Comments or posts that suggest 'all conspiracy theorists/alternative thinkers' believe the same ideas or theories are now subject to removal. The moderators will not tolerate the notion that an audience of 300,000+ people all believe the same thing. Comments of this nature are ignorant..

You fucking nailed it with that one.

When you fallaciously put 300,000+ people in a box, then you don't have to refute them all -- just the box.

I've always often hated these kind of posts, but it's just how everyone a lot of people in our day and age like to express themselves, so i don't let it bother me too much

It's mainly shills who do it, so will come in handy for getting their propaganda deleted

Hey everyone, you wanna see something fishy? Check out u\illuminatedwax, your top mod. Oh, he also happens to be top mod of bestof, funny, books, and r\scientology! And none of the subs of which he is top mod have a creator listed.

Have a great evening, users.

Do you have any evidence this mod ever acted against the best interests of this sub?

He is the defacto dormant owner of the /r/

He doesn't participate, but as top mod we can't remove him... But to this day he doesn't meddle in our sub...

I don't think you're picking up on the implication.

In other words, he's likely a government sleeper agent?

Cant say I have ever seen this mod, or heard of anything they've done negatively in this sub myself. I'd be very interested if you have anything more concrete then pure speculation on your part that you could share.

I've never heard of them

i have.

True when someone who was obviously something the new rules won't let us say anymore, he/she/it told me I believe in fake moon landings and fake 9/11. Told him/her/it that "nice try, but I don't follow those conspiracies". Never got a reply and got down voted.

True when someone who was obviously something the new rules won't let us say anymore, he/she/it told me I believe in fake moon landings and fake 9/11. Told him/her/it that "nice try, but I don't follow those conspiracies". Never got a reply and got down voted.

Yeah, the most bizarre one I've stumbled across is accusing people of being Holocaust deniers for questioning the 9/11 official story. I've literally seen it happen.

It's a dirty tactic

That's probably because people were spamming "Jews did 9/11" shit for a while there. My guess is that it was a very lazy, yet effective, psyops of some sort. In general it is easier to create false parallels between two groups than to refute evidence and actually debunk things; a good example is the Oathkeeper wikipedia entry that claims they are a neo-Nazi group. It's ludicrous, of course, but people are easily led into making that association and so it stands.

That's probably because people were spamming "Jews did 9/11" shit for a while there. My guess is that it was a very lazy, yet effective, psyops of some sort.

In my experience, it's precisely Zionist Jews making these sort of false correlations and straw man arguments. When truthers want to convince someone that Jews were involved in 9/11, they tend to just show them the evidence that Jews were involved in 9/11.

I don't think anybody here genuinely believes all living Jews were involved in the 9/11 attacks, if that's what you're suggesting. If you're Jewish and weren't involved, then I can see why you'd have a problem with other people saying "Jews did 9/11", but at the end of the day, they did do 9/11, so I think the truth far outweighs any offence you might take from the way it is worded.

I haven't seen the evidence that the Jews were involved. Mossad could certainly have played a part, but they are a very secretive organization and I doubt they would let anything leak if there was anything to leak. One thing that I have seen evidence for is that Israel tried to warn the US repeatedly about the attacks.

I haven't seen the evidence that the Jews were involved.

http://www.lostscribemedia.com/news/911-israels-masterpiece/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12768362.Five_Israelis_were_seen_filming_as_jet_liners_ploughed_into_the_Twin_Towers_on_September_11__2001____/

http://www.takeourworldback.com/dancingisraelisfbireport.htm#transcrip ts

Mossad could certainly have played a part

Yes, it is predominantly the evidence of Mossad's involvement which has created the phrase. That said, there is also quite a bit of evidence against Zionists in America, as the links above will show.

but they are a very secretive organization and I doubt they would let anything leak if there was anything to leak.

They certainly would not admit it unless they were left with no alternative, I agree.

One thing that I have seen evidence for is that Israel tried to warn the US repeatedly about the attacks.

Israel is a big place, and not everyone there will have wanted these attacks to happen, or even known that internal elements were involved. There is also the very legitimate possibility that they simply wanted to cover their own tracks. Consider that even in America, there is much evidence that the FBI tried to warn of the attacks, and could have quite easily prevented them, but they were unable to because of the actions of their own government -- particularly in its six refusals to give them a warrant to search the hard drive of Zacarias Moussaoui.

As I said, I don't doubt that some in Israel had fore-knowledge, some even tried to warn the US. There just doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that they actually participated. The first link you posted just doesn't have enough footnotes to be very credible. I can see why they would be happy about it though, Israel was getting more and more isolated on the global scene at the time.

As I said, I don't doubt that some in Israel had fore-knowledge, some even tried to warn the US.

The explosives residue discovered on the Mossad agents, and the bomb which went off at George Washington bridge both imply a lot more than "foreknowledge". They imply direct involvement.

The first link you posted just doesn't have enough footnotes to be very credible.

Credibility is a subjective and -- in this instance -- inadequate hiding place. Either the information is correct, or it is not. What you are basically telling me is that you are not prepared to find out.

The explosives residue discovered on the Mossad agents, and the bomb which went off at George Washington bridge both imply a lot more than "foreknowledge". They imply direct involvement.

Sure, if there was more than one source for this.

Either the information is correct, or it is not. What you are basically telling me is that you are not prepared to find out.

You are right, I'm not willing to go and track down the original sources for the info0rmation that should be present in the article already.

Sure, if there was more than one source for this.

I agree that more than one source would be better, but for someone apparently concerned with "credibility", even you must concede that the American FBI is a highly credible source, which is where this information has come from. The first part at least, about the Mossad agents testing positive for explosives residue. The third link I posted is a transcript of the FBI file on their arrest, which was recently declassified.

You are right, I'm not willing to go and track down the original sources for the info0rmation that should be present in the article already.

Fair enough. You would be right to be wary of propaganda on the internet, but I believe this article is far too detailed and specific to be considered such. It gives precise names and precise information. Propaganda tends to be a lot more cloudy, vague and is unmistakably emotive.

http://www.theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=5367.0

Plus any of Ryan Dawsons feature length youtube videos. + + +

I haven't seen the evidence that the Jews were involved.

Then frankly you don't know the subject very well.

Hear hear.

iamagod (a frequent user here) tried to tell me I love Israel the other day in /r/conspiracy despite me often posting articles criticizing their attacks on Palestine. He's convinced I'm a zionist loving IDF member because I think the Shemitah is related to the current economy struggles (from a post that made it to the front page of this subreddit)

I support open immigration and constantly get attacked as a hypocritical jew who only wants immigration for the west. People come with their own preconceptions.

Anyone that isn't a complete brainless "everything is a conspiracy" mouth breather is a shill according to him.

[deleted]

I'm fairly new to this sub and perhaps I lack the history of comments that led to this decision but blanketly removing posts and doing so by stating that 300,000+ people don't/can't believe the same idea is actually ludicrous.

No, it's actually the opposite of ludicrous. What is ludicrous is the notion that you think you can make up your own facts about what other people think.

What's further, your logic of doing so isn't sound.

Oh, I see. You're just here to say stupid stuff. Cool.

I can think of many statistics that would seemingly blow your toleration to dust. For example. Keeping it local to the US, 264 million people out of 318 million people all believe in Christianity.

And just what do you think the chances are that all of the users posting on this site at any given moment will fall into just one of those groups (i.e. either all Christians or all non-Christians)?

It appears you struggle to understand even basic logic, otherwise it is certain you would understand why your example proves the very point you are trying to refute. If only 2 out of every 3 people are Christians, then it doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that not everybody is going to be Christian on a forum with 300,000+ people.

Just lol.

[deleted]

The terms all and never are ridiculous terms in themselves and that is the only point that I will concede to you and that is simply because I did not mention it in my original statement despite believing that all along

It wasn't that you didn't mention it. It was that you contradicted it.

I kind of lost respect for you after the last post, sorry. Trying to play the smartass is fine, but you have to be smart first.

[deleted]

I'm not interested in your respect

That's pretty obvious. You genuinely expected me to read your 6,000 word reply? After you came in trying to play the smartass?

You could have just apologised and left it at that. But since your ego is considerably larger than your intellect you decided to write me a short novel instead.

[deleted]

Will you please just go away? Your delusional speeches are, frankly, annoying.

Same with people who call everyone in the non-conspiracy community "sheeple" or "dupes" or whatever.

Same with people who call everyone in the non-conspiracy community "sheeple" or "dupes" or whatever.

If you are in the "non-conspiracy community" then it is because you do not believe in conspiracies. Hence, it cannot then be incorrect to say you don't believe in conspiracies. Calling someone a dupe for this belief is completely in line with the facts. You have admitted the belief and the belief is demonstrably wrong. Conspiracies can and do happen.

I wonder if some of you even think before you speak.

See, you're "fallaciously putting billions of people in a box", the same thing you were complaining about others doing !

See, you're "fallaciously putting billions of people in a box", the same thing you were complaining about others doing !

Clearly, I am not, so stop being fucking ridiculous. The one and only thing which could possibly qualify someone as being in the "non-conspiracist community" as you put it, is that they don't believe in conspiracies. The OP was discussing taking a belief which is not homogenous among a group, and then using it as a blanket argument to discredit the entire group. This is obviously something quite different and your attempt to fallaciously merge the two concepts simply betrays your own dishonesty.

So is majority opinion now just a fairy tale? It can never happen? All minds may never unite? Is that a fact now?

[deleted]

You are being disingenous to think most people here don't all believe in the main big hoaxes:

Banking Cartel
9/11, War on terror
Space
Media manipulation
JFK/Vietnam War propaganda
Holocaust exaggeration

If the person reading this agrees, please comment. If nobody agrees with me, then I concede your point. Maybe I am the only one.

"Space" ha. Stop trying to manufacture consensus.

/r/spacefraud

people do discuss things there.

9/11, War on terror

metabolix,

You're someone who claims to believe in the 9/11 No Planes Theory, I've seen you debating this in the sub, you also appeared in a Flat Earth thread, so you know there is not a one size fits all consensus among Conspiracy Theorists

You are being disingenous to think most people here don't all believe in the main big hoaxes:

Your list is vague. Please tell us WHAT you think "most people here believe" about the following:

Banking Cartel

9/11, War on terror

Space

Media manipulation

JFK/Vietnam War propaganda

Holocaust exaggeration

If that's too much work, pick ONE of the above, and tell us what "most people here believe" about that particular topic.

Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

And you smoked them out of their hole. Great work. Thank you.

Most is not equivalent of the word "all".

You're being argumentative and ignoring the language entirely.

The shill operation will be furious as their AI bots will have to have 1000's of their automatic posts removed to avoid getting themselves banned

Ok /u/lucycohen aka "Gay People gome from stuff in the water"

That_Guy381,

You guys stalk me and remember the different posts I make, you don't like me writing about shills, I wonder why.

You would have to be completely anti-science to think that the hormones from the Female Birth Control Pill couldn't have an affect on the future sexuality of a developing fetus. We already know that it affects a woman's taste in men.

Birth Control Pills Affect Women's Taste in Men

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-pills-affect-womens-taste/

[deleted]

Rule 1. Removed.

I don't stalk you. I just have you tagged for what you believe in. It helps me sort through the crazy. So whenever I see a post from you, I know to disregard it because it has no place in the sane world.

I never mentioned "all". I said "most" hence majority opinions. It does exist.

You're questioning the mods reasoning, but they never said "most". They said "all". They never mentioned majority. They simply said the majority doesn't speak for everyone.

Further, I don't believe in holocaust revisionism, I don't believe 9/11 was a false flag, and I don't believe in the various space or alien or flat earth or Rods from God theories.

That's pretty much most of what this sub is about. What conspiracies do you believe?

I didn't mention banking did I? I didn't mention CIA or the fact that the Bush cabinet was made up of war criminals, did I?

Comments or posts that suggest 'all conspiracy theorists/alternative thinkers' believe the same ideas or theories are now subject to removal.

"All".

You know what, nevermind. If you can't see through the slow yet steadily increasing censorship on /r/conspiracy, then forget it.

Good afternoon dong,

Has axolotl asked you for a vote on the Richard Gage sticky throughout the month of September?

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3ht0z5/reddit_user_bigbowlowrong_takes_over_a_911/cub6e8m

All mod votes should be made public (thanks to flytape's latest wedge issue voted on by mods)

Have a good one

Since one mod didn't bring something to your attention you can safely say it's not happening?

Why won't you be the one to bring it up to the other mods?

Two redditors have already asked for this to be stickied. Will you be the driving force to make this happen?

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth

Here's the link.

Any post that makes the front page of /r/conspiracy has a chance of being a sticky

And if it's a mod, then they can sticky with 3 votes (now 5 bc flytape being a distraction).

A user is trying to gain support of other users and mods by stickying a very important Richard Gage C-SPAN interview for the month of September:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth

Will you help be the change you want in the world, or do nothing?

Are you aware that that link has already been posted here 6 times over the past year?

what's the difference between a post and a sticky?

That's 3 mods who are not supporting users who wish to sticky the Richard Gage C-SPAN interview.

Who's next?

I did NOT say I wouldn't support it. In fact I would vote to sticky it even though it's over a year old.

If you want it stickied, then submit it and ask the mod team through modmail to sticky it instead of just bitching about it in comment threads.

not supporting users

Users? Can you name one person other than yourself (not counting your alt accounts) who wants to sticky a year old video that's been posted 6 times before?

Come on brother. We're in this together. You KNOW I want to spread truth through Newton's laws of motion.

I'm not here trying to fuck with the mods. I'm here trying to get an apology (in the form of a serious dedication for a sticky of the REAL Richard Gage explaining what the fake ama did not) for last year's debacle of a 911 anniversary.

/u/dishonestcartooNIST is the user who came up with the idea for the Richard Gage sticky, since axolotl made the 'mistake,' there should be some sort of 'kith and make up' sort of thing, and what better way than during the this year's anniversary?

Cheers brother. We are in this together. Truth will prevail

That is all. Please don't take this as an insult to mods.

Edit: so if you and axolotl support it, we just need 3 other mods. You're a mod of /r/911truth, so you should be able to help out with your extensive knowledge of Richard's work and 911 truth!!!

I'm not here trying to fuck with the mods

Actually that's your 2nd most common contribution.

I would vote for an AMA with the real Richard Gage. But since Mr.Gage has apparently been contacted by a certain group of users here and he has claimed that he will never do an AMA here then I guess that's out of the question.

Honestly Gage has created an atmosphere that is toxic for independent thought and only rewards people who parrot his exact words. If you're not an architect or engineer then your opinion doesn't matter.

That all being said if the real Mr Gage would please stand up and do an AMA then I would vote for it, unfortunately I don't think Gage does speaking events if he doesn't get paid for it so I doubt that will happen.

A user is trying to gain support of other users and mods by stickying a very important Richard Gage C-SPAN interview for the month of September:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth

Will you help be the change you want in the world, or do nothing?

You attack the messenger and wax philosophically about an issue no one brought up.

Your contribution is distraction. It would be better if you decided to participate in the conversation.

since axolotl made the 'mistake,' there should be some sort of 'kith and make up' sort of thing, and what better way than during the this year's anniversary?

Sounds kind of like extortion.

Why not give the real Richard gage a chance to do an AMA to make up for mistakenly letting a fake Gage imposter do an AMA.

Oh right, he won't do one.

He won't do one because of your terrible judgement as a moderator. Literally.

The fake AMA was icing on the cake.

He is a moron then for walking away from a captive audience. I'm sure if we coughed up a few bucks he would suddenly have renewed interest.

And how do you know this information?

Damn. Your bias is evident in your passive aggressive comments. You really don't know how to carry yourself responsibly. Lol

I know him personally. Have a great night, wondering what you mods got cookin up for this September. Heh

You know him personally because you work for him?

I would never take pay to spread information on reddit. Many users do, mostly higher level subreddit moderators.

Even if I was a mod and someone offered me money to sticky a thread—let's say about abortion—I would never consider it.

You seem fixated on passive aggressive accusations rather than being a mature human being. You're a waste of time and a terrible moderator lol, stop harassing me please

How do you know him?

Quit deflecting and share some truth.

Also its kind of stupid to make a "passive aggressive" accusation... let's say, about abortion. Right before you accuse someone of being fixated on passive aggressive accusations.

Don't you think?

What?

Forgot how to English?

[deleted]

You aren't required to reply to me.

Also if you list more than 3 usernames it doesn't ping any of them.

You're welcome.

Lol

Anyone wanna tell this kid to stop harassing me? His questions and passive aggressive behavior are irresponsible and annoying as hell.

Please...Leave me alone Fly. Go bother someone else.

Oh no you don't. Both you and controlled-demo-wtc (same person?) have been antagonizing some of the mods here ever since your new accounts were created after being previously banned for personal attacks. Sure, you post some decent stuff but your behavior always makes it seem like you're intentionally torpedoing /r/conspiracy and the 9/11 Truth movement to boot.

This is your last warning. Knock off the personal attacks on users and mods or you're gone again. And if that happens, any more new accounts you create will also be banned on sight. And believe me, your tactics are very recognizable.

Edit: It would not surprise me in the least if you two (one?) were the fake Richard Gage and planned this whole scenario all along.

This is a message I sent to all mods three nights ago, under the consideration that (1) mod didn't like Richard Gage:

Hey guys, Sorry about the tone. I'm as aggressive as some of you. I know that's off putting, but shit don't get done unless people push for change. I see no one else trying to highlight the issue. Bull by the horns guys. This is the anniversary of the greatest OP the USA shadow government has ever pulled off. Problem is they forgot about Newton's laws of motion.

How about 4 stickies (1 per week, all 4 weeks of September) all pertaining to the controlled demolitions of the three towers? A physics lesson with David Chandler (can be a youtube w/o the ae911truth logo on it, just because)

A link to the New Pearl Harbor video with discussion. I am not affiliated with anyone or organization. Just need to make that clear for some.

A look at exploding debris with David Chandler (once again, non ae911truth related)

And maybe a general discussion on the last week pertaining to the general direction we've taken as a result of 9.11.01, which includes links to the first 3 weeks' discussions.

That's a suggestion all mods are welcome to think about.

Peace

[deleted]

Rule 10. Removed. You were given fair warning. Bye.

You attack the messenger and wax philosophically about an issue no one brought up.

It would be better if you decided to participate in the conversation.

Let me know when you feel like joining the conversation. I'll wait patiently while you get this temper tantrum out of your system.

Oh right, I already said your contribution is distraction.

Here's the video 2 users would like stickied for the month of September:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth

Are you voting yes or no?

I vote no because you insist on weaving my name into your extortion.

I would support that even if it wasn't a "bargain". Although I'll admit it'll be nice to not relive that event every other day...

• /u/axolotl_peyotl

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3ht0z5/reddit_user_bigbowlowrong_takes_over_a_911/cubbkz2

Seems you are once again at odds with the moderating team.

The mod team almost never agrees on 100% on anything so that isn't much of a shocker. We are okay with not agreeing 100% on anything.

Would you please stop these phony "gottcha" posts? Nobody is impressed.

Lete spell it out to you, there is a lot more to this community than AE911TRUTH.org, we don't adopt official positions on conspiracy theories.

Ae911truth is equally welcome here as Judy Woods or flat earth. This is a generic conspiracy theory sub. Each of the mods are individuals who are welcome to hold whatever opinions they wish and we do so regularly.

Every time something is posted or stickied that isn't ae911truth, it isn't the end of the world. As a matter of fact I was invited to mod the 911 centric subs and I declined because its not really my thing. So as hard as this is going to be for you to believe, I'm really not here to sabotage the ae911truth movement but because of their intolerance for outsiders they have chose to repeatedly sabotage me as well as other mods here.

So when your suggestions about ae911truth stickies aren't received with enthusiastic jubilation perhaps you should reflect on your past behavior towards the mods here instead of doubling down on more of the same behavior!

we don't adopt official positions on conspiracy theories.

Strawman much? No one is asking for an official position. Do you think stickies equal an official position? That's a disingenuous argument and no one's falling for it.

their (ae911truth) intolerance for outsiders they have chose to repeatedly sabotage me

Proof of this outlandish claim would be welcome.

as well as other mods here.

proof?

when your suggestions about ae911truth stickies aren't received with enthusiastic jubilation

There was one suggestion to make up for last year's debacles (that's where the plural comes in!). I was not the user who brought it up either.

Please pay better attention. Stop generalizing. Thanks.

One stipulation will violate the "bargain." NO DISTRACTIONS from those in power (I'm looking at you sidebar) during that 30 day stint of Richard Gage goodness.

This sounds a lot like you want the entire month of September to be a Richard Gage festival. Not going to happen. There are dozens of 9-11 theories and they are all equally welcome here. And some people don't even want to talk about 9-11 so they talk about other things. I think 30 days of anything is a stupid idea, one that isn't going to happen.

I think 30 days of anything is a stupid idea, one that isn't going to happen.

Why are you acting as if this is your sub and the final decision is yours to make?

You just made a claim about being attacked personally by ae911truth advocates and yet you show no proof.

One stipulation will violate the "bargain." NO DISTRACTIONS from those in power (I'm looking at you sidebar) during that 30 day stint of Richard Gage goodness.

That means no inflammatory Hitler docs during the anniversary. I'm surprised you forgot about the huge uproar last year by that ill-informed decision.

their (ae911truth) intolerance for outsiders they have chose to repeatedly sabotage me

Proof of this claim?

Its not my final decision to make, but I've been around here long enough to know that nothing survives a sticky for a month. Its a greedy idea to dominate an entire month. There is no way it would ever pass a vote.

There is no way it would ever pass a vote.

.

Its not my final decision to make

Cognitive dissonance much?

their (ae911truth) intolerance for outsiders they have chose to repeatedly sabotage me

Proof of this claim? That's twice you've ignored calls to back up your 'claims' with proof.

You don't prove any of your claims against me so why should I?

their (ae911truth) intolerance for outsiders they have chose to repeatedly sabotage me

You're lying. Got it.

LOL

Lol

I'm not here trying to fuck with the mods

Actually that's your 2nd most common contribution.

...and how many times have thefuckingtoe unicornghost6969 certain people been banned from here for stuff like this? (edited because someone was butthurt about the original phrasing)

...unfortunately I don't think Gage does speaking events if he doesn't get paid for it so I doubt that will happen.

I find it most ironic that the poster boy for many of those who cry "shill! shill!" is, himself, a shill.

Yep.

calling people shills is actually against the rules here.

Rule 10

• /u/flytape

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3hofbm/i_dont_know_whether_to_laugh_or_cry/cua5tbe

Enforce rules when it suits you.

Mr gage isn't a user here.

how many times has thefuckingtoe unicornghost6969 this guy been banned

Enforce rules when it suits you.

asking questions doesn't violate rule 10.

Please stop pestering me.

Rule 2 Rule 10

I will stop pestering you (even though you started the conversation and now have to order users to stop b/c we might be banned by conversing). Please stop responding to me. Have a great day.

Wolf! Wolf! Look everyone there is a wolf!

Please stop pestering me. - /u/flytape

Do as I say, not as I do.

This sounds like a pretty reasonable request since 9/11 is around the corner. Of course, if it is not a popular link then I could understand if mods don't think it is worthwhile. Personally, I think Chandler's work is the best thing to start a newbie out with and would be fine with getting his video stickied too.

I don't want to be accused of spamming, but the PM I sent the mods 4 days ago (still unanswered) is based on David Chandler. Great minds think alike!

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3i7lpo/has_ae911truth_been_infiltrated_by_government/cuh0zzl

So I really don't have a dog in this fight, but it really looks to me that /u/dishonestcartooNIST and /u/controlled-demo-wtc are actually sock puppet accounts, and are the same person trying to gain manufactured consent here. Maybe I'm wrong here, and maybe you'll correct me, but that's what it seems like to me.

I am not a sock puppet account for demo-wtc. Not sure how to prove that...

And I don't want the mods censoring your post for violation of Rule 10. Lol, I can see why you think we're the same dude.

peace

How is that breaking rule number 10 to say you might be a sock puppet account? I never called you a shill, or your alt.

Idk, the mods always delete my shit for saying what you did haha

We're in this together.

But we don't go about it in the same way. I prefer to stick to posting information and making comments without personal attacks on other users or insulting mods.

In no way am picking sides here, but it would be really cool if there was a way to participate as a subscriber of what the next sticky post would be. Whether it be a weekly public poll, or online vote, or some other way to more collectively participate, I think it would be a great thing for this sub.

As for this specific video, I've never seen it personally, but after this exchange between the two of you, I am on my way to YT now :)

Last year the mods did this and it died down after they removed the 9/11 documentary feature, and posted hitler and holocaust stuff during September. There's a clique behind the scenes my friend. The moderating here is compromised.

Alright. I'd be happier without your type here, if this is your way of saying you're leaving.

That's like just your opinion. Relax.

It absolutely is, and like you, I'm entitled to have and express it.

So is majority opinion now just a fairy tale?

Majority opinion about what? You have to be specific. After you've stated specifically what you're referring to, then provide us with evidence which confirms your belief that this is the majority opinion. What analysis have you done? If you can properly evidence your claim, then I don't think anybody will have a problem.

But of course the OP isn't simply talking about wonky -- but innocent -- assumptions about "majority opinion". He's talking about deliberate false syllogisms where you might say:-

Subject A believes this.

Subject A is part of group X.

Therefore group X must believe it too.

It is a fairy-tale so far as this community goes. I suppose you could say "all conspiracy buffs are distrustful of authority" or something like that, but I doubt they would remove such an innocuous statement.

[deleted]

I've seen the shills who sit in the /new queue say

"You're posting too much about topic x, over 5 posts in the row, this is spamming!" when topic x just happens to be one of the top subjects being targeted for censorship. Next they message a mod and try to twist their arm to do something, fortunately the mods haven't fallen for it so far.

It is spamming

when you constantly

reply to yourself

to make a single point

as you often do

Great point? Allow me to retort.

"No crying" - how condescending. Also, I want to point out something:

No crying about content with which you disagree. No lobbying for banning certain topics.

These are two different things. I don't think topics should be banned. But I will express my disagreement for theories I think are either unfounded and ridiculous and/or thinly veiled racism. I have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Stormfront does brigade this subreddit. I don't think their obviously racist posts should be removed, but that's absolutely not the same thing as saying "no crying about content". That's just another way of saying "no passionately disagreeing with posts", which is absurd.

I know the Duke thread being referred to, and I admit the one guy in there was being a bit immature and hard-headed. But such a blanket statement of "no crying" is again, condescending to say the very least.

I have this feeling you're not a conspiracy theorist. Why are you here, when it sounds like you should be carrying out your jihad over at Stromfront?

Your feeling is wrong. I do subscribe to some theories. Just not all.

I do subscribe to some theories.

Like what?

• I think JFK was likely killed by the CIA, which implicates those in power in the CIA at the time: Namely, then-future-, now-former- president George HW Bush. Which brings about greater suspicion of his sons.

• I think that a global and near-ubiquitous banking cartel has manipulated the powers of government in almost every country on the planet towards the ends of keeping their own power. I think this bit of conspiracy has been on-going for over two centuries.

• I think 9/11 was not a false-flag operation, nor an operation condoned by 'the US government'. That being said, I believe that a certain group within the government (neo-cons and the military industrial complex) knew it was being planned - at the very least - and did nothing, or at worst, facilitated the planning and execution of the event, in order to draw the US into a "war on terror". Subtle difference between a false flag and this - a government commits a false flag. This wasn't done by 'the government', it was done by a corrupt group within the government, and I recognize the difference.

  This was done to create the demand for weapons and weapons technology, creating a new arms race. The difference though, is that this arms race is against a bogeyman who, while I don't deny the existence of, is very much inflated. I'm speaking of course of Terrorism. I think that many, but not all, terrorist attacks are encouraged by certain pockets of the government in collusion with keeping the war on terror going. Note: This does not include the 'staging' of terrorist attacks. While I don't discount that it could happen, I also haven't seen any evidence to the affect that I consider conclusive, so I reserve my judgement.

• I have my suspicions regarding Edward Snowden. He was covered by the media far too well for it to be anything but condoned by the government in a big way. If the mass media can be convinced to keep quiet about JFK and TPP decades apart, they'd be told to shut up about Snowden if they were at all worried about what was being done. They aren't. Further, Snowden is a liar and no better than Bradley, in my eyes: He claims to have read the documents prior to handing them off, but when questioned point blank, he dodged the question. It happened on John Oliver's show. The guy wasn't just a data-analyst, he was a counter-intelligence trainer: He taught classes on being a convincing liar. He had a very long history with various intelligence agencies. I think he should be arrested as a traitor and convicted as one too, however keep in mind: He was a civilian, not military. Therefor, his punishment would almost certainly be less than that of Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

Shall I continue? I could.

Yes, you should. What are your opinions of Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon Bombings?

Sad events. I don't see conspiracy in every event.

So....specifically, You are saying Sandy Hook and The Boston Marathon Bombings aren't conspiracy's?

I'm saying I don't believe them to be.

[deleted]

but only because they deserve it.

By all means, let's all sit down and decide who deserves to be condescended. I'd love that conversation.

No crying about content with which you disagree. No lobbying for banning certain topics.

This is one of the shills first ports of call:-

• Can you find a way of getting the offending thread removed or the user banned? YES/NO

• If YES, well done!

• If NO, start ad hominem attacks, use fake upvotes to take top comment, censor most informative posts with -15 downvotes

• Blah...

Is this the post you are speaking about specifically? I kind of feel responsible if so, as I posted it.

I'd really like to identify here what exactly in this post you what you felt was inappropriate material, or offended you. I actually felt it was a very genuine and heartfelt debate, on both sides, and was one of the best discussions I've ever had on reddit. The video was a powerful video on its own, you have to realize it's going to elicit a powerful response on both sides of the argument, whoever's side you agree with.

What exactly got you so upset in here?

Getting rid of subs like this one is definitely going to be phase 2 of reddit's transformation.

Be aware that interested parties will try to frame this community.

Yep. That'll be interesting to see - giving more fuel to the fire of "what are they trying to hide?"

Yea, and if they want to do that they need to come thru me.

Fucking bring it.

/u/sarah_connor, perms back. Pls.

So we can't say bad things about Islam, Israel. Or Americans?

:)

That's nasty.

Get a room, guys.

At withering pines estate

Responding to this just because it's tangentially related - can the mods please try to watch out a little more for antisemitism? There is a fine line that goes from Israel does bad things and manipulates the US to do nothing about it --> Jewish elite do this everywhere and control the world --> blanket statements about Jews.

I am not Jewish or Israeli. But I think less of this sub every time I see bullshit antisemitic comments that don't get removed, because that doesn't at all demonstrate a community of people willing to evaluate evidence like adults.

We allow anyone to express their beliefs here, regardless of what those beliefs are, as long as they stay within the rules of Reddit and /r/Conspiracy. That is not going to change.

Good.

The truth is antisemitic

[deleted]

Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed.

6 million tears flowing while I laugh

[deleted]

Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed.

What a genocidal thing to say.

It's a trick. We always use it

Wow, it's like that bibi in the illegal settlers home video

No abusive/threatening language.

No stalking or trolling.

Accusing another user of being a troll or shill can be viewed as an attack, depending on context.

Misleading, fabricated or sensationalist headlines are subject to removal.

Are these actually going to be enforced for once? Would love to see actual moderating happening. It would greatly raise the quality of this sub.

Prob not, mods do as they please most of the time around here with impunity.

Mostly if you call em out nothing happens and everyone forgets rather quickly.

Just like the "NO CAPS" rule was broken by the mods no more than about a week and half ago.

Wow, almost 330,000 subscribers.....We have grown big time since I first got here. I have noticed that we have less hard core researchers and more activist types now. But in reality this has stayed a good sub. It was never perfect and had some bumps in the road, but has always been good.

Fuck ya! My fave sub (although harder to find gems with the influx of people). 330k is damn impressive and puts us on a radar the elite fucking despise.

Accusing another user of being a troll or shill can be viewed as an attack, depending on context

what if its obvious?

Sometimes it's so obvious, and the shills absolutely despise being exposed as it means they lose, so they'll try all they can to 1) get your post removed, and/or 2) downvote it out of sight

I've been called an obvious shill a number of times. It's a useless ad hominem attack: If I'm a shill but my arguments are valid and the facts are true, then so what? Likewise, if I'm not a shill, and my facts are wholly wrong and arguments riddled with fallacies, does that make the argument better?

Argue the point, not the person. If the shill is so obvious and spreading falsehood, it should be easy to argue that, no?

Edit - Watch how this works: let's pretend that the rule against calling someone a shill was removed. Anyone can call someone a shill now.

Well what's the point of a shill? To derail discussion. It's not to guide discussion, not here - it's to derail it entirely. To make /r/conspiracy look bad. Right? Well there's no faster way to derail discussion of a topic than to call someone presenting a cogent argument, a shill.

Therefor, a shill would argue that calling someone a shill here should be allowed, as that would be their easiest-to-use tool to derail any given discussion.

Therefor, I could argue that /u/TheCocaineFairy (and you) are obvious shills, because shills want to be able to call people shills, as it would serve their purposes easier than real arguments.

This is why it's useless to call someone a shill, unless your goal is actually to derail the conversation.

Me and you both know that you can distinguish the difference between a normal person and a shill just by looking at their history. If the account was made that day and they are constantly arguing about the same thing then they are most likely a shill. Example: there was a poster saying that holocaust revisionism was bullshit and we should just blindly accept the official story because 6 million. I lurked them and noticed that the only thing they would post was defending the official story of the holocaust. Also, if someone is going to preach the wonders of GMOs and tell me how I should drink monsanto's glyphosate because its safe, well then they are a shill by default, or a troll.

What other topics shouldn't be allowed up for discussion? How long should a user have existed prior to being able to speak without immediately being suspect?

And no, you don't speak for me.

Edit: Also you ignored everything I wrote. Address my argument please: Calling a person a shill to the point of discrediting their argument is, definitively, an ad hominem attack, and only derails conversation.

If someone called me a shill, depending on what they said, I would either defend myself or lol it and move on. I wouldn't get all crazy about it or spend much time thinking of it either because I know it's not true. I feel that basically everyone who isn't a shill would react pretty much the same way, and wouldn't cry to the mods or the subreddit for protection or censorship simply because of that. And I don't feel that it derails the conversation if the user is shilly and others call it out, it is useful information.

Reporting the violation of a posted rule is not "crying to the mods for protection", it's expecting everyone here to play by the posted rules.

This is my point with regards to the "crying" comment: There's a big group of people here who treat any dissent as 'crying', and that's a form of censorship in and of itself.

And I don't feel that it derails the conversation if the user is shilly and others call it out, it is useful information.

It isn't useful because it can't be evidenced. 99.9% of those called a 'shill' are just... called a shill, there's no evidence for them being shills. The only 'evidence' is "what they're arguing", which is again - indicative that calling someone a shill is only to shut up the disagreeing argument.

Well, I believe the rule is there because of all the crying and probably a lot of abuse directed towards the mods by these whiners lol. I think they can also be really nasty and aggressive.

If they act, talk, and walk like a shill, then we really shouldn't need their employee id to state our observations. That's just my feeling. I definitely don't agree with the rule.

I call out racist pricks all the time: Mods don't seem to mind me. I welcome them to chime in on that note.

There's nothing wrong with being aggressive. I'm aggressive. I'm also civil.

If they act, talk, and walk like a shill

The problem is that to many, yourself included, "not agreeing with [insert theory here]" is enough to claim they're 'acting like a shill'.

I definitely don't agree with the rule.

And thankfully you're not a mod, so I don't care. You're still subject to the rule while you comment and post here.

I didn't say it was or wasn't wrong. I said that my feeling is that the rule is probably partially there because of those users that are aggressive towards the mods until they censor those users who call them shills.

The problem is that to many, yourself included, "not agreeing with [insert theory here]" is enough to claim they're 'acting like a shill'.

/r/conspiracy isn't a place of absolute factual information, but is about observations, analysis, and discussion.

So, I feel that because of that, it shouldn't be a problem. Free thinking should include a user's thoughts, feelings, and observations about other users in here as well.

I shouldn't have to explain and give all my proof for why I think a certain user is a shill, every single time I want to make other users aware of that user acting shilly. That's just me though, obviously they disagree, but I think it's hypocritical, but at the same time I understand because of the abuse they probably receive.

These shilly people who hang out here basically state that conspiracy theorists are the types of people who would go to their houses after certain discussions because of how crazy and irrational they are, but in actuality I feel that it's the opposite, they are truly the aggressive ones.

Free thinking should include a user's thoughts, feelings, and observations about other users in here as well.

Then what's wrong with racial slurs? Aren't those 'thoughts, feelings and observations'?

Calling someone a shill, as if it means anything, is an ad-hominem attack. Period. End of story. It's useless, and only serves to derail discussion. Not one bit of good comes from it.

When I've pointed someone out to be shilly, it's not to make a show of it or to intentionally hurt that user, it is to make people aware of the shillyness of that user. You might not think it's important, but I do because I feel that it is manipulative and deceptive behavior. It's not useless because it can protect others from falling into their traps.

it is to make people aware of the shillyness of that user

... in an effort to discredit their words and arguments, right. Got it. My point exactly: It's an ad-hominem attack. It doesn't address their argument.

it can protect others from falling into their traps..

Oh please. What's the trap here? "Believing what I don't agree with". Thank god we have someone like you to "protect us" from such ideas.

You're just trying to get people to ignore other people's arguments, and you're doing so by ad-hominem attacks, not by disproving their arguments.

Again: There is no better form of subversive censorship than calling someone a shill. Calling someone a shill is, itself, manipulative behavior.

Edit: If you can prove they're a shill, I mean really evidence it? Then no problem. But the fact is that you can't prove it 99.999% of the time.

No, I would state their shillyness, and then it's up to the users to decide on how that information is used.

People do not need language or ideas censored. They can decide on their own about what should be ignored or retained.

This is supposed to be a free speech platform. We aren't in a professional setting or anything.

No it's not 'up to the user': The information has no use. It's not even information. It's just an insult, and further, one that can't be argued against.

"/u/kebutankie is a Nazi. I know it. He's working for the Rothschilds. It's patently obvious."

Prove that statement wrong.

It's no better than calling someone a racial slur: It serves no argument. It's just an insult. A faceless, baseless insult which has nothing to do with the argument.

This is supposed to be a free speech platform.

I agree: This is my point. Calling someone a shill reduces that free speech. It doesn't refute any argument they might have made. Not even a tiny bit. It is useless, unless your purpose is derailment (making you a shill). It's not promoting free speech either. It's debasing it.

And again: The mods know this and they agree. Hence the rule.

Show me that I'm a Nazi. Quote me.

Now, I'm just starting to feel that you're a defender of the craft. Just telling you how I feel.

We know that astroturfing is a thing now. Do you feel that it is okay to do and that we shouldn't point out users who could possibly be involved with it?

It's obvious. In fact that's exactly what a Nazi-shill would do: Carefully avoid making any direct Nazi-related quotes, then demand someone prove it any time they're caught red-handed. Edit: You also didn't explicitly deny you work for the Rothschilds. Case closed.

(Note: This is of course just demonstrating my point, I don't honestly think you are. I'm simply using the exact same logic that those who call people shills use.)

Then I would lol and tell everyone to read through my comment history to learn more about me. Done.

And if I called you a Nazi each and every time you posted? Same guy, telling you, the other same guy, every time? Would that still be okay? I assure you, not all users care to browse a history: Many will just assume it's a fact because they read it.

This happens. I have a list of users who call me a shill any time I respond to anything they say. Some have followed me out of this subreddit to do so. It's why I have use an alt here. This isn't my main account.

Sure, go for it.

No, that's not true. Many will not just assume that it's a fact just because they read it. Most people aren't that stupid lol.

If they see it too, it will confirm their own suspicions. If they don't see it, they can decide to either be more aware of it and that user or they will ignore it.

Sure, go for it.

This is just to say "the rules are stupid, I don't need them, I can take it".

That's kinda like a dude-bro seeing a "No Guns or Knives" sign and screaming, "That's stupid, I can handle 'em - come at me bro!".

Might feel nice and strong to say that but it makes you sound like a child who doesn't like rules. If you don't like the rules here, by all means: Break them. Faster you do the faster you're booted from the sub.

I can protect myself because I'm not a shill and I wouldn't have to work as hard to prove that I'm not one, which definitely isn't the case for shills and probably the main reason why they work so hard to make sure that the rule stays. And like I said, I feel that the rule is hypocritical, but I can understand why it's implemented.

It's not about 'working hard' it's about 'often'. If all you are doing is denying allegations of being a shill, you're not discussing anything else.

Further, I can show exactly the opposite using my own logic: Shills don't want the rule to stay, shills want the rule to go, because there's no easier way to derail conversation than by calling people shills. It'd be giving them an invaluable tool.

Therefore, you're probably just a shill. Get my point?

You can address it and then discuss or ignore the other points, it's not difficult.

If that's your logic and people agree with you, I doubt it though, then it won't bother me at all.

What's to disagree with?

A shill is trying to derail a conversation, are they not?

Is calling someone a shill not a derailment? Does it otherwise contribute to the argument at hand? No: It only addresses the supposed motives of the speaker, not the argument itself.

If you can't see this logic, you're not using any. And again, you might 'doubt it' that others see this logic, but the mods do: hence the rule.

It does contribute to the discussion, because if the user is a shill, then the argument/debate is dishonest from the beginning. It's a huge waste of energy. If that user is shilly, and is called out by another, then others can confirm their own suspicions, look through their history to see any evidence for themselves, be more aware of it, or completely ignore it. We are just going in circles now though. We have different perspectives. Let's just leave it at that.

It does contribute to the discussion, because if the user is a shill, then the argument/debate is dishonest from the beginning.

Not the case: If the user is a shill then they're being paid to present the arguments they are. Are the arguments valid or not? This is the point of debate: Address the argument, not the speaker.

First5 California right? They pay people to promote talking, reading, and signing to your children. Does that mean I should not talk, read, or sing to my newborn, simply because someone's been paid to say a thing? Absolutely not.

Further: Stormfront, right? They brigade this sub. I've shown the evidence of that, beyond the shadow of a doubt. But they're not getting paid. Does that mean they don't have an ulterior motive or an agenda? Absolutely not.

It's a huge waste of energy

So is trying to show you how to use logic.

Then they should state and willingly admit that they are shills or are paid. Being a shill doesn't necessarily mean that they are paid. They could just be connected to its risks or benefits.

I would address only the argument if they were honest about it. Since they are not, I should be able to address both.

Being a shill doesn't necessarily mean that they are paid.

Now we've come full circle: A shill is just someone you don't agree with. If they're not being paid, then what possible motive do they have? Their own beliefs? I shudder to think what would happen if we start letting people talk about those here.

I mean really: this is looking more and more like the "SJW" label that reddit uses to brand anyone they don't like. A "shill" to you is just someone who argues against you with arguments you can't address properly, so you insult them with some name with a made-up definition of your own.

I added more to that since I figured that you would state that.

You assume honesty or dishonesty based on your acceptance of lack thereof of their argument. You don't use evidence because you can't prove any person is a shill without doxxing. I'm done here.

I just realized that you are trying to tell me what I think a shill is, lol.

I don't call everyone who disagrees with me a shill. Just users who obviously seem like shills lol.

Have a great day :) *cough shill

I just realized that you are trying to tell me what I think a shill is, lol.

Actually, I was trying to tell you what a shill is. What you think of the definition means nothing. My subjective opinion on the definition of the color blue doesn't change the actual color of the sky. There is an objective definition of 'shill', and it heavily implies compensation in one form or another. I cannot think of a single time when it wouldn't.

Good day to you as well bud.

So you're telling me that a shill definitely has to be paid directly? Did you consider that there may be people who will act enthusiastically about a product because they are somehow tied in with its risks or benefits? Maybe part of another industry that can be affected for example.

Compensated, not paid directly. They have to have something 'in it for them'. That covers those people who act enthusiastically about a product because they're tied to its demise or success (see 50 Cent, Vitamin Water, and his 'pump and dump' stock scheme).

If they aren't getting compensated in any way, then what's the difference between that 'shill' and a person who just honestly believes a thing? Answer me this, if nothing else.

Well, if they aren't affected by the product's profit, losses, success, or failure, then they probably wouldn't seem shilly at all lol.

Are you trying to tell me that shills don't exist or something?

We're getting somewhere.

How can you prove that a particular user stands to benefit? We'll use me as an example: I've been called a shill for Nestle. Something fierce. All because I defended the use of baby formula for mothers who need to supplement their breast milk. In that thread I was called a shill no less than a dozen times by as many users.

How could someone evidence that I stood to gain from Nestle's 'good' reputation? I mean really: What could they point to? Nothing but my personal financial statements. Information that isn't available on the internet. Hardcore doxxing, enough to be IP-banned from reddit entirely.

Use any other instance you like: How can someone show this 'shilly behavior'? I'm not even arguing shills don't exist – they absolutely do – but even I can't figure how I might go about proving a specific user is a shill while staying within the confines of the rules of this sub and of reddit at large.

I get what you're saying, but to me, absolute proof isn't necessary. It's an observation and an assumption of the user based on whatever evidence. Just like how most of us here will be labeled as conspiracy theorists, even when we don't bring up a conspiracy. Do we go all ape-shit about it or even focus that much on it? No. lol.

If someone chooses to label us, then that is their choice, but we should have the same choice.

Implementing this anti-shill-claim rule protects users/shills who probably don't even belong in this sub, more than the users who claim it as their home.

Me and you both know that you can distinguish the difference between a normal person and a shill just by looking at their history.

No you can't.

Also, if someone is going to preach the wonders of GMOs and tell me how I should drink monsanto's glyphosate because its safe, well then they are a shill by default, or a troll.

Ah, so you just have no idea what you're talking about, and are one of the many who call those who disagree a shill.

False, its nearly impossible to discover a shill.

A quick glance at their user history will only confirm their bias, bias doesn't make a shill.

Actual shills typically use multiple accounts and there is often a subtle association you can discover between these groups of accounts. But not always.

A quick glance at their user history will only confirm their bias, bias doesn't make a shill.

Glad to hear someone of authority hear say this. Shill accusations are rampant here, and they serve to shut down conversation immediately. That said,I've noticed that enforcement of this rule seems better lately.

One thing I have noticed however is that regular and long term users of this sub seem to be exempt from this rule. There are a number of users (won't name anyone specific, but you can go to any vaccine or 911 related thread to see it) who make it a habit to call about anyone who disagrees with them a shill and never seem to have any warnings levelled against them, despite being reported.

Are prominent users being protected by mods? Do you stand by this differential treatment?

I don't believe prominent users are being protected.

I will however give a user more chances to follow the rules after warnings if they have demonstrated in the past that they can contribute positively to the sub. Let's be honest here, even if we ban someone they aren't gone for good so the last thing I was to do is make a potentially good user into a guaranteed bad one.

Now if someone is named "rich_white_man" and their first contribution involves calling people niggers... I probably won't even warn them before I ban. These are some cases that aren't even worth hearing.

I don't believe prominent users are being protected.

Glad you don't think so, but a cursory glance at populated threads of the topics I mentioned there are recognizable users habitually engaging in this behaviour. In fact, I can think of one occasion where a mod expressed admiration for another user's comment in which they called me a shill.

I will however give a user more chances to follow the rules after warnings if they have demonstrated in the past that they can contribute positively to the sub.

That is fair.

Let's be honest here, even if we ban someone they aren't gone for good so the last thing I was to do is make a potentially good user into a guaranteed bad one.

I actually am not pursuing banning of any users. As this issue if largely related to promoting mature discussion, I would argue a public warning from moderators explaining why accusations are against the rules (it's dishonest and unfalsifiable) would be far more productive. It can be a standard copy-paste, and I think public displays of the rule being enforced would go a long way to changing the culture here.

Now if someone is named "rich_white_man" and their first contribution involves calling people niggers... I probably won't even warn them before I ban. These are some cases that aren't even worth hearing.

Absolutely. Basically trolls.

I think we generally agree.

I'll try to keep a better eye out, that report button helps.

Good to hear!

I use the report button often, and will continue

I'll try to keep a better eye out, that report button helps.

Sometimes. I've had one user (since shadowbanned) stalk me across multiple threads in /r/conspiracy, calling me a Jewish shill and hurling invective and just obvious abuse over the space three or four days. In between the posts, he was sending me bizarre PMs encouraging me to kill myself. These were reported to the admins.

Instead of engaging him, I asked him to stop and reported the posts. To this day, his posts remain - this is just one example of about a half dozen other threads where he was doing the same thing. Because these posts were reported, this means they were looked at and approved by a moderator - which the mod log at the time clearly showed. I can't imagine the same leniency being afforded to me, a non-conspiracist, if I engaged in this way with a believer.

Anyway, the same mod log showed you tried to deal with the user with a ban, I'm guessing you were either overruled or changed your mind. /u/SovereignMan is also very fair at enforcing the rules against trolling here, if he's around he can be counted on to take the reports on their merits.

Unfortunately the other mods, from what I've seen, are very patchy and may exhibit less neutrality when the "victim" of the trolling isn't a conspiracist. Either that or they just don't remove trolls, no matter how obvious, in any circumstance.

Just sayin'.

That user was banned for his actions and agreed to stop doing these things.

I was the one who banned him, and I was the one who unbanned him. There were no other mods overruling me although we do have an understanding in place where a mod can be overruled by the other mods, to create balance.

SM does seem to be a very fair mod, as do all the mods I work with.

I think we all tend to bias on the side of conspiracy theorists because this subreddit belongs to conspiracy theorists. That being said we expect everyone to follow the rules regardless of their alignment with the term 'conspiracy theorist'.

Thanks for the reply and I appreciate that you did step in and stop it, really.

Can I start naming people then?

If you think you found something, take it to mod mail.

Otherwise it violates rule 10

The problem with allowing real users here to call others "troll" or "shill" is that we would then have to allow trolls/shills to call the real users here "troll" or "shill". Then we would get, as we have in the past, threads degrading into dozens of name calling comments, thus distracting from the topic at hand.

Those days were as silly as Camelot.

I guess. But we can imply that they are shilling subtly?

I guess that depends on just how "subtle" it is. By the same token, would you want readers here to see comments from them implying "subtly" that you are a troll/shill?

You guys should be more laissez-faire and just let us go to war.

Absolutely not.

That is a fast track to a useless sub where no conversation ever happens.

I agree. Fuck the political correctness and attempts to stifle the conversation based on something as flimsy as being called out as a shill. That's a pretty weak rule IMHO.

It would be used against regular users a thousand fold more than it was used against shills.

We have been there and done that, it wasn't fun.

Maybe people should engage in debate without dismissing the other side's arguments by resorting to ad hominem attacks.

If you think someone's a shill, out argue them. Don't just scream "shill" and ignore them. Otherwise, the guy who happens upon the thread and happens to be ignorant of the facts of the matter will see a convincing argument rather and become better educated, rather than what looks like an attempt to dodge the debate and remaining ignorant.

No.

depending on context

And on that note can we quit it with the:

"This kind of stuff is giving /r/conspiracy a bad name."

Literally no one cares.

We can quit with that when we also quit with the "fake snow" theories.

This sub has been alive for more than 7 years and we still need to remind people how to be responsible and respectful? Wow!

Fair enough.

humans still act like humans? who would have thought...

Thank you!

Comments or posts that suggest 'all conspiracy theorists/alternative thinkers' believe the same ideas or theories are now subject to removal. The moderators will not tolerate the notion that an audience of 300,000+ people all believe the same thing. Comments of this nature are ignorant

This is awesome. I agree 100%. This sub should not perpetuate the 'sheep' vs 'tin foil hats' polarization. We are all in this together.

So, I really think it would be very helpful if this post is going to be stickied here, to provide some examples of the things we are trying to keep at a minimum. The overly-broad, and politically correct request is ambiguously vague and confusing to me.

As a new contributer here, I can't fully decipher if this is directed at me, or something I may have posted, and if it is, I'd like to ensure that I don't continue doing it, and adhere to the rules here.

It would really help if the mods here would leave a few examples of posts that they saw that they weren't happy with and thought may have broken a rule. If one of my posts is included, I really won't be offended in the slightest.

This is so silly. Nanny conspiracy site. This plus sucks anymore. Oops did I just break a rule? I'm sorry.

just glad that stickied propaganda about planned parenthood is finally gone. and this is a problem with the rules, if i can't complain in comment threads about an obvious abuse of power like that was, then what? send a private message to the mods that will never see the light of day, and likely have no bearing on what you do anyways (highlighted by you reinstating /u/flytape)? come on. if you don't want a lot of the behavior you describe in these rules, you have a problem in your own ranks you need to take care of first, because that problem is the source of half the bullshit in this sub.

just glad that stickied propaganda about planned parenthood is finally gone.

It was gone hours after it was stickied.

But I'm glad you're back to witch hunt me some more.

Lol last time I checked the rules they were being broken every post. REMEMBER NO CAPS LOCK!

Derisive slurs against people's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, social order or creed are not tolerated.

So no more talk of Zionism, then?

No abusive/threatening language.

Please define this.

this would be a credible subreddit if this rule was applied: "Misleading, fabricated or sensationalist headlines are subject to removal."

You mean a censored useless sub like all the others?

No one comes to reddit to get the information the mainstream already agrees on. If they wanted that they would read their newspaper headlines .

Forget "credible" . Well make up our own minds thank you.

I'd rather read about a B52 being found on the moon than some MSM bullshit about Syria any day.

It way better than that Bernie loving sub /r/politics!

shit

this thread sums me up.

:v)

All hail lord /u/mr_dong. Well said.

Especially the blanket statement.

Derisive slurs against people's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, social order or creed are not tolerated.

This rule is unnecessary. I've been on here every day for six years and never once seen this.

Hate to see r/conspiracy having so ma y hoops like all the other subreddits.

Just let people post and we can decide oursleves whether it deserves upvotes or not.

And i have nothing against all caps.

The anti all caps people are the silliest of the grammer nazis.

Approximately two people in the whole world care about all caps.

Thanks for posting this mods.

OP IS A SHILL!!!!

j/k mr_dong, obviously :P

Excellent. Time to get rid of the Stormfront gang.

You can try

And so it begins.

The Ghost of Chairman Pao?

I cannot unsee that. Thanks a lot!

Annnd im still shadowbanned

No, you're not.

I see your shadow.

Comments or posts that suggest 'all conspiracy theorists/alternative thinkers' believe the same ideas or theories are now subject to removal.

That's like just your opinion. Relax.

Ok /u/lucycohen aka "Gay People gome from stuff in the water"

Do you have any evidence this mod ever acted against the best interests of this sub?

Cant say I have ever seen this mod, or heard of anything they've done negatively in this sub myself. I'd be very interested if you have anything more concrete then pure speculation on your part that you could share.

I agree. Fuck the political correctness and attempts to stifle the conversation based on something as flimsy as being called out as a shill. That's a pretty weak rule IMHO.

I would support that even if it wasn't a "bargain". Although I'll admit it'll be nice to not relive that event every other day...

• /u/axolotl_peyotl

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3ht0z5/reddit_user_bigbowlowrong_takes_over_a_911/cubbkz2

Seems you are once again at odds with the moderating team.

Please stop pestering me. - /u/flytape

Do as I say, not as I do.

Absolutely not.

That is a fast track to a useless sub where no conversation ever happens.

Show me that I'm a Nazi. Quote me.

Now, I'm just starting to feel that you're a defender of the craft. Just telling you how I feel.

We know that astroturfing is a thing now. Do you feel that it is okay to do and that we shouldn't point out users who could possibly be involved with it?

Last year the mods did this and it died down after they removed the 9/11 documentary feature, and posted hitler and holocaust stuff during September. There's a clique behind the scenes my friend. The moderating here is compromised.

Prob not, mods do as they please most of the time around here with impunity.

Mostly if you call em out nothing happens and everyone forgets rather quickly.

Just like the "NO CAPS" rule was broken by the mods no more than about a week and half ago.

You mean a censored useless sub like all the others?

No one comes to reddit to get the information the mainstream already agrees on. If they wanted that they would read their newspaper headlines .

Forget "credible" . Well make up our own minds thank you.