when your argument against an idea is the other guy is a paid shill it means you've got nothing AND you're an idiot

That's not necessarily true.

Don't call people shills, don't get banned. It's simple really.

You can discuss account history politely, if it becomes an attack it's different. Link the users profile and we can judge the content...

Talking about account history isn't even mentioned in the rules.

Your mystery pm friend called some a shill multiple times or attacked the user.

Post it then because this is just a tedious concern troll at this point.

C'mon you can tell us... is your "friend" actually just another account of yours?

The other guy uses proper capitalization so it prolly isn't you.

Prolly cause you post on mobile.

Would you like every post having a handful of users calling everybody they disagree with a shill, which ruins any sort of substantive and polite discussion from taking place?

But what about ones we can TELL are obvious SHILLS?

I think rule 10 is there to cut back on Ad Hominem attacks and lead to more engaging conversations... prolly cuts back on all the butt-hurt reports clogging up the queue if you are explicitly disallowed to post stuff like that.

Cause that could be true... maybe the person doesn't know what they are talking about... but the odds of someone being an honest to God real-deal paid shill are pretty low... most of them are just people with differing opinions.

When there is a big story we usually get a post to /r/all/ and then that brings in an increase of people from outside of this sub reading the topic... Doesn't mean they are shills... or that they are posting at all. We do get brigaded/botted but I don't think that correlates to actual shills posting... but the people brought in from /r/all/ that do decide to post are usually pretty "shilly" sounding cause they are generally "normies" in disbelief.

I hardly ever read anything on the front page... you got an example of such rampant shilling? Cause I think you might be confusing "normies" for shills.

Just cause someone doesn't believe in shapeshifting reptilian overlords doesn't mean they are a shill be default.

You wear your tinfoil hat out in public you're bound to get some weird looks and maybe even a couple of questions about your unique fashion choice... it's the same thing on reddit... when we hit /r/all/ everyone loves to come in and point and laugh.

I may not agree with you on much, but thank you for being a reasonable person on here.

Hey. How do you know that?

Isn't that just an opinion of yours?

Off you go then. Link the threads.

If you look at the public mod log, those types of comments get people banned.

Most people are civil here.

It's hilarious because whenever I come on here, I see sooo many comments complaining about shill accusations and I've never once actually seen someone accused of being one. So why can't the accusations of shill accusations also be banned? Oh yeah, now I remember.

Rule 2 has that covered... You technically cannot call out someone for calling out shills.

Yeah but that doesn't cover the complaints about shill accusations in general unfortunately.

You haven't disagreed enough or bothered to read anyone's posts who disagree.

Sort by controversial every now and then. Tell me who's the shills then.

It's hilarious how the pro-establishment, anti-net neutrality, pro-billionaire class apologists think that they're the free thinkers now and that anyone who disagrees is a shill.

The brainwashed literally don't know they've been brainwashed and remarkably, think it's everyone else who is.

I see this narrative pushed all the time. What I don't understand is how Trump is now the establishment when only 43 appts have been confirmed out of the 1000 that need senate confirmation and like another 3,000 positions to appoint. So Trump has got 43 out of 4,000 people that are a part of the Trump WH. So the 3,950+ remaining are deep state holdovers but somehow 43 people and Trump the entrenched establishment now?? Please explain.

Nope. No way. I won't engage with someone being disingenuous and playing dumb.

I'll link you though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment

There's no way in hell you're not being facetious. I give you more respect than that.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 69733}

The establishment is the dominant group according to the definition in the article you linked. Trump and 43 out of 4,000 people isn't the dominant power structure or Trump would be acting like Obama right now and there'd be no special prosecutor. I think it's you who's playing dumb. You can't even back up your own stupid theory. How is Trump and 43 the dominant establishment???? Please explain. They're sure not controlling much. Seems pretty obvious.

He's the fucking president. Christ.

Wow, what an excellent well-sourced reply! 🙄

Maybe you need a reminder: you're in a conspiracy sub, so there's only two options for Trump here:

1.) he's deep state and always been deep state hence why he's made it to POTUS

2.) he's a genius who's outsmarted the gop/dnc, msm, deep state/tptb but who is still vulnerable to and/or already been coopted by the deep state.

Here in this sub, we're just trying to figure out which one it is. Or don't you believe in deep state/tptb?? 🤔

Source?

Don't make the mistake of thinking you a part of a community here because you're not . Reddit is a business and the mods will ban the shit out of you for disrespecting its patrons . I know several users who have expressed to me they have been banned for disagreeing with certain accounts everyone here is familiar with , which in turn makes me very paranoid about what I say and to whom I say it to. Rule 10 = censored because you disagreed mother fucker.

the mods aren't paid to do any work, and in general, it's a pretty shitty job

I didn't say the mods get paid , but bet your sweet little ass Reddit corporation does

I'm all for free speech community as well , just be careful who you speak freely to .

Rule 10 seems pretty clear, you can attack peoples posts, but you cannot attack the users themselves. While the rule says that this includes calling someone a shill, but it is not by any means exclusive to shill accusations.

I've seen post removed under rule 10 for calling people idiots, dumbasses, etc.

Making ad hominem attacks brings nothing to the conversation. Contribute to the conversation by countering the arguments instead, you will contribute to a better climate and will not risk facing a ban for it.

Every subreddit (except for https://np.reddit.com/r/NoRules/ I guess) has a set of rules that allow the sub to keep on topic and facilitate meaningful discussions. This is also censorship in the strict definition of the word.

There are other places were almost any type of speech is allowed, like 4chan for example. If you feel like those forums provide a more meaningful discussion, you could always try that out. I don't think they do that, so I tolerate some censorship so the the conversations does not quickly devolve into ad hominem nonsense.

That is at least my view on those rules.

How does calling someone a shill add to the conversation?

Then use fact based evidence to expose it.

Calling a person a shill just because they believe differently than you is not evidence.

What evidence in my history was there to conclude I'm being paid to post?

Your arrogance is astounding.

Rule 10 doesn't suppress any ideas, just ad hominen attacks.

No it doesn't, if the crux of your argument is calling someone a shill and or using a ad homenin attack, then you do not have a strong argument, imo.

There is something weird going on here today. I know of two people who got banned today. One of whom got 10ed after I told him twice to get fucked. Some how I didn't get the hammer.

Mods been banning like gangbusters crazy the last month or so super^you see the number at the end of my username? well 1-4 all got sitewide banned, this is my 5th alt

The denial of shills, until provided proof, in no way serves as proof the person is, in fact, a monetarily compensated commenter.

Your buddy crossed the line when he called the other guy's history out as an example of shilling. Regardless of whether he believes it to be true or it was said because emotions were running hot, he broke R10. Period.

What he should've done is messaged the mods with his concerns, clearly delineating why he believes the dude's being compensated to participate here and let them make the call.

Your friend needs to give it a day or two and then appeal his ban, if that's what he wants to do. He'd also be better served ignoring those he believes to be shills as they've gotten to him and he let them know that when he made that post; basically, his mental real estate is occupied with thoughts of shills instead of the things that that brought him to this sub and are actually deserving of his time/energy.

Not a mod, so I've no way of knowing with absolute certainty that the accusation of shill has resulted in the ban hammer being dropped on anyone that's here with discord as their intent. I like to believe it happens every now and then solely because it would feel nice to do it as they probably irritate the mods as much, if not more, than us due to the havoc they wreak for fun and profit.

An account history is subjective in most cases as what appears a shill to one might look like a troll to someone else or an idiot to another person unless it's blatant like some of the Monsanto bozos (even then, it's still tough to prove without a pay stub or some other irrefutable proof). It's good for gaining some insight and forming an opinion so they can be tagged in RES; doing so either proves correct or incorrect very quickly in most cases and if suspicions are correct, begin building a case if so inclined.

Similar to a casino, the game is rigged when it comes to shills (I loathe that word) and we aren't the house. It's best, imo, to refrain from using the word or stating the contents of someone's history is proof; basically, err on the side of caution and when in doubt, report the asshats along with all the evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that can be gathered.

Many of us are expert level at gathering evidence, both concrete and circumstantial, for things far more important (and side-eyed) than someone being on a payroll. It might take a little time that on the surface appears better spent elsewhere, but a reduction in the herd might happen if an effort were made. If they took enough hits, the re-evaluating and then changing their approach/scripts would slow them down for a while.

Worrying about situations that aren't within your control only bring frustration and increase feelings of helplessness/despair.

Bad things have already happened to reddit: 1) Aaron Schwartz was eliminated, 2) reddit became a for-profit enterprise with its user base as the product, 3) the senior management of reddit corp decided to allow shilling because it's profitable while adding to the illusion it's a friendly place and because 4) reddit corp is now part of the msm and the owners/executive team are actively involved in pushing blue pills to maintain a user-friendly facade. Anything that's contrary its profitability facade puts its existence in jeopardy (reddit isn't a public service).

In other words, if the entirety of the user base woke-up this weekend, the product (that's us) would no longer be marketable (aka profitable) as of Monday, effectively destroying the business because no one would be buying the narratives they're currently profiting from. Really. Don't kid yourself about this place; no profitability means no reddit (the computer infrastructure which supports a zillion message boards known as reddit isn't kept running as a public service so all the truths can get out).

People can speak freely within the parameters as they're set up; it's essentially no different than interacting with someone in living life. Outwitting a perceived shill should be easy if you're in the mood to do so; you have the luxury of time to decide if you want to compose a response or simply block them if it's not worth the time (same as walking away from a random person you don't care to interact with) and even better, if you nope out, it's quite likely someone else will swoop in and respond. Would you try to prove someone wrong, shill or otherwise, in a face-to-face interaction or would you walk away? Give some thought as to how you'd proceed face-to-face and then act accordingly here.

Truth gets out wherever it's let out. This isn't the only avenue available for giving/receiving info nor is it the only place the propaganda war is taking place. There are a lot more people off of reddit (they've never heard of it) than there are on, so take what you know and/or learn here and spread it far and wide amongst people face-to-face.

The truth bombs you drop have the potential to change things exponentially even if it's only one out of every three people that is ready to hear you. Why? Because those truth bombs will continue to spread beyond the immediacy of those you spoke with. Have faith in others that share your desire of wanting everyone else to wake up.

TL:DR - Instead of worrying about how to combat things you have zero control over, spread the truth face-to-face and live your life according to what you believe while knowing you're doing the best you can.

"In other words, if the entirety of the user base woke-up this weekend, the product (that's us) would no longer be marketable (aka profitable) as of Monday, effectively destroying the business because no one would be buying the narratives they're currently profiting from"

So.... voat

Oh look I see this is about one of my comments.

OP, I've been called a shill long before CTR or ShareBlue or whatever bullshit boogeyman internet snowflakes invent for explaining why people disagree with them have been around.

What comment is he referring too? Also you've been here ten years so there's bound to be some comments that others don't agree with but claiming that's proof of you shilling is ridiculous.

They take one comment out of context out of thousands and that somehow is proof? Talking about cherry picking data.

These are the same type of people who complain about the media misrepresenting Trump and using his words out of context.

I'm glad the mods are cracking down as it adds absolutely nothing to the conversation and can derail a whole thread. The only exceptions I could see being made are for brand new accounts that are obviously spamming one topic or someone who submits 100s of posts a day to a sub in an attempt to forum slide.

Which if you ever look at new you'll see some that post 50-100 stories a day here pushing an agenda.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6byadt/how_many_shills_does_it_take_to_dissuade_us_about/dhqfxu1/?context=3

In fairness to anyone looking at history, I am a rather skeptical poster.

Don't find that posting "I agree" ever adds much, so most of what I post is what someone who wants a safe space would call "negative".

Thanks. I seen that but I didn't get a chance to see his comment before it was removed.

Also there's nothing wrong with skecptism as long as you don't personally attack the person and provide sources for counter claims.

Everyone should be doing this anyways. I see way to many people dismiss sources here when it goes against their claim and then use those same sources to prove a claim...

When that happens it becomes clear that the person isn't looking for the truth but to push an agenda.