't mean we should just give up and let them continue to destroy our sub.

Like I said, if someone is wrongly banned for breaking the "no posting in conspiratard" rule, they can state their case to the mods.

how is having people who disagree with you harming thi sub? surely debating them gives you opportunity to demonstrate the strength* of your case?

Do you jsut want this sub to be filled with sheeple who just agree with everything posted without any critique?
Or shills from 9/11 truth blogs trying to drum up business?

c'mon...

*Lol

Way to completely misinterpret everything I have written.

Then what is it you want?

For example, I sometimes comment to /r/conspiratard, and I also comment here. My comments here are usually questions, requesting evidence for claims, alternative possibilities to explain facts, etc.

I don't derail conversation, but I do challenge a lot of the things often taken for granted here. And yes, I have been called a shill numerous times, but often my comments are upvoted.

Under your rule I would be banned, thus removing someone who questions commonly held assumptions that are usually just accepted without debate.

Guess what, make a choice then. I am not so politically correct as to worry about every individual case.

Why do you post in both subs? That sub is meant to mock this one. It isn't a counterpoint to it, that is absurd.

I say pick one. But that is just me. I don't want this sub to turn into total shit, but it will be there soon if nothing is done, mark my words.

Honestly, I think the bigger issue with this sub is that many people here are unwilling to engage in discussions with people who don't think like them.

Dare question evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Downvote, insult, ignore.

Point to reasons why Sandy Hook wasn't a false flag? Downvote, call a shill.

Question whether America is literally just like Nazi Germany? Call an ignorant idiot, downvote, ignore.

Provide reasons why the inside job theory of 9/11 has many holes? Call stupid, ignore reasons pointed out, provide more dubious evidence, downvote and ignore.

I'm not giving these examples to complain about down votes, or cry that my feelings were hurt. It is to point out how so many here are unable/unwilling to actually defend the things they say.

I realize this problem isn't unique to /r/conspiracy, but it is particularly troubling for a place that claims to be a place for open discussion, and for people who are claiming to seek the truth.

I think you will wrongly ban many people. For example I whole heartedly agree with SOME ideas around here. There are others I think are flat out ridiculous, have no evidence etc... But if you disagree on here, at all, you get called names, like shill, and people act absolutely ridiculous about it. Its stupid behavior like that that makes a somewhat skeptical person (but not full on skeptical) head on over to conspiratard to vent my frustrations. Because yeah, hate to say it some folks here just act stupid, paranoid, and lack critical thinking skills. If everyone here agreed on everything all the time it would become a giant preachy circle jerk which is what this sub nearly is anyway. Which is why I don't post anymore, except on topics of agriculture. You can't disagree or post contrary evidence for anything without being shrieked at and called a shill.

So anyway personally think that's a bad idea but won't hurt me as I rarely post anyway and mostly poke around looking for anything interesting or convincing.

But if you disagree on here, at all, you get called names, like shill, and people act absolutely ridiculous about it.

I see that all of the time from conspiratard. I don't understand why it's a big deal. I've been called a shill, gave zero fucks. If someone calls you a shill, just assume that they are trolling you and treat them accordingly.

I totally agree. I got lost in my point I'm on my phone and can only see one sentence at a time. My point is that when they act like that, expect to get made fun of on conspiratard by more moderate posters. So banning conspiratard posters would not be the best idea.

That makes sense. I don't make fun of them per se, but I do enjoy reading comments by some of the more colorful characters in here.

I really don't understand why people are interpreting my comment as: "I am tired of people disagreeing with each other, lets ban anyone who does that."

That is the LAST thing I am trying to say.

I am saying: Lets get rid of the people who come here for the sole purpose of mocking us.

See, even this very post has been linked there: http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/1xquwp/an_rconspiracy_subscribers_idea_for_stopping_our/

and the people who frequent that site, click on the post, follow the link, and then come here to derail conversations. They are not coming here to ask hard-hitting questions and further the discussion.

And many of them are also smart enough to be subtle about it.

Sounds like you want to insta-ban anyone who wants to foster evidence-based critical thinking. In other words, anyone who doesn't contribute to the circle-jerk.

A free-thinker would welcome questions about his thoughts. He would consider evidence contrary to his beliefs and possibly even change his beliefs in the face of such evidence.

He would see a request for logic or evidence backing his theories as a welcome challenge to shore up his reasoning or to re-examine his thought process. Or to dig deeper to find that nugget of evidence to crack that conspiracy wide open, prove it to the world, and win fame, fortune, or a quick death at the hands of TPTB.

You want to insta-ban people? How about insta-banning anyone crying foul or troll or shill at anyone who dares to ask any of the critical questions about a conspiracy theory?

1) Who benefits from the conspiracy?

2) How do they benefit?

3) Do the benefactors have the political and/or financial clout and ability to make the conspiracy happen?

4) How is the benefit significantly better than the benefit they could obtain by applying the same resources (effort, money) in more conventional, less risky, less shady, less illegal means?

5) How do the benefactors ensure the complicity of all civilians that must be complicit for the conspiracy to be successful?

And the bonus question...

6) Show me one shred of evidence. I know it's supposed to be secret by definition so there won't be much. But there has to be more to go on than just, "I have a feeling".

I think I've seen you post these litmus questions elsewhere, and I do not agree that they should all be answerable in the affirmative for someone to make a post to start a discussion. People arrive at answers through discussion. And, many of these 6 questions are never thoroughly answered, even after a conspiracy has been revealed. I suspect many people will never agree on the nature of the benefit of the NSA's domestic spying program.

Take yourself back 70 years and imagine trying to start a disussion about what the Germans were doing with the Jews they were rounding up. And let's say you wondered if they were being systematically killed. And we'll put your extermination theory to the test:

Question #1: (Who benefits) Since most people in the world weren't caught up in the Nazi mass hysteria or the racial purity mythos, there is no conceivable person that could benefit, from the general perpective. Your extermination theory is already dead.

Question #2: (How do they benefit) See question #1. Tell me, how did the Nazi's "benefit" exactly? How did Germany, as a whole, "benefit"?

Question #3: (Political and financial means to carry it off.) Fair enough. But, keep in mind, money can be funneled in ways that are hidden to us. We don't know everything about how the CIA abets drug sales and funnels profits for off-the-book activities, but enough investigation has happened to know that this is something they have done in the past. Or, see Iran-Contra.

Question #4: "How is the benefit better than a more legal means?" That's a very reasonable question, but, like questions #1 and #2, it assumes we are operating by the same playbook as the conspirator. Consider the conspiracy of silence around the Jerry Sanduski serial rapes. How is child-rape rape and a cover-up better than not raping? You'd have to ask the rapist.

Question #5: (How do the benefactors ensure the complicity of people in the know) I agree that someone offering a conspiracy theory should be willing to either answer this question or should be very interested in it being looked at from all angles. It's an especially good question for the very grand and outlandish theorish.

Question #6: (Evidence) There doesn't have to be evidence for someone to just say "I have a feeling" and put the idea up for discussion. That happens all the time here, and people step in and reject the idea if the evidence is very weak.

I think your setting an uncessarily high standard for discussion of something that is possibly true, but secret. These are the standards you would apply if, for example, you were the leader of a country that was deciding whether to take in thousands of Jews seeking amnesty during WWII.

Then, there are at least a couple of questions missing from your list, and these are the background or backstory questions that usually lead people to come up with a conspiracy theory to begin with:

7: Are government officials or other officials in power using an inordinate level of secrecy around an event or issue that is of paramount concern to the public? Is there a lack of investigation or are investigative panels stacked with non-expert political allies?

8) Are there policy decisions that are extremely at odds with stated policy goals or rationales or with evidence at hand? As an example, see the lead up to war with Iraq. If instead, the US had investigated the Saudis further (regarding 9/11 terrorist connections) rather than hyped a public fear response around Saddam Hussein, there would be a lot less speculation about 9/11. The inconsistencies make the speculation and discussion justified.

edit: formatting

Fair points, except for #6 because that just leads to all sorts of speculation and bullshit and imagination running rampant thereby providing a distraction from evidence-based discussion. Plus ideas don't get rejected when evidence is weak. The weaker the evidence is, the more emotional and hostile the support for the theory that lacks the evidence.

I like the additional questions.

What are you talking about???

I said no such thing. I am talking about banning people who come here from conspiratard just to disrupt the conversations.

I use Reddit Investigator a lot and a lot of them are here.

It would be impossible to ban someone just for disagreeing with you. Because it would be known that a real user would not post in conspiratard.

Because it would be known that a real user would not post in conspiratard.

I've gone over and looked at the first page of conspiratard. Seems like they're big on asking for evidence and asking the sort of questions I outlined.

If you'd like to link maybe a handful of posts from conspiratard denizens that seem clearly designed to disrupt conversation here, I'd sure love to read them.

Er... woops. I just asked for evidence. ;-)

I think this should suffice. Pretty undeniable what was going on here.

Literally 5 minutes on their sub will show that they link our post and send people here to vote brigade and stir up trouble.

If you are completely oblivious to the destruction they are inflicting on this sub, I have no time to make you a powerpoint presentation about it.

And that's the answer I expected when I asked for evidence. Just a few links. Links you should have already had handy based on:

I use Reddit Investigator a lot and a lot of them are here.

If we can't be bothered to provide the simplest, most basic evidence supporting our assertions, our assertions become, on their face, invalid.

What do you think is simple about collecting screenshots for weeks just to show someone who actually needs evidence that people from r/conspiratard are posting here.

This should be simple and easy to follow. You are the one demanding evidence for things that most people here know are common sense. The one's paying attention at least.

I never asked for screen shots.

I asked for links to comments in /r/conspiracy made by denizens of /r/conspiratard that seem clearly designed to derail discussions in /r/conspiracy.

Links. Not screen shots. Current links would work. If it's as prevalent as you suggest, those should be very easy to produce, shouldn't they?

The assertion you made isn't common sense. It asks us to link users of one subreddit to users of another. It's a logic / matching / search puzzle.

This is a typical response to a request for evidence here. Hostility. Common sense. Find it yourself. All that bullshit.

You made an assertion. Back it up, backtrack on it, or understand and accept that rational, evidence-based thinkers will ridicule it.

This is a conspiratard post with a screenshot with a username in it. Very easy to find the comment.

edit: forgot link: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/1xomrj/i_dont_care_they_scream_like_idiots_this_is_why_i/

This is another post from the conspiratard front page that links to a thread in conspiracy: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/1xqbcn/so_when_flytape_bans_you_from_rconspiracy_do_they/

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/1xpi3p/rconspiracy_where_asking_for_evidence_of_stuff/

Another link on the front page that goes directly to a r/conspiracy thread.

Do you understand now? I found these three in 2 minutes. All I had to do was click on r/conspiratard and look at the front page. There are probably a dozen more on the front page right now.

So you are the one who doesn't get it, not me. And it IS common sense.

Thanks for wasting my time. Do your own research next time if you need proof of something so blatantly obvious!

More of the same...

"I pulled an idea out of my ass. But it's a good idea. If you ask for evidence, I'll get hostile and angry."

That's what makes this subreddit great. /eyeroll

Im pretty sure you misunderstood the OPs point.

Conspiratard users ≠ shills.

There might be some overlaps, but a group that's paid to skew the opinions on the internet has a different motive from those who ridicule non-mainstream ideas. You have to treat them as separate problems.

I understand completely, but my solution is as simple as adding a sentence to the sidebar and we have come a little closer to a better sub.

And like you said, I am sure that there is overlap between conspiratard users and shills.

It's a complex problem, and the mods here have chosen not to acknowledge that there exists such a thing as a "shill". It's understandable, since many have been wrongly accused of being shills (like myself) and it's also difficult to prove.

... but my solution is as simple as adding a sentence to the sidebar...

I thought you suggested that we ban anyone who posted on /r/conspiratard. But maybe I misunderstood you.

What I am saying is that we add a sentence to the sidebar saying we will ban anyone who posts in r/conspiratard.

In other words: you want to ban anyone who posts in /r/conspiratard.

Hell yeah. Why not?

Why make it so easy for people who have created a sub to mock us, to come here and continue doing it?

I don't think they're the biggest problem we have. It doesn't explain the systematic downvotes of new posts that add up to a count of +-0. Sandy Hook and 9/11 truth posts are specifically high-target posts.

That's your biggest problem, which I don't think should be attributed to /r/conspiratard.

They are definitely vote-brigading 'new' all the time. And they are definitely linking to posts and then mass downvoting them. Apparently there is no way to stop voting, even if they are banned from this sub.

So my solution is still better than doing nothing because there seems to be no way to stop vote-brigading.

I'm not sure about this, but I think you can only ban people from posting, not viewing and voting. So they could still affect the voting system if they were banned. Neither do they post in /r/conspiracy that much. I rarely see one of their users post comments here.

What you DO see however, are the shills that don't post on /r/conspiratard, but still sabotage this subreddit. That's why I think we should separate them.

So banning anyone who posts in r/conspiratard should solve some of the problem. Even if it is just a small step.

I honestly think it's too small of a step to demand action. Even though they conduct vote-brigading from time to time, it's not our biggest problem. If we're going to have an open internet, then anything you say should be able to handle ridicule.

My choice would be to simply ignore them. Otherwise, you only give them more power.

/u/Flytape posts in /r/conspiratard. Should he be banned?

Correction, Conspiratard users are shills. They are shills of /r/conspiratard which is anti-anything from our sub. They need to be treated with ridicule and contempt by us. It's time to rally the users of our sub and stand tall against the invasion of the shills. Just like reddit is under constant invasion from 9gag and iFunny, our sub needs to be swift in brigading right back against the buttwipes from conspiratard.

(Also sidenote, your username is fuggin sick dude, you a shaggy and lil J fan too huh?? lol whoop whoop!)

Nope, I wouldn't call them shills, since they don't shy away from saying who they are and what they represent. "Real" shills on the other hand have a different motive, which is to intentionally affect this sub while pretending to be a part of it.

My username comes from this.

Its easy to make new accounts.

Also I can argue that you can agree with some conspiracies, and disagree with others. You can think big brother is up to no good without believing comet ison was the mother ship and that you better put your koolaid drinking boots on before the aliens invade.

Maybe some things get down voted because they are retarded and do a disservice to those of us trying to wake others up by being retarded?

I am in no way, shape or form telling people how to vote.

My goal is to attempt to clean up the trash that has entered this subreddit from conspiratards who post links to our discussions. You do understand that they come here to mock us right? And that it isn't as obvious as you are making it out to be?

There are a lot of very subtle ways to derail relevant conversations.

This thread might get brigaded.

An /r/conspiracy subscriber's idea for stopping our shills.

Upvotes: 51 | Downvotes: 23 | Timestamp of this thread

We have been mentioned 232 times by our fans since I started counting.

If this was an error, send me a message

[deleted]

Their entire subreddit is dedicated to mocking us and they have over 30K subscribers.

[deleted]

Thats a claim you are making.

Even if they are only mocking us 25% of the time, why is NOTHING being done about it. I am on the sub constantly and it IS a problem, for many of the users here.

[deleted]

Thank you!!!

[deleted]

Exactly, I have seen the same thing multiple times. Sometimes it is really cringe worthy. And when they begin circlejerking on their own mistake, nobody there steps up to stop it. Like, logic has no place there at all. It is scary.

This is spying on people. Sure NSA loves it. Or paid for it. It's a kind of doxing.

How is it spying on people? Looking up their history to see if they frequent a sub that was created just to mock this subreddit.

You seem to be confusing things.

NSA doesn't really spy on the people either. They just look up your history of posting to r/conspiracy, you're now on a no fly list and banned from govt buildings.

The way to beat the doubters isn't to stop debating them. Obvious shills/trolls, take care of them as you would on any other sub. This would quickly just become censorship.

Honest question: are you on conspiratard? Hear me out:

If the answer is no, then you are proving my point. Why should you be there if you are a genuine user of this subreddit?

If the answer is yes, then one could make a pretty strong argument that you are on only on conspiracy because a post mocking this subreddit was linked in conspiratard and you aren't coming to have a genuine conversation, you are coming to have a laugh.

I've gone on it a couple times, usually linked from here actually. I see them as jokes, because sometimes you really can't take this sub too seriously. Does it mean I don't believe shits fucked up? Not at all, but also hearing counterpoints is very useful, otherwise it's just an echo chamber. Are they all good points? Also, not at all...but sometimes the things are so outrageous, there really isn't a good counterpoint short of mocking it.

But for a similar (but not as disruptive) example would be r/vinyljerk or r/frugaljerk, or any *jerk sites for that matter. They're mocking, but I will find them entertaining at times, but that doesn't mean I don't like to be frugal or listen to vinyls.

Dude, I have constantly browsed through conspiratard to see what was going on.

To portray them as people who are giving counterpoints is absolutely ridiculous. They are having a laugh.

And in the four years I have been on this sub, I have never had an issue with real users arguing with one another and demanding evidence. That is not my concern at all, I encourage it. But I don't encourage people coming here to mock us.

And I've had a laugh at how seriously people will take vinyl collection or shaving or frugality. Does that mean I should be banned from all those subs because I don't take it as seriously?

It seems you are wanting to say all 30k people on that sub are out to get you and ridicule this sub, based solely on the fact they've commented at sometime. Seems drastic and pure censorship to me.

And maybe if the ideas presented here, a sub of over 200k, can be crushed by a 30k person sub that treats itself as a joke...then maybe it was just a really shitty idea or not some conspiracy to keep people in the dark?

There is a big difference between people challenging a theory and people coming here to derail conversations.

Please please PLEASE put me on a no-fly list for posting here. Please. I hate flying but the job requires it occasionally.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/conspiratard] An /r/conspiracy subscriber's idea for stopping our shills.

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

This subreddit is a thinking ground, above all else we respect everyone's opinions

That is my entire point.

If the opinions here are meant to be respected, then why do we allow people to come mock us after they follow a link on a sub that is a parody of our sub?

I'm pretty new to Reddit. I just became aware of this conspiratard group yesterday, so I don't really know the history (and see no reason to visit that group to learn more, based on the little I have seen).

My question is: Where do you draw the line on banning people who think differently than you? What about the skeptic subreddit? Or the badhistory subreddit? Do you start banning people who post there as well, just in case?

This just seems dangerous and self-fulfilling to me. Only allow people who think exactly like me. Pretty soon, it is a group of one.

One man's opinion.

I don't see why this is so hard for people to grasp.

The "line" is very clear. You have two choice, r/conspiracy or r/conspiratard. Anyone who actually looks at and understands these two subreddits, knows that one exists to make a mockery of the other.

I used Reddit Investigator on you, says your account is 2 days old. Interesting.

I have been here for 4 years actually. It shouldn't be rocket science that people have multiple accounts.

I constantly erase my account and start a new one. Because then I don't become fixated on upvotes and start changing my opinions to cater to the masses. It is quite liberating.

We have created a monster, to hitlerish for my liking

Yes, making people chose between one of two subreddits is the definition of "oppression".

Lets just do nothing and watch this sub turn into complete shit.

Just typed in my name. I reddit too much.

Also use www.redective.com, another great way to help identify these accounts.

TIL fuck and shit are in my top 5 used words on reddit. Fuck I must be saying that shit a lot.

Fuck is my number 5 word. Government is my number one word. Fuck the Government.

This is a good example (other than realizing I use the word "point" too much). I used the word "Obama" 11 times. None of those were positive, per se. Some were to make a point about what was and wasn't illegal regarding the ACA.

Once we ban one subreddit, do we start looking for other subreddits that are "bad"? How about people who use certain words?

It's just (to me) self-fulfilling, especially for outsiders. They would see this subreddit as more and more unwilling to discuss anything. An "echo chamber". A group that says "we value free thought" but goes out of the way to limit the same.

I realize there needs to be some control, but I worry what happens when you start down the road of these kinds of limitations.

Happy now? The post has been linked to in the conspiratard sub and the results are obvious. The trolls have jumped on it.

I'm sick of the drama.

How about a rule that says "No drama"?

Seriously. And it's obvious at this point that "np" links don't deter the vote manipulation.

It's a pretty simple matter to change the np to www, simple enough that even those from r/conspiratard can do it.

Exactly. So all these "we just point and laugh" talk is pure bullshit. They manipulate the votes here, plain and simple. They need to stop as it violates Reddit's TOS.

When they talk about /r/conspiratard being a place for "fun" and "jokes", it's a flat out lie., It's really a catharsis for those who clash with conspiracists with whom they don't agree and get butthurt about daily, it really affects their lives... It's a self-help group, essentially.

3rd down on the front page sub includes "Why I hate r/conspiracy the 3rd one down on the front page says this : "/r/conspirata]*rd[1] provides some catharsis, and help my stay a step ahead of what I'll be hearing about from my friendly neighborhood conspiracy theorist over the next couple of days." - /u/Amelius

It's a self help sub where they can blow off steam when dealing with people they dont agree with. Thiis "poing and laugh" propaganda They've been repeatins is just pure bullshit and not catching on. They are genuinely butthurt, and they use a bigoted-named subreddit to carry it out o top of all this. It's fucking shameful https://pay.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/1xpq48/for_our_guests_today_why_some_of_us_do_what_we_do/

BTW, the /r/consirat*rd mods are Bush-loving neo-con. I wonder if the user base was aware of this fact?

They need to stop as it violates Reddit's TOS.

We report them to the admins and occasionally some of them get shadowbanned. Other than that, there's nothing we can do about it.

How do you enforce that rule? What if the community votes against it but the moderators try to enact it without the fandom backing them?

Will /r/SubredditDrama feel like it's a conspiracy against them?

The problem with this subreddit is that myself or anyone who offers a differing opinion will be called a shill and down voted without them providing evidence against what I present.

This subreddit pushes it's agenda as much as the more mainstream ones but still thinks it is above them. What you're doing here is offering a way to censor those who don't fall into your definition of correct.

No, I am not saying that at all.

Why would you be on a sub whose entire purpose is to mock and parody the people on this one?

I don't go on that sub...I don't think I said I did? (Honestly curious, because I didn't mean to if I did)

I visit this sub to get a variety of sources in my news intake and help me make my own opinion. But that doesn't mean I agree or think most of what is posted here is correct. It's just a means to view news from a different perspective.

What would be interesting is a /r/nosleep type rule set where even if you don't agree with someone, the story is true.

This makes it so people who want to have a discussion(regardless of how true the theory is) can have that discussion and come to their own conclusion.

Sure there is some crazy shit here I don't agree with, but with rules like /r/nosleep we could just boot people for not following rules and let them come over and make fun. If the rules state that everything is true no matter what, they wouldn't have the opportunity to troll.

If everyone discusses things as if they are true, people would be required to look up information and come to their own conclusions.

[deleted]

The point is to make it harder. Progress tends to happen in small increments. Whats the alternative? Keep allowing them free reign?

[deleted]

A lot of opposite things look alike and being able to distinguish that is what separates intelligent people from unintelligent people.

Yes, trying to get people to agree upon a new rule was the point of my post. But it turns out that people need to be spoon-fed every little piece of information because they are so informed.

It is mind-blowing how many people in this thread misinterpreted my post as "ban people you don't agree with".

It is mind-blowing how many people in this thread ask where the "line" is when the line is clearly presented as an option to chose r/conspiracy or r/conspiratard.

It is mind-blowing how many people there are in this thread who have no idea what r/conspiratard is, even when 2 minutes on their front page at this very moment, shows a ridiculous amount of posts linking to this subreddit.

Great idea. I second it. Ban everyone from conspiratard. Ban all obvious shills.

I don't think Sandy Hook was a hoax. Am I a shill?

The "line" is very clear. You have two choice, r/conspiracy or r/conspiratard. Anyone who actually looks at and understands these two subreddits, knows that one exists to make a mockery of the other.

Yes. I was called a shill when I presented evidence that goes against the main belief of this sub...and they didn't provide evidence refuting it.

evidence that goes against the main belief of this sub

?

That 9/11 was for sure a play by the government as well as sandy hook being about gun control as well.

I'd ban you for asking stupid rhetorical questions.

Shills are paid to disrupt. Perhaps you are not paid to disrupt, but you are not adding anything here, so you may as well not be here.

I'd also get rid of self post.

I'm just saying that Sandy Hook is not a hoaxed event. Am I required to believe that? Where is this /r/conspiracy dogma recorded so we would know who to ban?

This is not a rhetorical question.

This is a rhetorical question:

Am I a shill?

Now on your second question:

I'm just saying that Sandy Hook is not a hoaxed event. Am I required to believe that?

The problem is obviously the detractors. People who have no interest in being here, other than being paid, or trolling. The problems are the argumentative ten day old accounts that contribute nothing other than name calling, rhetorical questions, forum dilution, and general nonsense.

Do I know if you are a shill, robot, or not? No. But, your don't have anymore decrement than one, so why not ban you?

Look at it the other way. Why should you get to be part of a community, when you show disdain for that community, and you contribute nothing?

I think a plane did hit the Pentagon. Does that make me a shill, even though I question 9/11 across many other points? If I post in the skeptic subbreddit, does that make me a shill? How about badhistory? How about if I post in the military subreddit, but I'm anti-military? Where does the line get drawn? How enclosed does the opinion have to be before you find it acceptable?

The "line" is very clear. You have two choice, r/conspiracy or r/conspiratard. Anyone who actually looks at and understands these two subreddits, knows that one exists to make a mockery of the other.

I'd rather be banned from conspiratard than this subreddit. ;_;

I'm game for it. Fuck those assholes.

[deleted]

Because the real users on this sub already do that.

Seriously, go click on their subreddit then come back and tell me that they are simply asking the hard-hitting questions that inspire discussion.

Their entire site is a parody of ours.

[deleted]

You seem to be confusing a person who comes to this sub to challenge a theory and promote discussion with a person who comes to this sub to derail discussions and have a laugh about it.

Maybe you should click on r/conspiratard and actually see what is going on there.

Someone else on this thread challenged me to show them proof and within 2 minutes I had found three posts linking to users here as well as posts linking to comments and entire threads. And those were all on their front page. I am sure there were numerous others but I honestly don't have the time to sit here and hand-feed everyone obvious truths.

[deleted]

The world has bigger problems that police brutality too, but that doesn't mean it is not an issue.

[deleted]

Also, if kids come here to "fuck around" as you say, then we can solve that problem.

They don't allow middle school kids to enter college classrooms and participate in the classroom. Why? Because it would completely derail any intelligent discussions.

[deleted]

But it is still thousands of voices discussing subjects. And if I am discussing a subject, I don't want a disrespectful 12 year old entering to give their 2 cents.

And if we can add a single rule to make it harder for people to mock this sub, on this sub, then it should be implemented.

The problem is the world, people, and reddit in general is full of pussies who stand by bullshit principles like political correctness. There are obviously no leaders running this sub or else one of them would have stood up and tried to progress this place.

But they don't. Because they wrongly believe that if a single person got butthurt over a new rule, that it wouldn't be worth it.

I say that is part of life. Sometimes you need to make a tough decision. Let the chips fall where they will. If some people get incorrectly swept up, let them make their case, I could care less.

In any community, you need rules, good leaders, and smart people. Otherwise life itself will ruin it, like a pool of water that becomes stagnant. So this subreddit needs to evolve, otherwise it is fucked.

And it is my belief that some interest want it to be fucked. So we need to look at it like a battle. Too bad our generals are pussies.

[deleted]

If there were no rules at all, you would be murdered as soon as you left your house.

Rules need to exist. The problem is that rules only evolve as quickly as the idiots in charge.

And that's the answer I expected when I asked for evidence. Just a few links. Links you should have already had handy based on:

I use Reddit Investigator a lot and a lot of them are here.

If we can't be bothered to provide the simplest, most basic evidence supporting our assertions, our assertions become, on their face, invalid.

You can definitely vote and comment even if you aren't subscribed. Not sure what happens when you get banned though, as I've never been.

The point is to make it harder. Progress tends to happen in small increments. Whats the alternative? Keep allowing them free reign?

Yes, people can vote if they're not a subscriber.

I thought the main issue with r/conspiratard was that it was VOTE-brigading, not comment-brigading. So what happens when threads are sill buried and comment sections fill up with three-day-old accounts?