I hope that /r/conspiracy subscribers take this impersonation of Richard Gage seriously, that is a lot of time & effort to put into the posts etc leading up to that AMA. That's a concerted effort by more than one person. This is a very serious event and I hope that the reddit admins allow a proper investigation into this.

Down voted within 30 seconds of putting this comment. It's always reassuring to know there's conspiritards putting the time and effort into monitoring us.

I got your back buddy. Always an upvote for a fellow Jim.

Is that what the top minds over in /r/Private_Panopticon are calling each other nowadays?

Maybe. I wouldn't know. But I know we're both Jims (according to him), so there's that.

Oh, did you stop participating?

I don't think I did in the first place. That was a silly place.

I haven't been there for 2 weeks or so. It was a waste of time. I do have a theory about it however.

I would honestly be interested in that, I was invited in the first week and left after two...

The name implies a private area where you are all being watched, but none of you really know who or what is watching you at any time. It's really amazing to what degree of effort the kids at /r/conspiratard are willing to go to in their desperate attempts to make themselves feel good about themselves on the internet.

/r/conspiratards say -

conspiracy subject matter: gee that stuff would make me feel less powerful/less intelligent/less in control of my own life if it were true, so I better avoid and ridicule it to make sure I don't have to feel that way

conspiracy theorist: I know! I'll just attack the people conveying and discussing the information! That way I can make myself feel better without ever addressing the actual issues! Hehehehe!

They really do exactly what they pretend conspiracy theorists are doing - they want desperately to feel intellectually superior, though they really aren't or are not willing to put the time in to BE intellectually superior -so they latch onto the official social narrative which is crafted precisely to give them the illusion of control over their lives/minds/intelligence - while trying desperately to make fun of and put down anyone who would suggest anything other than that which makes them feel good & special(that being the official social narrative of world events that they believe in and use as a context by which to live by and ground their minds in while they go through the government-run life systems of high school/college/public jobs/etc).

The user /u/ae911truth went so far as to provide members of our mod team with fake verification tweets and other email documentation; and while we feel terrible about falling victim to this impersonator, it is not our main concern.

No offense, but to some of us it is. Is there a fox in the henhouse? I would like to see these emails and tweets if at all possible. As a member of the conspiracy community, I find it hard to believe that the mod team excepts us to trust based on concealed evidence.

Edit: I am consolidating my unanswered questions to my top comment.

1. Would the mods please provide the evidence of 'fake tweets and email documentation'?

2. Who was the first to suggest a vouch system, was it a unanimous decision (was there a vote) and what qualifies a 'vouch'?

3. Why would you guys claim on one hand to have received fake verification tweets, to only state you never received any tweets?

Your comment almost mirrors mine last night. There just may be a fox in the henhouse. And I thought the vote for mods should be suspended until we reinforce the foundations of this sub. Given the last threads for voting mods it seemed unusual this particular one was set to contest mode. I understand vote brigading and such. But sensor ing the vote is unusual for this sub on many levels. Perhaps it was a way to catch a fox or two?

The one thing I couldn't get by was the mod vouch. I mean... wtf was that all about?

The two most up voted nominations will become the new mods with one small exception. Nominations must also have at least one existing mod vouch for them, this is to avoid any fuckery that may be afoot from certain groups that like to organize voting.

And

Please note that vote totals from the nomination thread shift upon each reload of the page (and that only users with at least one mod vouch were included in vote tallying-this excluded /u/not_jtrig, who did not have any mod vouches.

Seriously, what criteria qualified a 'vouch' from a mod? Knowing the person? Liking the person? Agreeing with the person?

Concealed evidence, concealed voting, mod 'vouches'. This shit is far from the /r/conspiracy I use to know. What's going on here?

Edit: Where did the idea of a mod 'vouch' come from?

Glad you question this too. A lot is evolving or even can be perceived as devolving here. This fact was also not mentioned in the OP for voting. Seems like another quite relevant thing to state from the get go. Curiouser and curiouser it all is to me.

And who's to say, if there is a fox in the henhouse, that they could not just use sock puppet accounts to rig the vote behind the scenes. I am not saying that is what happened, but if I could do it from my laptop in my backyard smoking a dubbie, I'm sure as shit someone else could. This has to be taken into consideration.

There is so much to speculate on isn't there? I wish I had all of the factual answers with some sort of proof to make my mind up. But I too ponder such thoughts and many others in addition. I think since the death of Aaron that reddit has become a breeding ground for social experiments, data mining, advertising to the highest bidder, and much more.

I think since the death of Aaron that reddit has become a breeding ground for social experiments, data mining, advertising to the highest bidder, and much more

For what it's worth, I just 'friends' you. You win the internets.

Thanks for the friending. I'm here on this sub and I'm mainly focusing on what I can personally do to shift the paradigm in the reddit "community" and in my daily life. Typically I'm not this outspoken here, but there's a time and a place for one to use ones voice concisely.

For what it's worth, I enjoy the things you post and what you say when you do participate in a conversation.

Thanks for the kind words.

You're well on your way to earning at least a nomination the next time a mod vote comes around...

Agreed. But I can promise you that I personally am not corrupted by any person or thing so my being chosen as one of the three tells me that the vote wasn't manipulated (at least not completely). Not sure what my word is worth here but I'll offer it regardless. Don't hesitate to come to me in the future with any questions or concerns you have about anything.

You were one of the only I voted for. I think that you are genuine. Thanks for the comment as it seems that the only other mod participating is ill and being seriously overworked here on this thread. I feel for you as a new mod entering a new era on this sub. Best of luck to you.

it seems that the only other mod participating is ill and being seriously overworked here on this thread.

Now do you see why we needed new members?

New members or new mods? Please elaborate for the sake of my imaginative mind.

Both :) but I was referring to mods.

was there any previous discussion who you guys/gals preferred as an additional mod before the voting thread was started?

Nope, but we've been talking for months about getting /u/Orangutan on board. *He provides great content and even helped set up a (legitimate) AMA that's coming up soon. I even nominated *him for mod ages ago before I became one.

I was definitely pleased when *him won outright. I know only a little about creq, but from what I know I believe it was a good choice. They wouldn't have been my pick, but again, creq's knowledge of reddit will be really useful.

And Ambiguously has been one of my favorite folks here for a while now, so I was also really pleased with that.

You never know what's going to happen with these mod nomination threads, and we always go into with a certain level of uneasy anticipation. The only slightly unexpected thing was not_jtrig getting high votes. I think we made the right call and vetoed that user (they never comment or participate in the sub).

As much as I like /u/creq & /u/ambiguously_ironic I believe it is a mistake to add anyone as a moderator with anything less than 5 years on reddit with the one account. As we've seen with that debacle with the Richard gage AMA, those who have bad intentions for this sub are quite prepared to put in the hard yards to get in deep into The sub. If they're prepared to do months worth of work to achieve a false AMA, it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to say that they're prepared to do a year or so. This decision you are making today is a rash one, please consider a 5 year minimum. I am not meaning to offend anybody, but if I do, My apologies.

JH

Fair enough. But I can assure you that I haven't been openly discussing conspiracies here for close to 2 years in some long con to fool people like yourself into trusting me in order to subvert the sub. I'm just a guy. Take my word on that for whatever it's worth.

There are rats in the corn, just because we found one or two doesn't mean that's the end of it. I strongly recommend a brainstorm on how to recognize/counteract any of this sort of behavior. If it wasn't for a couple of switched-on users, who knows? The infiltrators could have been elected in the next round of moderator elections. Hence my reasoning for a 5 year minimum. This deserves a LOT more discussion.

100% agree with you on that, I don't really know what the solution is especially when, for instance, our head mod hasn't made an appearance in months (as far as I'm aware). He could literally show up tomorrow, decide to say "fuck this sub" and remove us all as mods and delete every post and there isn't a thing we could do about it.

Doesn't seem right. But again, not sure what the solution is for things like that - seems like open discussion is key to solving those types of problems.

[deleted]

haha whoops. At least 2 or 3 people told me orang was a chick. wtf.

My bad. You are correct. I went through my records and it was clearly written. Seems like a strange addition to mod voting. I can understand the perspective of "fuckery that may be afoot". But I can also understand users concerns with this new mod voting format coupled with it being in contest mode.

The not_jtrig user is an exception. I mean, look at their user history. They never comment. Ever. Their account is 4 months old.

How could we possibly know if they would be a good mod if they've never interacted with the community?

If anything, letting a user like that join the team would be far more foolish than vetoing.

The mod vouch is definitely to prevent random folks from being brigaded to the top.

I agree on many levels. I'm most concerned with inactive mods as we discussed last night. As well as as questioning a statement from mods here to come in the open about the Gage AMA, if anyone has contacted Richard, contest mode in voting for new mods, and a other subjects. I'm not unhappy with the new mods personally. I'm curious to see what we will evolve into here as a sub.

TBH, the thing that concerns me most is who the top mod is. He has all the power and in the end, the sub is his.

And this alone should concern us all who participate here or in any of the subs that are moderated by such.

or hers

Yeah, sorry about that I usually say "they" when unsure, but I'm pretty sure illuminated is a dude...

This post is odd in that almost all mod comments are standing at a zero. WTF is up here? That coupled with the fact that the stickied post is so low in upvotes etc.

Great. So the mod team just continues to do whatever they want and fuck the users. How do we keep falling for this ruse over and over? The fascist rules, the blatant censoring, the "free pass" to rule-violators just because they're known. It's all a big joke on those of us who actually wish to discuss and dig for the truth.

[deleted]

The community is smart enough to know the mods are corrupt. This fiasco has only proven that.

Plus there's one mod who only posts stuff from one blog (aka a shill) and one who just makes baseless accusations and trashes users in other subs. I'm sure your observant enough to see that.

But if you feel that pointing out the obvious is somehow threatening to the sub, that says more about you than me.

Who has been "blatantly censored"?

Many many users. They've made "just got banned from r/conspiracy" threads before. One mod in particular likes breaking the rules of this thread and bans anyone who calls him out on it.

And NWOwon takes all of their claims at face value as a good little pleb should.

It depends on who was banned and why. For example, if you were banned I would certainly approve.

Likewise

Oh, of course. I spread truth. Your job, on the other hand, is to concern troll.

I'm actually the one spreading truth. You just post filler that gets downvoted by shills bots rational people.

Haha, sure sure.

yeah, the vouching thing is a bit of technical bullshit. and i didnt like the way that a couple of mods came out so quick to "vouch" and vote for /u/orangutan. it kind of reminded me of present day elections. it seemed too organised and slick, like it was going to happen or not. not that she is a bad person. i like the content she produces. i dont really care either way, the mods here seemed to have a grasp on things before all this AMA fiasco started up.

It really reeks of the kind of closed-door cronyism that infects the actual real world. It's presented as this big grand system that sounds legit and fair. And at the end of the day, it's just a few people making mods. Oh but don't worry, there was a vouch.

I'm with you here brother. Seems very fishy.

[deleted]

So you think the highest voted people should have gotten the positions regardless of whot hey are or their post history?

That's pretty stupid if you ask me. This site is ripe for gaming.

I actually said the exact opposite, but...mkay?

It really reeks of the kind of closed-door cronyism that infects the actual real world.

You said this in response to the idea that the mod vouch was a bad thing. How does this mean the opposite of what I said?

So if conspiratrd members decide to nominate someone and upvote them the most you think they should get the mod position?

I think the mod vouch makes perfect sense. It would have taken 21 votes to get the new mod position otherwise.

I understand the need to try to limit vote rigging, I just reject the concept of gatekeepers. Especially when the mod vouch criteria is subjective, and concealed. I'm sure you can understand my concerns here.

Definitely. I'm just not sure what they could do to combat a coordinated effort from another sub.

The demogratic nature of reddit means that if one larger subreddit decides to mess with a smaller one they almost always win.

I would have much preferred minimum standards like post history, longevity, and karma scores as a way to determine someone's eligibility. That way it's right out in the open, and not subject to a few people's opinions.

The problem I see with that is that it still doesn't stop another sub from gaming the thing. The mod vouch really should have been called a mod vito to allow them to deny someone who has a questionable history from getting the position.

My other concern is with shadowbanned accounts. If we went by karma/history it makes it tough for people who have been shadowbanned in the past.

I guess it should probably be a combination of everything we've mentioned, user votes, history/longevity/karma, and reputation in the community.

I like the idea of a mod veto, as long as it was backed by mod-majority with supporting evidence. A veto combined with minimum standards would've been a fine solution. Maybe next time.

we felt it necessary to put in a place mechanisms which would prevent any manipulation of the voting or selection process.

I understand your desire to secure /r/conspiracy from infiltrators, but I would like more specific answers. Who was the first to suggest a vouch system, was it a unanimous decision (was there a vote) and what qualifies a 'vouch'?

I came up with the vouch system.

There is always concern that 'some group' will try to infiltrate the mod team and use that position to vandalize the community or otherwise hurt it.

I honestly didn't think it would come into play, it was there in case some obvious fuckery was afoot and someone like bipolarbear0 got themselves voted into a mod position.

This user /u/not_jtrig has literally never made a comment in our sub, or anywhere on reddit that I can see. Who are they? What do they represent? Anyone can post conspiracy related articles for months on end and earn sweet karma. But who is this person? How did they get so many votes without ever having commented on anything anywhere?

The other proposed requirement that we didn't end up going with was a karma requirement. Which would simply disqualify young accounts or frequently brigaded users.

I vouched for a lot of people, there was no secret requirement to earn a vouch from a mod. Any mod could vouch for anyone for any reason. And it seems to have worked out just fine.

What injustice do you perceive because of this?

What injustice do you perceive because of this?

The 'injustice' is that "Any mod could vouch for anyone for any reason." Or not vouch for anyone for any reason. This is hardly a fair system. You can't see a problem with playing gatekeeper?

How is it not fair?

There are no set standards other than the opinion of the 'authorities'.

How is this fair?

Well that is demonstrably untrue.

The community was asked to both nominate and vote on new mods, who became the new mods. Right there are your standards. The mod vouch insures that we don't invite in unwanted outsiders who like to organize voting.

Not_jtrig didn't receive a mod vouch because they have literally never commented here. All they do is post articles, which is fine, just not for a mod. A mod is required to interact with the community and we had no basis with which to gauge how this user interacts with people.

Thus the vouch system worked as it should have.

Thus the vouch system worked as it should have.

Claiming the system worked is a leap in logic. The system concluded and functioned, but did act as a true vote without outside/inside influence? I don't know. You hid the vote total during the vote, and imposed flimsy, opinionated standards.

After the recent debacle, how can you expect me to believe the vote was genuine?

THIS is the problem when you try to play gatekeeper. Trust, out the window. Even if your intentions were good.

I don't expect you to believe anything here. I expect you to take the time to make an informed decision on your own.

We have a problem with two or more faces.

We have people who hate all conspiracies who want to shut us down, we have people who want to claim our quarter million subscribers for their own semi-conspiracy related agendas and we have political mongers who want this to be a platform for the next election cycle.

If you tell people your exact plans with a mod election, you provide them with exactly what they need to manipulate it. You break your own security by announcing how it works.

Its unfortunate that so many groups want to take over conspiracy for so many silly reasons, but THAT is reality. The mods here are doing what we can to combat that for you all.

Not trying to be a dick here /u/Flytape, but I am very well aware of the threat to /r/conspiracy. I've been around about twice as long as you. Thanks, but I take your explanation to be a bit patronizing. Ain't nobody got time for that.

The solution to any manipulation is transparency, not concealment. Being a mod here you should understand that. Standards should have been set with a safety net of a mod-majority veto to keep out the riffraff.

It's open, fair, and includes checks and balances.

Don't you think the absence of a vouch is basically the same thing as a majority veto?

Nobody was willing to vouch for the guy so who wouldn't have voted to veto?

We are now officially splitting hairs. You agree that we need checks and balances but you disagree with how we decided to implement them. If we had gone with a veto system there would surely be people here to complain about that as well.

I'm not patronizing you, I'm attempting to answer your questions. I have a feeling it was a failed venture before it began.

Don't you think the absence of a vouch is basically the same thing as a majority veto?

No. It's not the same thing. Your vouch is influencing the vote, even if we can't see it. Not only does it limit the debate to the chosen few, one mod is not a majority veto.

I'm not patronizing you, I'm attempting to answer your questions. I have a feeling it was a failed venture before it began.

When you start off pretentiously asking what 'injustice someone has perceived', it tends to put people on the defense. Just sayin.

I disagree with the manner in which this vote was conducted. It is a failed venture to attempt to sway my opinion from transparency to concealment, you are 100% correct.

I am not out to get you. I am seeking an alternative system.

one mod is not a majority veto.

That's kind of the point. We have a lot of inactive mods who are in very different time zones and we can't expect everyone to be present for a veto vote. So we do it this other way around. a vouch system, it works better with what we have here.

The system worked, it didn't fail. You're unhappy with it, for that I'm sorry but we can't please everyone all the time. To even attempt to do so is an exercise madness.

What else can I explain? Why did we hide the votes? Because when vote manipulators can't see the status of the vote they either don't do enough to successfully manipulate the outcome, or they do way too much and make it painfully obvious.

That's why we hid the vote, to give us the advantage in detecting anything strange.

The system worked, it didn't fail. You're unhappy with it, for that I'm sorry but we can't please everyone all the time.

Just because you say it works, doesn't make it so. Thanks for the non-response. I'm not the only one taken back by this, but I guess as long as it pleases the mods and the non-commenters.

I truly can't believe you would fight against transparent standards vs. subjective opinions. But I guess you can't please everyone.

What else can I explain? Why did we hide the votes? Because when vote manipulators can't see the status of the vote they either don't do enough to successfully manipulate the outcome, or they do way too much and make it painfully obvious.

Expect for the fact that anyone watching the sub can just influence the vote by brigading the vouched for people. Don't you see that? How does hiding the vote stop this? It just makes it so the rest of us can't see it.

So you're perfectly fine with concealment and gatekeepers? Odd for a conspiracy mod.

It wasn't a nonresponse.

I gave you a response. Are you unhappy with the mods that the community selected?

We did this thing as transparently as possible, I'm trying to understand your beef here but you're just being nasty to me and complaining about everything.

Nice way to spin it there. You're trying to understand my 'beef', but I'm being 'nasty'?

We did this thing as transparently as possible.

I disagree with this statement and would like to have an open review of the voting process. Your response to me was that you couldn't please everyone. That sounds like a brushoff to me.

Does the community have a say in the process or not?

We opened the vote to public view. You can see now.

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant by my question, but I'll narrow it down.

Does the community of /r/conspiracy have a right to decide voting standards, or are these standards dictated to the community of /r/conspiracy?

In other words, the mods (you) jumped the shark with suggesting to implement a vouch system without community input. You literally dictated the qualifying standards to us. We never really had a say in the matter.

Edit: And with that said, I believe an open review of the voting process is reasonable. Don't you?

No the community at large does not get to decide the voting standards because of obvious reasons.

Namely, that discussion would be trolled just as easily as the mod election would have been if the mods didn't decide the standards in the first place.

Since you are such a strict believer in transparency, and you've been here twice as long as I have, perhaps you should be asked to transparently use your 6 year old account instead of hiding behind a sock puppet while trying to rustle jimmies?

If not then I have nothing further to discuss with you.

Since you are such a strict believer in transparency, and you've been here twice as long as I have, perhaps you should be asked to transparently use your 6 year old account instead of hiding behind a sock puppet while trying to rustle jimmies?

Would love to, but I've been shadowbanned. Actually, it's over 7 years now. Hell, if I remember correctly, I think you banned me. lol. Honestly, no hard feeling with that one. I knew what I was getting into with the whole officergofuckyourself bit. That was my bad, and I fully own it.

There is no need to get hostile, I'm just asking for a say in the voting process. I can see you have your reasons, and I disagree with them. I guess we are done here.

Yes I remember the officergofuckyourself doxxing incident.

That would explain the hostilities toward me. But I wasn't the one who banned you, it was an admin.

Well either case, I hold no resentment. Like I said I did it to myself and fully own it. Now that you know me, would it please be possible to open a dialog with the community about voting standards.

Sure make a new post about it.

Outline your plan, see what the community thinks and we might learn something that we can use next time there is a mod election.

I would have much preferred this debate to have happened prior to a vote, but it is what it is.

Let me work on it and I'll get back to you.

Kay thanks.

Just so you know I am still waiting for my response to my other mod questions. Do you have any clue if those questions are being addressed?

Link or reask me.

It's my top comment.

1. Would the mods please provide the evidence of 'fake tweets and email documentation'?

2. Who was the first to suggest a vouch system, was it a unanimous decision (was there a vote) and what qualifies a 'vouch'?

3. Why would you guys claim on one hand to have received fake verification tweets, to only state you never received any tweets?

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2ns0w9/new_moderators_and_an_announcement_regarding_a/cmgtdry

I had nothing to do with this AMA other than policing it for behavior standards. This other mod would be able to answer those questions for you better. I simply don't know.

Well I do appreciate the response. Once again flytape, I wasn't out to get you. I was just looking to contribute to the process. Thanks for taking the time to converse with me and understanding my concerns.

I see what you and other mods have stated and understand. I can see it from a few angles. It would have been nice to have that explained when the contest mode got placed into effect. This entire mod vote seemed odd to me. There honestly wasn't a lot of participation in comparison to others and perhaps because of the hidden votes? IDN. But of all the mods proposed I'm happy with the results. Thanks for the reply.

I just thought it was odd that the vote occurred on a holiday. Maybe all our military subcontractor friends were out eating turkey.

Wink :) there was mysterious lack of trolling.

There honestly wasn't a lot of participation in comparison to others

I too was a bit surprised there wasn't the usual clamoring from the conspiratard crew and whatnot.

This entire mod vote seemed odd to me.

Other than the lack of clamoring, it seemed generally respectful and successful to me. Perhaps the timing of this AMA fiasco coming out soured your perspective. The mods have been discussing adding new members to the team for months now, the timing was just unfortunate.

But of all the mods proposed I'm happy with the results

Agreed.

Yeah, which mod was it, and precisely what "fake verification tweets and other email documentation" was provided? Tweets as they related to AMA's usually contain a photo of the person doing the AMA, for verification that they are who they say they are.

Did this particular mod simply tell the other mods that he got that stuff, or was it shared and if so, what was provided? Note: This doesn't even require that you provide that evidence, only that other mods verify that indeed it was provided as stated by that mod and as ref'd in the OP of this thread. Otherwise, if this is a problem, then you've got a fox in the hen house.

Thank you.

Best regards,

NAM007

/u/axolotl_peyotl set it up I believe

I believe and I know with proof are two separate categories entirely. We will have to wait and see. I just hope they take this thread as the perfect opportunity to reveal their side of the story.

Concur.

They need to do that to restore faith and confidence in this subreddit's administration/moderation.

I helped choose the date and time.

You also helped try (unsuccessfully) to convince redditors who weren't satisfied with Richard's answers that Richard was indeed answering those questions 'correctly.'

You obviously don't know much about the 9.11.01 conspiracy if you allow fake Richard's definitions to stand. Hell, you had Richard's back without any proof of it being Richard.

People who have studied the 9.11.01 conspiracy know that Richard used the exact same wording as a debunker when he claims we can compare a model of WTC7 with NIST's hidden model.

http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2kol78/james_corbett_host_of_the_corbett_report_creator/clnhkv3

everyone makes mistakes. /u/axolotl_peyotl is legit.

How far certain parties went to orchestrate the fraud is what we should be focusing on. Axolotl was the victim in this case.

/u/axolotl_peyotl is legit.

That's not the sense that I have.

According to him he's been researching 9/11 for over a decade but is very disappointed and is not a fan of Richard Gage or his organization and is also very disappointed with the 9/11 truth movement in general.

Although I don't think he was neccessarily in league with the one who perpetrated this hoax, that individual is also someone who's been following the 9/11 truth movement very closely from every angle, for years, and who is rather anti-truther, anti-Richard Gage.

This predisposed bias on the part of /u/axolotl_peyotl is in and of itself sufficient grounds to call for his resignation as a mod.

He offered to resign, from what he told me, and I'm flabbergasted that the other mods didn't accept his resignation.

How can you be a 9/11 researcher and not support our movement as the movement of the truth or Richard Gage and A&E for 9/11 Turth as part of the leading edge of that spearhead?

It's INCONGRUENT, imho.

/u/axolotl_peyotl needs to step down as a mod here to help restore confidence in this subs admin/moderation.

that Richard was indeed answering those questions 'correctly.'

While I definitely made a mistake in that comment defending the AMA (which I've completely retracted), I never said he was answering them correctly.

I was simply pointing out that your quibble with that particular answer seems to concern semantics.

he claims we can compare a model of WTC7 with NIST's hidden model.

That's where we disagree. Again, this isn't about me defending the imposter, but they didn't compare the WTC7 collapse with the NIST model. The statement seemed to be hypothetical, as I explained in the comment you linked.

You obviously don't know much about the 9.11.01 conspiracy if you allow fake Richard's definitions to stand.

My error in judgement largely stemmed from knowing too much about the 911 conspiracy.

I disagree with the real Richard Gage. I think he's fulfilled a very important role in this debate, but he can only take us so far. I believe the mainstream 9/11 truth movement has been led astray. Although I don't believe Gage is responsible for this, I believe he has the power to get 9/11 truth out of its slump, and I don't think he's willing to do so.

Therefore, I went into the AMA expecting to be disappointed by the answers, and I was.

He even ignored the best question in the entire thread, and I publicly expressed my deep disappointment about that.

TBH, I happen to believe that the real Gage would've been unable to address these questions as well. The real Gage probably would've ignored it or dismissed it, and I'm basing this on what I know of A&E for 911 truth and their previous stance on (brilliant) questions like this.

Again, I should never have defended the AMA in that one statement, but I certainly wasn't trying to convince people he was right. I very conspicuously expressed my profound disappointment elsewhere in that same thread.

I can understand why you're out for blood, but I have only so much left to give...

That's where we disagree.

That's your problem with this situation. Once again, this isn't about you and me. You don't grasp the catastrophic failure you've single handedly dealt to the /r/conspiracy community at large.

At this point I believe you are the enemy. You've never pushed 911 that hard to begin with. Now you've been caught red handed and no mods seem to 'care' in the way that moderators should, plus the peanut gallery has virtually no say, except to stick up for your contributions.

This is a virtual reality set up much like the Bush administration. Gotta promote from within.

I noticed a new mod was all over that fake Richard Gage AMA. I noticed they were answering for fake Richard on roughly 20% of the questions. Those were the ones Richard 'sat out' on.

Now, I know this mod knows 911 truth and 911 debunking backwards and forwards. I just don't know how it ties in to their new modship and the disastrous AMA.

The connections are there.

Orangutan should have called out fake Richard. ANY 911 TRUTH ADVOCATE COULD SEE THAT WAS A FAKE AMA!!!!!!

Why were the dissenting voices not heard? I mean, if namm and I are the only truth seekers who paid attention, what does that say about your modship? Or what does this say about the honeypot of an AMA that caught 2 people paying attention. 2 people, excluding every single mod, who weren't acting like sheep

E: Will the real Richard Gage ever come here for am AMA? NO. Not with you on the mod squad.

I was reading in a thread a while back that was discussing how axl_p was the mod who put the huge red hitler poster on the sidebar that was taken down by community's request during the 9/11 anniversary. Not sure if he took responsibility for that but I've heard and seen a lot involving him... A lot of 'coincidences' that are very weird.

TBH, I happen to believe that the real Gage would've been unable to address these questions as well. The real Gage probably would've ignored it or dismissed it, and I'm basing this on what I know of A&E for 911 truth and their previous stance on (brilliant) questions like this. https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2k7xng/hi_im_richard_gage_founder_of_architects/cliqpmh

I have worked with Richard personally and that is a highly disrespectful assumption. He would gladly and easily be able to counter those arguments. To label that wall-of-text as brilliant is hilarious considering it stems from ridiculous "Judy Wood" theories. What's your problem with AE911Truth? They are probably the most respected "conspiracy theorists" in the game. Appearances at AIA conventions, 9/11 museum, C-SPAN, Fox, PBS, tours worldwide, millions of views online, full documentaries, confronting congressional staffers, funding legislative action for a new investigation, setting up billboards worldwide etc they have done more than any of us key board warriors combined. They have been doing real work for almost a decade.

I agree with /u/autobahn1 ...There's something 'off' with you as a mod...

I'm glad to see you joined the conversation axolotl_peyotl. I understand it's a holiday weekend and everything related. But it's nice to see old and new mods communicating here and now.

How can we be certain there isn't another trojan horse mod just waiting to pull off something like this again.

The mod who set up the AMA was /u/axolotl_peyotl I think

I definitely exchanged PMs with the fake ae911truth and richard_gage accounts, but I wasn't the sole person who set this up...the mod team works together on the AMAs. However, since I obviously had a hand in this fiasco, I can certainly step down as mod if the community thinks that's right.

Produce the fake proof everyone is asking for. Who vouched for the account?

Please don't.

i disagree. i dont think that you should step down. if anything, you gained experience from the event and that makes you a more effective mod. these things were likely to happen eventually. keep your chin up mate, learn from it and keep up the good work.

I can certainly step down as mod if the community thinks that's right.

I don't think this would be entirely necessary, as AATA pointed out in the OP, the impersonator used fake emails, and as you stated you weren't the sole organizer of that AMA. However I commend you for making such an offer, simply to appease the situation.

Only if you think its right.

It would be neat to see all this juicy evidence though.

I can certainly step down as mod if the community thinks that's right.

Here here! I concur. Please step down as a mod of this subreddit. It's the right thing to do.

I'm fairly new to this sub but from what I have seen of you, this place is much better for your presence.

Don't even open that door, that's the intended goal of the shills running this ruse in the first place.

There's been no proof a mod is directly involved in this. Fingers crossed. But even a user this cunning to pull something like this off is in my eyes a multiple account holder and perhaps a group. This is more complex than we are being told I believe.

The mod who was responsible for coordinating the AMA will certainly elaborate on what proof they were given, and why they believed the AMA to be legit

Good, let's see it. Thanks.

Edit: Or, at the very least, tell us what the other mods have done to authenticate the voracity of that mod's story about it, which apparently involved an attempt by that mod to verify this "Richard_Gage" troll/shill, including twitter and email verifications.. ie: what email domain did it come from and what twitter account was used? That's easy enough to ask them to provide, right?

what twitter account was used

No twitter account was used. Twitter verifications were promised on the day of the AMA but they obviously never came.

No twitter account was used? Then why the fuck was it stated that:

The user /u/ae911truth went so far as to provide members of our mod team with fake verification tweets and other email documentation.

So this statement is bullshit? Why would you guys claim on one hand to have received fake verification tweets, to only state you never received any tweets. This situation reeks of BS.

Then why did the AMA continue without verification?

Why did you defend 'Richard's' ridiculous statements in the AMA?

Please answer both questions thoroughly.

Something stinks.

fair enough.

I think it's safe to assume this "user" is a multiple. And has probably already had many other old accounts in place to default in case of emergency. Seamless transition. That's my concern with having inactive mods here that were once very active on reddit. I'm not implying that they themselves would do anything nefarious. But reddit might. For the right amount. And I'm not sure who the mod is responsible for coordinating the AMA but now is the perfect opportunity for them to explain. Most of you know me on some level and I'm not one to rock the boat. But I am in some way willing to rock it given the current state of affairs.

PSA: The above user (/u/Bluematt22) is from r/conspiratard, and has gone as far as to congratulate the Richard Gage impersonator for the damage they've caused.

http://np.reddit.com/r/NolibsWatch/comments/2nts1k/rconspiratard_goon_ubluematt22_makes_post_to/

Aw jeez. Your comment is directly below mine. And your comment says the above user. Lol! Thankfully the link shows the user name. I've never been involved with the tard movement nor will I ever be.

Apologies, I'll edit it to clarify.

I've never been involved with the tard movement nor will I ever be.

I'm familiar with you enough to know this, but I'm glad to hear you state it proudly. :)

I'm not concerned with the votes of this illusionary world of reddit but I do appreciate the edit and the acknowledgement. Thanks.

No problemo.

shiiiiit. ive gotta do more homework on users :/

i hardly notice these things because im mostly on mobile and its a bit of a pain in the arse to check around stuff like that on a small arse screen.

Oh it's understandable, I only noticed because I'm subscribed to, and moderate the sub with the post that caught him.

cool man, keep up the good work.

Get RES if you don't have it already - doesn't work on mobile but it helps quite a bit on PC with identifying and sorting users.

Thanks yeah I will. Unfortunately mobile is 95% of my usage because of my shitty work schedule. Thanks for the advice though.

Anyone else dislike the idea of COMMENT VOTES to determine moderators?

Or that there was barely discussion about them?

Or that one of them has a shady past here.

Curious to know what you are implying? Care to elaborate?

[deleted]

Thanks for the heads up. I did see that. Still curious if that user had anything relevant to say or not. Most likely not, but the curiosity remains.

I'm actually pretty well known in here, it sucks that you're so ignorant. My alts are mods at /r/DocHopper, I'm a pretty influential poster who has a long, controversial history in here especially. Feel free to ask around as well. Anyway, since you are so naive, /u/orangutan has a very sketchy history here, you may want to ask others that have been here longer than you about that as well.

Agreed, and we already have a mod involved with the Gage fiasco.

I knew who you were on this alt account. That's why I asked if you could provide more info regarding your comment. I'm still hoping you will elaborate on your statement that /u/orangutan and the sketchy history here. At the very least, enlighten new(er) users here with your knowledge.

I'm a pretty influential poster who has no post history because I regularly delete it

I'm fucking shadowbanned. And don't act like you don't know who I am because I'm fucking positive you do.

Nobody cares aboit you

Says some nobody.

If you regularly delete your post history, then you will never be influential. Influential people stand by their words. If you don't have the balls to stand by your words, then you are a nobody.

The only thing you are is a sad shell of a human being trying to live out some fake fantasy life on the internet.

Do you know what being "shadowbanned" is? Apparently not. I don't delete anything- the admins block my accounts so if anyone clicks on my history it says "does not exist." I was just made aware of this a few weeks ago.

Happens all the time.

Mods here always talk about transparency and fairness, and then leave everybody out of the loop until the last minute.

I sincerely hope /u/creq wasn't involved with the /r/technology fiasco(s)

The votes were counted and the people were chosen, what's the beef? There was a whole stickied thread to discuss in you know.

Translation:

Shut up.

Well it struck me as 'why wasn't I chosen?'.

It's a testament to the AE911Truth group that people will go to such lengths to attack them.

Creating two reddit accounts? Seems more like a testament to this subreddit's willingness to believe anyone who agrees with them... FYI there was zero confirmation evidence provided lol. And now we're acting like we've been victimized by some advanced operation. One troll made this entire community look pants-on-head stupid. Come on people...

Yeah with this kind of intellectual rigor I bet we're gonna crack the 9/11 conspiracy open any day now

I think calling this a "community" is a bit much. It's just a reddit forum. I'm really only here for the 9/11 truth stuff.

Fair enough in your case and some other cases, but there is a core group here that latches onto every theory and generally acts like they are a cast of martyrs fighting a grand battle against "TPTB" cringe. And I think that your post talking about "such lengths" (creating a Reddit account) is also a stretch

Trying to downplay this situation really puts your credibility in question.

Information is a powerful tool, and to keep up this false notion that the spreading of information does not matter is either ignorant and naive on your part, or you are also in on the bullshit.

redditor for 3 months

Ah. Of course.

but there is a core group here that latches onto every theory and generally acts like they are a cast of martyrs fighting

Nice thinly veiled attempt to attack the entire subreddit based on absolutely nothing. Who is this core group? Can you give supporting evidence for such an ignorant accusation?

I lol'd. Accuse me of being a shill or troll or whatever, niiiice. God forbid anyone have a conversation without bringing up the lamest possible argument that always gets injected into the threads here.

who is this core group? Can you give supporting evidence [...]

Are you serious? There are people in this nominate-a-moderator thread who are on a first name basis with each other. Yes there is a core group of wannabe martyrs here. Go ahead and go nuts with that evidence.

Are you serious? There are people in this nominate-a-moderator thread who are on a first name basis with each other. Yes there is a core group of wannabe martyrs here. Go ahead and go nuts with that evidence.

So, you've got no actual evidence, for one; except for some anecdotal bullshit.

Lamest possible argument... for shit that we KNOW is going down? Are you serious?

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

Let me re-iterate: Information is a powerful tool, and to keep up this false notion that the spreading of information does not matter is either ignorant and naive on your part, or you are also in on the bullshit.

Lol what would be better evidence of there being a core group of consistent users here than a thread full of said users speaking to each other on a first name basis?

What are you even so worked up about? Trying to talk to you is like bumping a guy's elbow at a buffet and having him start reciting the constitution while his face turns purple

Lol what would be better evidence of there being a core group of consistent users here than a thread full of said users speaking to each other on a first name basis?

Nice, so you can make shit up. That doesn't mean anything, other than the fact that you have an active imagination.

It would be simple for you to post a link to these events if they are so prevalent, but you cannot prove what isn't happening.

Yawn.

link to first-name basis evidence in this thread

More evidence of there being a core group of conspiracy posters (all just from this thread lol):

link 1 -- Obviously u/creq and nerf_gun_hero are part of the group I described

link 2 -- oh look at that u/a.a.t.a., quantumcipher and three_letter_agency actually refer offhand to details of each other's personal lives including their health

link 3 -- disco_lollipop and moonpurr seem to recognize each other as members of the core group I described

link 4 -- dochopper and orangutang obviously know each other quite well and Dochopper is such an obvious member of the core group I described that he is actually offended people don't know all of his account names

Honestly you surprise me with your dull arguments. I don't know what incentive you have to waste everyone's time but something something maybe you're working for the government. I was able to put together a mountain of evidence from a tiny thread using only my phone. I hope we're not relying on your pathetic investigation skills to crack the case on 9/11

Since I went to all this trouble I would appreciate it if you would respond with an admission of your ignorance or stupidity. Or you can just use a lot of bold letters and hand-waving to shout about why you think my evidence doesn't count. I know that's more likely.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Wait... so your proof is crazy people with clear mental issues? Okay....? That's pretty slim 'proof'.

You asked for proof of my claim that there is a core group of wannabe martyrs on this subreddit who recognize and talk to each other frequently. Whether they are crazy has nothing to do with anything. Feel free to admit you were being ignorant and stupid.

Good luck cracking the case on 9/11 little boy

Good luck cracking the case on 9/11 little boy

What the fuck are you even talking about you psycho? Back to the crazy house with you.

You asked for evidence, I provided it. Good luck with that 9/11 case Sherlock!

9/11 case? What the fuck are you talking about? Holy shit you are fucking psycho.

Please Poirot we need you on this case!

One troll made this entire community look pants-on-head stupid. Come on people...

Pretty much, yup.

[deleted]

popcorn.gif

[deleted]

Btw, here's the conversation with "Richard_Gage" ("AE911Truth") that was the first chain in a series of events that led to the outing of this troll/shill, just FYI in case anyone was interested.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/2k7xng/hi_im_richard_gage_founder_of_architects/cliugoi

I then went to the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum and posted this link there (now removed) to see what people, including Rob Balsamo, might have to say about it, and now here we are, thank God.

Yes. Here we are, and thank you for bringing it to light indeed. This being called out is quite an important revelation to anyone who uses this sub. Either as an individual seeking deeper truths, questioning current events, or a person posting. It ties into many aspects on many levels. Even the entire format of verification can be hoaxed if given enough time and effort. I prefer how James Corbett provided his verification. It was solid. He was able to answer questions in real time and by video. I say that if an individual asked to do an AMA doesn't understand current technology and is unable to be shown properly how to use the reddit format, and cannot provide verification that's solid; then I vote for them to not do an AMA here. Just my two cents. I didn't even ask a question in Gage's AMA because my intuition knew something was really off about it.

because my intuition knew something was really off about it.

I think that a LOT of us felt that way. We were so hyped about it, in anticipation and then this stooge with a bad attitude shows up in the place of Richard Gage.

It really is quite hilarious too at some level, so I can understand why this episode is being mocked in other areas of reddit, but that's bad news too for the sake of the truth and what's right, so at another level it's not funny at all.

The mods have done well to post this stickied topic but at the same time, I haven't seen everything that needs to be considered so as to be certain that the sub can make a fresh start from a new base.

Therefore I think there may be a certain mod (axolotl_peyotl) who was involved with this and bringing it to r/conspiracy who needs to resign their position as a mod of this subreddit, which doesn't preclude their ability to continue to participate here mind you, just not be a mod any more.

All in favor say "I"..

In favor, I.

I

You state that

The mods have done well to post this stickied topic but at the same time, I haven't seen everything that needs to be considered so as to be certain that the sub can make a fresh start from a new base.

And then call for an unnamed mod to step down? I'm a bit discombobulated. I don't have the answers but have many questions too. If anyone or any mod can provide more info. it'd be much appreciated. I won't say I to anything personally. But I will look at all angles of everything with an open mind and continue to question every answer I receive. The big "I" for me is my intuition.

And then call for an unnamed mod to step down?

axolotl_peyotl.

He bobbled it, for a variety of reasons, and even though it might have been done unwittingly, at the same time there might have been a slight predisposed bias on the part of the mod in regards to the work of Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which made him the perfect mark let us say to bring about the ruse and then support it's outcome.

Therefore, for the sake of the absolute integrity and continuity of the moderation of this subreddit with a long history, he should step down even if only as an affirmation of that same integrity. Doesn't mean he's entirely to blame or to be hung out to dry or banned, just step down as mod it's no big deal.

As far as I know this is being discussed by the mods with a decision coming "down" to us shortly.

Your comment gave me a lot to think about. I've seen the links that AP said in comments here relative to what you state. But I still believe it runs much deeper than the active mods. And as you say " unwittingly" is still a long way off from willingly. I'm not trying to negate your comment by any means. Nor am I defending anyone. I'm merely a person of balance and the willingness to view all sides of an issue. And I'm in deep contemplation mode on the entire subject.

Collectively, the mods will do the right thing.

I have faith in my fellow man on the whole.

As to whoever perpetrated this - they at one point could not help themselves but to mock Rob Balsamo but from the POV of 9/11blogger's rejection of Pilots for Truth, which is a long story involving a blacklash reaciton to some absurd claims by supporters of John Lear and company (call them the NP's and leave it at that).

Therefore, it's someone who've been following the 9/11 truth movement very closely and for quite some time and is well aware of the various "factions" and disputes that have arisen over the years and how to try to exploit them whenever and wherever possible.

And I'm in deep contemplation mode on the entire subject.

Let us know what you come up with or what wisdom might be bestowed upon you from on high in a sudden epiphany. You take over, I'm going to bed, g'night.

Not sure if your comment is an insult or genuine. Lol! Sure thing NAM007, will do. And goodnight.

Happy to see you acknowledged NaM007's comment. And acknowledged him/her in the OP as well. Do you think that perhaps other mods will join in this conversation in the near future as well? Seems like an important time to be present.

Sorry to hear you are ill. I do appreciate you being very involved in the issue. Hopefully other mods will participate tomorrow.

Was a specific mod 'responsible' for setting up the AMA or were you all collectively fooled?

Thanks for the clarification. I was also one that asked for verification while the thread was blowing up. Got down voted for calling the imposter a pompous ass!

To the new mods have fun and help clear out the multi-posts, the riff-raff and the 12 year olds! Thanks, in advance!

we could have done without another "who the fuck?" mod but i approve of the other 2.

I, for one, welcome our new overlords.

It's kinda incredible that people trust the mods here at all.

We want to be clear that this was not a short con; the user had been impersonating the organization for months...

WTF?

We want to be clear that this was not a short con

The best cons never are. Some have been running for centuries.

I toast the new mods, and trust that all will honor the backbone of integrity that has made this sub unique.

I will - you have my word, for what it's worth.

Congrats to the new mods. And thanks to the current mods for allowing us users to see the votes out of "contest mode". I was speaking with Axolotl about this lastnight. We also discussed making a statement from the mods on this serious issue, and if Richard was contacted directly from mods here. I'm glad you guys did. I find it odd that the head mod here and at /r/911Truth is the same mod /u/illuminatedwax . This mod is also moderator of over 50 (some very popular) subs, and hasn't publicly addressed this issue with Richard Gage. Perhaps our newest mod /u/Orangutan can answer this question for me as they as well mod at 911Truth? I spoke with a current mod about this issue lastnight too. I understand illuminatedwax isn't involved with many of the subs that are moderated by him/her. But this is a serious issue involving the credibility of both important subs. I hope you will continue to keep us informed on relevant updates regarding this, and that we will not have to come to you for important informations on this matter. Or even hear about it in a users self post. In addition to all of the current news I am going to pose my question again about mods who's accounts seem to be inactive. /u/quantumcipher and /u/Three_Letter_Agency. I respect both of their past histories here and elsewhere. But it is concerning to me that their accounts have been inactive for quite some time now. Will they be removed and replaced by the new mods? Flytape and I were discussing this lastnight. There are potential "security breeches" that could occur with leaving inactive mods here in /r/conspiracy. Lots of questions, and always seeking answers. And I'd also add a big mahalo nui loa to /u/NAM007 for the important heads up.

Thanks for the reply. Your answer is somewhat a mirror image of Flytapes. I'm sorry to hear about quantumcipher. I proposed he be a mod in the last vote. I did know about TLA's book. I hope you do reach out to them. And I hope someone other than I is diligent enough to look into fine details like this. I'm not sure what a diplomatic solution is to the situation with inactive mods. 900sins is another one. But these are back doors than can be easily entered by someone with knowhow. And given the recent event with the Gage AMA, I'd be on high alert status as a mod.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Here is what they're saying right now about this and by extension, r/conspiracy, elsewhere on reddit

from r/SubredditDrama

/r/conspiracy mod responds to the fact they advertised and stickied an AMA that wasn't really the 9/11 truther they thought it was.

Looks like /r/conspiracy and /r/911truth got tricked. An AMA from a month ago for a top 9/11 truther appears to have been faked.

the news is spreading, hope something is done to restore absolute integrity.

You're linking to SRD as an example of what integrity is?

Lol. I'm sorry but the r/conspiratard spinoffs carry no weight around here in my opinion and should never be linked to from here. It is they that have no integrity.

Sure, the mods made a mistake. That's no reason to attack their integrity. As far as I'm concerned, this sub has more integrity than almost any other sub in existence and always has.

No, integrity would have been devising a 2 mod "buddy system" where one mod can't make a horrible decision on their own.

And by horrible decision I mean lying their ass off to everyone around them. Axolotl-Peyotl is the mod in question.

I used to be /u/thefuckingtoe, a user well versed in the 911 psy-op. Fake Richard was allowed to disseminate bad information.

One mod, axolotl, promoted an AMA, held a fake AMA without verification, stood up for fake Richard Gage's obvious shill comments, and now wants to be a victim?

Did I get that right?

Did I get that right?

Except for one thing. All of the mods "promoted an AMA, held a fake AMA without verification, stood up for fake Richard Gage's obvious shill comments".

Why are you just attacking one of them?

This was part of his reply to me on another thread

Me: Did you not notice something rather unusual or "off" about Richard's responses?

Him: Most definitely. In the interest of complete disclosure, having been researching 911 truth for over a decade, I've never been a big fan of Gage and his message, although I certainly respect him.

Although I was disappointed with his answers, I'm disappointed in Gage and the 911 truth movement in general so I wasn't surprised by that. I think that clouded my judgment.

Me: first and foremost being the INCONGRUITY of it.

Him: Obviously no one wants to be duped. We've seen it all at /r/conspiracy, mods and regular users alike. We've been attacked elsewhere on reddit and the internet in general. We've become hyper-vigilant to that kind of bullshit, and honestly it's slowed down dramatically from the past.

This doesn't appear to have been an attack on /r/conspiracy, which is why it's so damn weird.

I'm still not entirely sure what "this" was.

Me: I do not trust that you are on the right team.

Him: You could be right. Again, this was not entirely on me, but if someone needs to take the fall, I'd be happy to. Internet stress like this is only worth it up to a point...

from the thread

[Off Topic] /u/axolotl_peyotl, top 7 mod on /r/conspiracy is a compromised account.

Says he's still not entirely sure what "this" was... decade long 9/11 researcher, but never a big fan of Richard Gage and his organization.. dissapointed in him, his organization and the 911 truth movement in general..

INCONGRUENT is right.

You're linking to SRD as an example of what integrity is?

No.

hope something is done to restore absolute integrity.

Getting tricked and figuring it out was the solution along with letting the users know about it. Who cares what the other subs say about this one. No one is sitting on a perfect sub within Reddit.

Welcome new Mods!

I always assume that /r/conspiracy is basically compromised. Like anything else I take it with a pinch of salt. But it is a good thing that this con has been uncovered and that there is a response.

Why would someone work so hard to slander Richard Gage when his reputation is already shitty?

when his reputation is already shitty?

Why is his reputation shitty?

That cardboard box video. His lack of scientific knowledge which leads to junk science getting posted under the site's name. He's not respected in the scientific community. He's good for a laugh and that's it.

[deleted]

I'm not that well-known, but at least I'm not openly conning people out of their money like Gage is!

Lob those insults. So brave.

his reputation is already shitty?

1) It isn't.

2) What is with the term "shitty?" It's quite popular among a certain set of left wing Social Justice Warrior types, not to mention a particular ethnic and religious group who are always making comparisons to feces. It's just weird, is all.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/conspiratard] Called something shitty? You are either a social justice warrior or a Jew.

^{If you follow any of the above links, respect the rules of reddit and don't vote or comment. Questions? Abuse? Message me here.}

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

fucking loser. get a life.

Oh hey, it's this guy again. I'm amazed people still talk to them.

Is that what the top minds over in /r/Private_Panopticon are calling each other nowadays?

Happy to see you acknowledged NaM007's comment. And acknowledged him/her in the OP as well. Do you think that perhaps other mods will join in this conversation in the near future as well? Seems like an important time to be present.

Sorry to hear you are ill. I do appreciate you being very involved in the issue. Hopefully other mods will participate tomorrow.

Apologies, I'll edit it to clarify.

I've never been involved with the tard movement nor will I ever be.

I'm familiar with you enough to know this, but I'm glad to hear you state it proudly. :)

I like the idea of a mod veto, as long as it was backed by mod-majority with supporting evidence. A veto combined with minimum standards would've been a fine solution. Maybe next time.

Don't you think the absence of a vouch is basically the same thing as a majority veto?

No. It's not the same thing. Your vouch is influencing the vote, even if we can't see it. Not only does it limit the debate to the chosen few, one mod is not a majority veto.

I'm not patronizing you, I'm attempting to answer your questions. I have a feeling it was a failed venture before it began.

When you start off pretentiously asking what 'injustice someone has perceived', it tends to put people on the defense. Just sayin.

I disagree with the manner in which this vote was conducted. It is a failed venture to attempt to sway my opinion from transparency to concealment, you are 100% correct.

I am not out to get you. I am seeking an alternative system.

100% agree with you on that, I don't really know what the solution is especially when, for instance, our head mod hasn't made an appearance in months (as far as I'm aware). He could literally show up tomorrow, decide to say "fuck this sub" and remove us all as mods and delete every post and there isn't a thing we could do about it.

Doesn't seem right. But again, not sure what the solution is for things like that - seems like open discussion is key to solving those types of problems.