r/conspiracy: Submission Statement clarification and update

Submission Statement clarification and update

50 2017-12-29 by CelineHagbard

Rule 13 on submission statements has been live for a couple days now, and we wanted to give an update and try to clear up some misunderstandings. As we have said, this is a trial rule, and as such, we feel the need to make our new requirements a bit more explicit, so that you can know what criteria we're using to evaluate the statements, and understand our reasoning behind these requirements. This is the standard we will be using:

2+ sentences
If OP makes multiple top-level comments, one should be clearly labeled as the submission statement.
written in OP's own words (i.e. not copied from the article or description)
should explain or elaborate on why the link is being posted to /r/conspiracy and why the userbase should care about it.

The minimum limit is to combat the problem of people writing only a few words. We get that OPs sometimes want to add significant additional content and context, and we very much encourage that, but if you do make several top-level, please clearly mark one comment as the submission statement.

The submission statement should be in your own words (not copied) and should explain why you feel the link is of interest to the users of this sub. I should be clear here: We are not evaluating whether we think your answer is valid, but only that it actually answers the question of why the post should be here.

Here are a few examples of decent submission statements:

And to reiterate, Rule 13 only applies to link posts (including image posts), not self posts, so you don't need to be reporting those.

The second part of this update is to let you know that we are now running a bot, u/rConBot, to help us deal with the increased workload this new rule has created. The only thing the bot does is removes posts whose OPs have not made a top-level comment within 20 minutes of posting. This only handles part of the workload, but so far it has removed about 140 posts in two days of running, and I think we've reinstated about 5 posts whose OP had subsequently added a submission statement.

What this also means is that there is no reason to report a post less than 20 min old for not having a submission statement; the bot will take care of it. If a post older than about 25 minutes still has no submission statement, or doesn't meet the above requirements, feel free to report it.

Apart from that, we'd like feedback as to how you think the rule is affecting the sub. Keep in mind, it's still the holiday break for many people, so posting and commenting patterns are going to be somewhat atypical anyway. It will be a few weeks into 2018 before we can really gauge the effect this change is having, and we plan on having another sticky post at that time to discuss it.

Edit: Update to clarify that image posts do require submission statements as well.

199 comments

1 krulos 2017-12-29

2+ sentences

Sometimes the headline is clear enough without needing 2+ sentences of explanation. I feel this is requirement is put in for The Others that visit here and don't grok this stuff. So with this requirement we're now dumbing down to appease visitors instead of using critical thinking.

1 Putin_loves_cats 2017-12-29

I somewhat agree with this. For example, my post the other day: "The Osireion of Egypt - Pre-Dynastic Lost Ancient Technology" really shouldn't of needed a submission statement, imo.

1 versusgorilla 2017-12-29

You can't be bothered to expound like two sentences about something you're supposedly interested in enough to make a post on here at all?

1 Putin_loves_cats 2017-12-29

Well:

There is no need to explain the reason(s) for the submission, it's in the title, and it's a well established topic in "conspiracy theory" realm (ie. ancient lost technology and civilizations - Atlantis, Agartha, etc etc).
I think leaving it to the viewer to come up with their own conclusions about the topic, is far more effective for education. Writing a preamble would dictate thought path before the person even views it. I don't like that idea, and it's just my own personal opinion.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

There is no need to explain the reason(s) for the submission, it's in the title, and it's a well established topic in "conspiracy theory" realm

For your post, I'd probably agree. Anyone who's been in conspiracy circles for more than a year or two should probably know at least a bit about truly ancient Egypt. We had even considered the idea of restricting rule 13 to only current politics posts, but ultimately I think that would have been unworkable: just too much subjectivity on what constitutes "current politics."

The end result is that users posting "classic" conspiracy content are going to need to take an extra minute or two writing a statement, with the benefit that a lot of the spam seems to be reduced.

I think leaving it to the viewer to come up with their own conclusions about the topic, is far more effective for education/discussion. Writing a preamble would dictate thought path before the person even views it.

I don't necessarily disagree with this line of reasoning, but I don't see how this change really makes a huge difference. OPs have always been able to make comments explaining their view on the linked content, and readers have always had the option of reading comments first (OP's or other users') or following the link first. Like I said in another comment, I don't see this rule changing browsing/commenting habits that much.

As someone who reads pretty much all the content here, what's your opinion of the effect of rule 13 so far? I won't hold you to it if you change you mind later on, but as far as /new and /hot, do you like the change you see or not?

1 Putin_loves_cats 2017-12-29

We had even considered the idea of restricting rule 13 to only current politics posts

This is kind of what I'm getting at, and I would've voted in favor of that.

I think that would have been unworkable: just too much subjectivity on what constitutes "current politics."

I disagree, and personally... I think that may be the problem with y'all. It's not as hard you may think to discern political news and/or what not from legit conspiracy theories which do not really need a SS (especially if it's hinted at in the title).

A part of me thinks, you guys may be worried about the possible backlash, mainly (albeit ironically) from the shit slingers, themselves.

I've told you and others in other places, we are not a brand, so don't try to make us into one. It's a fool's errand, will never happen, and will do more harm than good. Remember, there are always unintended consequences.

but I don't see how this change really makes a huge difference

Sometimes the smallest things make the biggest differences. Remember what I said: "Unintended consequences".

As someone who reads pretty much all the content here, what's your opinion of the effect of rule 13 so far?

I still have mixed feelings, obviously, but I think it's somewhat of an improvement and a valuable trial. I'm glad to see far less political news/spam here, that's for sure.

Ultimately though, like I've told you, I believe that mods need to interact/participate with the community more, and some need to... Well, you know ;).

Anyways, like I've said before... I commend you all for trying to address the shit show, and it will be interesting as we go forward.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

It's not as hard you may think to discern political news and/or what not from legit conspiracy theories which do not really need a SS (especially if it's hinted at in the title).

It's not that it's hard — I think I could do it adequately enough, and I imagine you'd probably agree with 95% of my decisions — it's that it introduces an amount of subjectivity on something that I think is better solved this way. You don't even trust half the mods, and a good amount of users don't trust the other half (or all of us). Would you want one of the mods you don't trust to be determining what is or isn't "political?" It would have made rolling out this rule an absolute shitshow.

you guys may be worried about the possible backlash, mainly (albeit ironically) from the shit slingers, themselves.

I wouldn't say worried, but I would say "considering the unintended consequences." You don't think we'd have thread after thread, and comments on any "problematic" post (read: actual conspiracy content) that didn't have an SS, just trying to slide the conversation? The shit slingers abuse every rule we have now, especially when they're ambiguous. I might have even preferred restricting it to only political posts, but I think that distinction would have caused more trouble than it would be worth.

I've told you and others in other places, we are not a brand, so don't try to make us into one.

I don't know what to say here. I'm not trying to turn us into a brand, I don't want to, and I'm not really sure how this rule does that.

Sometimes the smallest things make the biggest differences.

You may be right here. All I can say is we'll see. But I was specifically talking about browsing/commenting habits.

I believe that mods need to interact/participate with the community more,

Agreed.

I commend you all for trying to address the shit show, and it will be interesting as we go forward.

I appreciate it, and I appreciate the feedback.

1 DogSnoggins 2017-12-29

No offense meant, but saying anyone who's been in conspiracy circles for more than a year or two should know about X, that's making kind of high falutin' assumptions. Some of us have a definite bent towards following only certain types of conspiracies, but that doesn't make us completely walled off from some other vein that might be interesting to us, and maybe even draw us in to investigate further. Isn't that part of why we post here? To bring in new theorists and entice people to participate and learn more?

For example, I have what I would consider limited knowledge on ancient Egyptian archeology when it comes to related conspiracies, but I'm not opposed to exploring further if a link seems interesting enough. I don't have time to read EVERY SINGLE POST here, lol, so that statement really helps me out a lot.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

This is a very fair critique. I agree with your comment.

1 DogSnoggins 2017-12-29

I dunno, I feel like I appreciate a little summary information before I read an article, and ESPECIALLY before I click a youtube link, gah!

Even those YT videos usually have some kind of description of what you might expect. For example, your reference video has this:

The Osireion of Abydos in Egypt is attributed to Pharoah Seti I but the site is a true enigma that closely resembles the Valley temple on the Giza Plateau. With 4 metre high granite pillars from the Aswan quarry 200 miles away and stone cutting techniques that must have been produced using ancient high technology, watch this video to learn more about the mystery of the Osireion.

If I am not that into archeology (not saying I'm not!) this might not draw my interest just from the title, but after reading that description, WOW! I am actually going to watch it now. Really : )

I say let's keep the submission statement for now. A little extra work to help flesh out what the link is about does have value for some of us. And, although I'm still not of a solid opinion yet, the new link posts sure do appear a lot less trashy.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

Sometimes the title is enough — I won't argue that — but this rule would be near unenforceable in an objective way if we didn't require a separate submission statement. People would constantly complain that their title was good enough to count.

So with this requirement we're now dumbing down to appease visitors instead of using critical thinking.

I don't understand this. How does requiring OPs to write why a post belongs here dumb things down? You're free and in fact encouraged to apply your own critical thinking to a post regardless of what an OP may write about it.

1 krulos 2017-12-29

I'm not certain people will read the articles as much. They'll skip down to the required SS and debate based off of that, similar to the already existing reddit issue of merely reading a headline and writing comments without reading the link.

Also, there are a lot of outsiders that don't think critically. They come here to mock us or demand proof of our ideas. This new policy further encourages this behavior rather than helping people think for themselves and do their own research.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

They'll skip down to the required SS and debate based off of that, similar to the already existing reddit issue of merely reading a headline and writing comments without reading the link.

This is certainly a possibility, but I'm not sure if the submission statement in itself is going to affect behavior that much. I think most users either usually read headlines then vote/comment, read articles then vote/comment, or read comments (and maybe then read the article) then comment. I'm usually the last one. I'll read the first couple of comments to make a decision as to whether to bother reading the article, then read it, then comment. This will certainly be something to watch moving forward, though.

They come here to mock us or demand proof of our ideas. This new policy further encourages this behavior rather than helping people think for themselves and do their own research.

This may also be, although I'm not really seeing it yet. We used to always get the "where's the conspiracy?" comment, which would often end up as the top-voted (and thus first-seen) comment. I've seen less of this so far, but it's still pretty early.

1 DogSnoggins 2017-12-29

I have been skipping to the statement if the title isn't enough for me for whatever reason. I WANT to see why the OP thinks it's worth my time to read it, and get a little more detail before I spend my valuable time reading or watching what has been offered. I really don't see anything wrong with that.

I peruse a variety of subs, and there are always mockers, arguers and dissers. Can't we just ignore them? If someone starts challenging me aggressively and with a nasty attitude, I usually go check their post history first, and if it is their m.o. to waste peoples time, then I just ignore them (haha, okay, not always, sometimes they really get my goat).

The point is, you can't let these people dictate what we do here, at least I don't think we should. I think our goal should be to clean things up, make it more comprehensive, make it easier to find articles of interest, and become more 'professional' in appearance. Hopefully then people will take r/conspiracy more seriously.

Maybe I'm a simpleton, but a "thesis" statement of sorts doesn't seem like a bad idea to me.

1 bobthetitanic 2017-12-29

Do you really think the average user will ever take this sub seriously ?

1 DogSnoggins 2017-12-29

A conspiracy is by nature not taken seriously by those who do not wish to believe in the possibilities purported by such a theory, we can't get around that. However, I do believe that we can do a better job presenting information in a more professional and mature manner.

When I say "seriously," I suppose I mean that r/conspiracy won't be taken seriously as long as some of our more 'fervent' posters here can't present their case without getting emotionally worked up, taking the bait when taunted. To be taken seriously you have be BE serious - stay in control, be mature and counter arguments plainly and unemotionally as often as you can. I watch some (most) of these threads break up in to the same old childish back and forth stupidity, spurred on by members of r/controversy. Consequently, I have a hard time taking them seriously as well. Poor behavior degrades the sincerity that this sub should exude.

So, to answer your question, no.

1 DogSnoggins 2017-12-29

Personally, I feel like I have read more articles (yes, I have skipped some, too) that I wouldn't have because of the statement. It's helpful to me to be able to filter through and not waste my time with something I'm really not going to be interested in. However, I'm getting the feeling that some here think this makes someone like me a lesser human being for appreciating a summary before I dig in. : (

Honestly, it is not so abnormal to preface any kind of theory or article with an introductory statement. Youtube videos more often than not have them, scientific papers have them, etc. etc.

I feel like it might bring more authenticity to r/conspiracy to also include such a statement.

I'm still weighing out how it feels overall though, so take this for what it's worth.

1 ZiggyAventure 2017-12-29

I think the biggest effect it had was on users who post 2-3 links per minute and have hundreds of post per day. They are here to bu can't be named. After reporting a mod told me that as long as it's not the same site they are fine with it. I'm pretty sure much of the spam is gone because they can't mass post anymore.

1 krulos 2017-12-29

Yeah it seems a reasonable delay between posts would prevent most of this. That's what up/downvotes are for anyway. Wish the mods would just remove the downvote button because it never is used for what it was intended.

1 ZiggyAventure 2017-12-29

It makes new a pain to browse for interesting stuff. I remember one day 13 of the 25 posts in new where from the same guy.

1 RecoveringGrace 2017-12-29

Then we should also remove the upvote button as well. I support contest mode for all posts, tbh.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

Wish the mods would just remove the downvote button

It wouldn't really work, especially not on a sub of this size with so many competing interests seeking to control what hits the front page. The only way to hide the downvote button is using CSS, which only affects desktop (probably less than half of users) and is very easily circumvented.

1 high-valyrian 2017-12-29

Well, you're right, but genuine users are still up and down voting, even while knowing their votes are admittedly fuzzed. However, the real reason you're seeing what you're seeing is because of this. Not only are we seeing the sub flooded with link posts daily, those posts are being supported and upvoted by bot farms created and ran by the same people responsible for the link spamming and forum sliding we see all the time. Taking away a tiny bit of their power forces them to either have way less work, or forces them to vote on our ideals.

1 AutoModerator 2017-12-29

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) 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 replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

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

1 DogSnoggins 2017-12-29

Omgosh, this just dawned on me. Yesterday I was browsing through using 'new,' and a link post caught my eye near the top of the first page. It already had over 30 comments, and I was like, wow... this might be a good one. So, haha, I took the bait and dove in.

It took me a minute to realize that the OP had rapid-fire posted around 23 more link posts within. (although it looks like some have been removed now). I had never seen anything like it and I was really confused that as to why someone would do that.

Dots connected.

1 brandnewaltyay 2017-12-29

do the damn hokey pokey and you shake it all about...holeee fuck...what the hell else do you need my first born cocker spaniel?

1 craigreasons 2017-12-29

We can all see the end game here, it's so obvious. Sooner or later we will have to provide two sources from MSM for any conspiracy we post. Only MSM approved conspiracy subreddit here we come!!

1 brandnewaltyay 2017-12-29

/\ craiger knows his sturff /\

1 brandnewaltyay 2017-12-29

yo vanilla! drop me beet!

1 high-valyrian 2017-12-29

If you want to participate in a high-quality sub (like the r/conspiracy of yonder days) then we're all going to have to make an effort to be here. This isn't a news sub. This is a discussion sub. I don't know why people get those confused

1 teddysforever 2017-12-29

Are mods monitoring new submissions or waiting for reports? I do not see substantial compliance on the new submission page.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

The bot is removing all posts older than 20 minutes (sometimes takes a bit longer) which have no submission statements at all. If the OP wrote anything as a top-level comment, the bot won't remove it, and we deal with them by responding to reports.

I do not see substantial compliance on the new submission page.

If you're looking at posts under 20 minutes old, we won't remove those for lacking a submission statement. Are there any posts older than that with no top-level OP comments at all, or are you talking about submission statements that don't meet the 4 requirements laid out above?

1 krulos 2017-12-29

Ah so now were being censored by a bot. With the new rules of 2+ sentences, can you please post the algorithm used by the bot to determine how a SS is judged to be valid or not?

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

The algorithm is basically this:

if age(post) > 20 min:
    if any(comment.author == post.author for top_level_comment in post):
        pass
    else:
        remove(post)

The bot is only removing posts by OPs who haven't even bothered to write anything in a top-level comment. Any post which has a top-level comment by OP will never be removed by the bot, only manually by a moderator who determines the submission statement does not meet the 4 criteria.

1 bobthetitanic 2017-12-29

That's still a bot doing a mod's job.

1 FUCK_THE_TAL_SHIAR 2017-12-29

And? Nearly every sub with a large amount of subscribers use a bot or two to help with moderation. There's nothing wrong with that.

Even very small subs use u/automoderator, which is a bot. You seem to believe it's "lazy" moderation, but so what? The mods still moderate. They're still here. They also make sure any bots in use don't fuck up.

Why want mods, who are regular users who are volunteers, to have a harder job if they don't have to?

If anything, the use of bots for things like this give them more time to pay attention to other things, like reports (something that needs human attention and can't be taken care of with a bot.)

1 teddysforever 2017-12-29

Gotcha, thanks. (must have been looking at >20 min submissions)

1 oxfouzer 2017-12-29

This is turning into a book report with a rubric and I'm not sure how I feel about it...

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

This really isn't changing anything, it's just making more explicit what we expect and how we'll be evaluating submission statements, to make it less vague. In simple English, it's still just "write 2 sentences in your own words saying why the post should be here."

I changed the language to "criteria." Is that any better?

1 oxfouzer 2017-12-29

It's a pig with lipstick... It still feels a bit like a book report rubric.

It feels like the wrong solution to a problem... Why can't we seem to filter out spammy junk without requiring this kind of work around? Isn't reddits thing supposed to be upvotes and popularity? How broken is this platform that it requires this kind of workaround just to make a viable sub?

Idk if I support it yet or not, but... In general it's becoming a bit of a mess, it seems...

1 brandnewaltyay 2017-12-29

dayum...breaking mods hearts ox-man

1 oxfouzer 2017-12-29

Sorry lol half of my work day is spent doing Root Cause Analysis so sometimes that mentality leaks over a bit...

1 RMFN 2017-12-29

Maybe a few book report would help you.

1 bobthetitanic 2017-12-29

Is that even English?

1 fuster_cluq 2017-12-29

Come on, you can't write two measly sentences?

1 bobthetitanic 2017-12-29

I don't have to do that on any other sub, It seems like lazy moderating .

1 GreatPartyMusic 2017-12-29

Cheers!

1 Akareyon 2017-12-29

How broken is this platform

Extremely. Have you seen the front page in 2017?

1 trickymason 2017-12-29

I’ve tried a few links yesterday and was shot down. I thought I was following new rules. Just put up a link,then actually put (submission link) hope it works.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

Yep. This looks good.

1 Sign_Upp 2017-12-29

don't forget to force it on the mod shitposts too

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

I plan on it. Do you have any examples?

1 proove_yer_point 2017-12-29

me too. Then the mods insulted me so i insulted them back and then banned me. What's the new conspiracy sub to post to that doesn't have this BS

1 trickymason 2017-12-29

Thx for getting back to me. Great.

1 krulos 2017-12-29

Since the mods deleted my text post due, I'll put it here:

Submission Statement abbreviation = SS. Same abbreviation as the Nazi Police.

A meta conspiracy for the day. Sieg Heil to our new censoring bot overlords!

1 polkadotgirl 2017-12-29

It was a terrible post.

1 RecoveringGrace 2017-12-29

I'm glad I caught it in time to do some downvoting, though.

1 axolotl_peyotl 2017-12-29

dumb.

1 polkadotgirl 2017-12-29

The rule is great. It really is not that hard! People just want to spam this subreddit.

1 BillNyeScienceLies 2017-12-29

Its a real pain in the ass if you are using a phone to access reddit. Mods will be able to censor topics easily by disagreeing with

should explain or elaborate on why the link is being posted to /r/conspiracy and why the userbase should care about it.

1 Jac0b777 2017-12-29

Exactly. I mean how hard is it to post a few sentences of context on your link? It's encourages debate in the comments and gives people context for the link, as well as give discernment on whether people should click the link or not in the first place (Is it any good? Am I truly interested in this? Do I want to click and learn more or do I pass on this one?).

Ideally people should argument their links even more, but that is probably already a step too far.

People are afraid that mods will remove links with these statements if they don't agree with them. That's simply nonsense and I do not see it happening at all.

If anyone truly finds the mods are removing submission statements because they don't like the content (and not because the statement is a copy of the article, one sentence long or just absolutely absurd drivel) then screenshot it and make a thread about it, with obvious evidence of a good submission statement (a few sentences long, not copied...abiding by the above rules which say nothing about the content of the statement apart from it not being copied) being trashed. Then we can argue how the mods are shills. Based on my personal observation of this sub I do feel most mods here (or all of them, I cannot speak for everyone though) are genuine and want to make this sub a better place.

I'd also encourage anyone that argues against these statements (and this thread will soon be filled with them) to state you suggestions on how to improve the sub. This will show who the shills are and who is a genuine user that wants to improve debate.

Disagreeing is absolutely fine, however simply disagreeing without suggestions amounts to fruitless discussions with no productive value.

My personal suggestion (as stated in another comment below) would be having a few days a week (or at least one day), text post only. Text posts encourage a lot more debate and links can always be included in them (more than one even), with even more context and concise arguments to boot.

1 high-valyrian 2017-12-29

I wish we had a text-post day, or maybe even themed daily textposts of some kind. the /r/femalefashionadvice and /r/muacjdiscussion subs do this and some posts have hundreds of comments and you get to know each person and their thoughts on different subjects. I really think it would do well for the morale of the sub and maybe even help lessen the rule 13 occurances. /u/CelineHagbard Perhaps?

I feel like this rule has already drastically improved the sub. I know we, as hobbyists, have an allergy to the word "rule" but seeing positive change will give proof that sometimes it works and the mods are trying their best.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

/u/Jac0b777 and I have been discussing this for months, maybe a year now. I like the idea for self-post only days, but we'll probably wait to see how this rule 13 plays out before throwing something else into the mix. Already, I think this rule has had the effect of giving self posts more of a chance of hitting the front page and getting good discussion, which I find to be a good thing. We'll see how it plays out, but we might not even need dedicated self post days.

As far as themed daily text-posts, we do have the biweekly(?) round table discussions and featured documentaries, which I think are pretty positive and have a similar effect to what you're talking about. I wouldn't be opposed to expanding this to include some other regularly-scheduled sub-wide discussions.

1 JamesColesPardon 2017-12-29

I don't think self.post days are going to be necessary - this whole Rule 13 thing has been far too effective already. I think we need a week or two of sample size though as the holidays are certainly a factor (although we should check the traffic - add that to my to do list).

Maybe if the Board normalizes a bit we can tall about Weekend Mode and Weekday Mode (maybe?) but as it currently stands I don't see self posts getting flooded out at the moment.

For awhile the Sub seemed to to be more like a ticker - flimsy, quick, not thoughtful, never ending. Now it seems more like a Board - durable, more steady, and something you can build upon.

I'm so excited to check the Board now (both /top and /new) and can't say I remember saying that in a long time.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

Yeah, I don't know that it will be needed either. I've been pleasantly surprised with rule 13 so far, and I'm cautiously optimistic. Self posts are getting a lot more attention now, like they're first class citizens again.

Now it seems more like a Board - durable, more steady, and something you can build upon.

Nice wording.

I'm so excited to check the Board now (both /top and /new) and can't say I remember saying that in a long time.

Yeah, absolutely. It's so much less of a slog than it has been for the last year plus.

1 high-valyrian 2017-12-29

I know when big events happen here, we often see forum sliding and hundreds of link posts of the same few links. I'd love to see the sub, when this happens, make a self-post for discussion of that event and contain it there so other posts, voices, and theories can be heard and seen. Just an idea. Thanks for the response, mad respect for you guys, and thanks for doing your best here!

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

I'm generally wary of "megaposts" as implemented in the major news subs, which generally means one post is stickied on a topic, and all other links about the topic are removed. If anything, I find it's a lot easier to bury certain details and minority opinions, because you have to scroll pretty far to get past the first few top-level comments, and many of the comments get completely hidden past 1500 (unless you know how to search for them, but most people don't bother).

The effect on our sub is that when a major event happens, like Vegas, we get a ton of posts on the event that do somewhat push out other topics. I don't think this is ideal, but IMO is much better than removing posts that shed light on details that might otherwise be missed. I wouldn't in general be opposed to making a general sticky thread for such events, with links to the other posts, but I would not support removing other posts about the topic (provided they follow rules.)

1 edgarallenbro 2017-12-29

Please don't ever implement any kind of "x-only" day, whether its self posts, or images or anything.

Those kinds of gimmicks are for boring subs with nothing better to do.

Imagine another event happens, like Mandalay Bay, or a major leak. Do we really want to be limited to self posts when major shit goes down?

1 ConceptionalToiler 2017-12-29

submission statement is reasonable. But copy and pasting it in multiple locations is redundant

1 RedMattAndNude 2017-12-29

Tbh I liked the spam.

1 proove_yer_point 2017-12-29

I submitted 3 times and then got banned

1 reputable_opinion 2017-12-29

i stop making link posts altogether. it's much easier to make a text submission and paste the links in the text.

I wonder why not simply allow only text posts? using submission statements amounts to the same thing.

1 Jac0b777 2017-12-29

Imho text posts are so much more superior to links. People actually have to put in some content, argue their point, give their own insights....etc. (or so they should)

I guess links have their place in a way and the backlash would be huge if they were removed.

I was thinking about something like a text-post only day of the week, or perhaps two days. One or two days of the week when only text posts would be posted.

I think that would be awesome and seriously encourage lively and insightful, argumentative debate more than links.

An interesting reason for this may also be that whenever links are posted you literally have to click the mini 'comments' button below to get to the comments, while clicking a text post takes you directly to the comments. Obviously clicking the 'comments' link is easy, but I still think that comments are more visited in text posts rather than links, because people tend to click on the link and go to the page directly. And if comments were more visited, then guess what > more argumentative, insightful debate, less spam...etc.

Other's thoughts on this?

1 pilgrimboy 2017-12-29

I often feel that I'm not an expert or the most informed. I would much rather link to someone who knows more than me.

1 axolotl_peyotl 2017-12-29

From a mod's perspective, this new system has really helped clean up the sub.

A significant portion of /r/conspiracy was starting to get swamped with terrible youtube videos and spam sites that were being consistently posted by a handful of users.

I stopped making self posts myself, because it would just get lost in the fray.

In a few days time, the front page has been consistently been full of much better content, with a demonstrable increase in self posts, which IMO is generally where you find the best stuff on this sub.

The process of writing the statement has been a pleasure as well...overall I'm really pleased with the results so far.

1 WarSanchez 2017-12-29

Honestly, which ever mod came up with this deserves a raise!

1 oxfouzer 2017-12-29

Here's a thought.... I know mods have been traditionally against the "what's the conspiracy" question, and have specifically NOT required a conspiracy statement from posters...

But this is r/conspiracy... Why don't you just require that every title be an explicit conspiracy statement. That accomplishes two goals of focusing the sub, as well as organizing the content into topics instead of fragments of information with bad submission statements.

I would love this sub to be more conspiracy centered instead of random fishy news centered.. the random fishy news should be a comment as evidence for discussion under an appropriate conspiracy post...

1 RecoveringGrace 2017-12-29

That sounds not only subjective, but impossible to police with a bot.

1 oxfouzer 2017-12-29

"Must be able to be policed by a bot" is a bad requirement, and shouldn't be necessary in a correctly moderated and correctly structured platform...

1 RecoveringGrace 2017-12-29

I disagree. The mods are volunteers, the majority of the sub agreed to submission statements as a requirement and it is most efficient to have that policed in an unbiased manner. The last thing we need around here are endless shitshow arguments about mods removing posts based on the subjectivity of whether the title is substantive enough to qualify. And then we would have the problem of user-created titles being reported for being misleading. A SS comment solves a lot of problems and reduces workload.

1 oxfouzer 2017-12-29

An SS doesn't do anything automatically, all you have to do is comment on your own post to get around it. The bot is just as subjective as anything else. To be honest I would have thought that a platform like Reddit would have figured this out already, aren't upvotes and karma supposed to help bring good stuff to the top and let the bad stuff sink?

To e clear, I'm on the fence about the SS thing... So far it seems a bit arbitrary and messy, and guarantees that things will get censored that shouldn't... Nothing can be totally effective, I'm just reacting to a few days of seeing it in action.

1 RecoveringGrace 2017-12-29

CH showed the bot code and it does what it says after having a check on the mod log. It reduces spam and mindless posting with very little effort. Your argument is a little like bitching about someone using a Rumba to clean up the room of dirt simply because it is a robot. If it is doing the work and not causing harm, use the damn bot, IMO.

1 oxfouzer 2017-12-29

1 Tinkeringhalo10 2017-12-29

Agree

1 fuster_cluq 2017-12-29

The rule is awesome at reducing spam

1 WolfgangJones 2017-12-29

Amen. Dat spam has to be canned (and USDA approved, lol).

Nevertheless, subbmitting the "submission" word or the "SS" tag is personally a bit putoffish. Will try "conspiracy concept" and see if that flies.

1 axolotl_peyotl 2017-12-29

Should be fine...semantics aren't important, it's the effort that counts.

1 WolfgangJones 2017-12-29

1 RecoveringGrace 2017-12-29

I dig it. I was really busy today and only got to check in a couple times super quick. Each time, new was full of actual content rather than crap.

One thing, though, if calling out a post for rule 13 amounts to a rule 2 and/or 10, that should be clarified in the rules. I did it a couple times on rollout day just trying to help out OP and the mods until I was corrected. I just don't want to see anyone banned for trying to help the sub.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

if calling out a post for rule 13 amounts to a rule 2 and/or 10

I'm not sure that we've really come to a decision on this. The bot should be taking care of all posts with no submission statement at all, so users shouldn't even have to worry about that. As for an OP who posts a submission statement that another user doesn't feel meets the requirements, reporting it or sending a modmail is the best way to go, or send a PM to the OP so they can correct it.

I just don't want to see anyone banned for trying to help the sub.

I don't think we ever ban for rule 2, and certainly not for a first or second offense. But yeah, I don't want to see that either.

1 RecoveringGrace 2017-12-29

JCP and I chatted about it a little at rollout. I'm not sure the bot was in place then, but nbd. I was just pointing out a potential bump in the Rule 13 road because I already blew it, lol.

1 JamesColesPardon 2017-12-29

/nods in agreement.

1 KarmaPolice777 2017-12-29

This was an awesome idea and it's doing what it was intended to do. Kudos to the mods.

1 Lucy-Sky-Diamondz 2017-12-29

Yes mods are awesome, the best mods (please dont ban me guys)

1 SixVISix 2017-12-29

So far it's great. The sub has dramatically improved in terms of active participation, quality of submissions and surprising lack of spammy news links. I like it.

1 TheMadBonger 2017-12-29

It definitely seems like less activity is going on. There are more thoughtful posts but less content being posted. Also the dip could be because of the holidays.

It does feel different in here though. I dare say it feels better than before. It seemed like the spam/shilling/whatever was winning before.

1 sudo-tleilaxu 2017-12-29

We will get to see a little more clearly after the holidays are over and people are back to working a more regular schedule. You could definitely see a difference in here before between M-F posts and posts on the weekends.

I guess I got to the point where I would support anything the mods tried to cut back on the spam, low-effort MSM Political links and get this place looking like a real conspiracy sub again.

1 stop-lying 2017-12-29

This rule has been fantastic there is no reason to get rid of it.

1 AIsuicide 2017-12-29

My two cents...like it. Much easier now to scroll through new and hot.

1 RecoveringGrace 2017-12-29

scroll through new and hot

That's pretty sexy, A..

1 4-7-2-3-9-8-5BREATHE 2017-12-29

Why are you talking in pedo code? Weird.

1 RecoveringGrace 2017-12-29

So weak..

1 4-7-2-3-9-8-5BREATHE 2017-12-29

I'm not interested in your sexual preferences.

1 open_ur_mind 2017-12-29

Wow cringe.

1 BareknuckleCagefight 2017-12-29

Should posts that link to just pictures require a submission statement?

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

Yep. Anything other than a self post, which is covered under rule 12. If anything I'd say (personally, not as a mod) that image posts need submission statements the most, as often times it's completely unclear why an image is even being posted.

1 WayneCarversMedSkool 2017-12-29

Fucking stupid.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

How insightful!

1 WayneCarversMedSkool 2017-12-29

Coming from you, it means a lot. Oh wait no it means nothing.

Isn't it amazing that every single mod is supporting the shit out of the new Conspiracy Police State?

1 accountingisboring 2017-12-29

Are you being contrary just for the sake of being contrary or is there something specific you don’t like about the new rule?

It is in no way a tool for censorship, IMO.

1 WayneCarversMedSkool 2017-12-29

I've stated my opinion time and time again, just a waste of time because it doesn't matter what I think when there's so many sheep like you begging for censorship and you don't even know it.

1 accountingisboring 2017-12-29

Oh please.

1 WayneCarversMedSkool 2017-12-29

Are you being contrary just for the sake of being contrary? Or you know I'm right?

1 accountingisboring 2017-12-29

I don’t think stating your intentions is censorship. So I struggle to see how this rule does that.

1 bobthetitanic 2017-12-29

So there's zero possibilities of another take over like what happened last year?

1 accountingisboring 2017-12-29

I’m not sure how a submission statement has anything to do with a take over. Maybe I’m confused. I just don’t think stating your intentions for a post is a bad thing. It sets the tone for the purpose of your post. It doesn’t change anything about the content of the post.

1 bobthetitanic 2017-12-29

I meant the possibility of one.

1 accountingisboring 2017-12-29

It’s always possible I guess. I think we just need to remain vigilant with keeping this sub on the up and up. It’s all we can do.

1 dreamslaughter 2017-12-29

I appreciate the effort but . . . .

I think the damage this does is worse than be having to skip over shills and bots.

Doesn't everyone just read the posts they are interested in?

Don't we all just skip comments that we are not interested in?

It doesn't take a lot of time to not do something.

https://www.reddit.com/user/rconbot/comments/

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

I think the damage this does is worse than be having to skip over shills and bots.

How, specifically?

Doesn't everyone just read the posts they are interested in? Don't we all just skip comments that we are not interested in?

To an extent, yes, but there's certainly an amount of fatigue that comes from scrolling through dozens of posts that all have to do with blatantly political spam. I think a very small fraction of our userbase is actually reading through every single headline in a given day; they either look at the first couple dozen of /hot or of /new. To me, it looks like there's a larger variety on both the /hot and /new than before the rule, and less overtly political spam from both sides.

It doesn't take a lot of time to not do something.

What does this even mean?

1 dreamslaughter 2017-12-29

The damage done is this:

https://www.reddit.com/user/rconbot/comments/

I haven't noticed much of a change.

I don't understand why the rule will limit shills.

Can't a shill add a couple of sentences? If it's no big deal for all of us, It would be no big deal for a shill.

It may limit some bots but to be honest I have never noticed bots. Does someone actually have examples of bots. I would love to see them.

"It doesn't take a lot of time to not do something."

It doesn't take a lot of time to skip over things you are not interested in.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

The damage done is this...

I haven't noticed much of a change.

These statements contradict each other. You think damage has been done, but yet don't notice much change?

Can't a shill add a couple of sentences? If it's no big deal for all of us, It would be no big deal for a shill.

This rule isn't really designed to combat shills, but spammers, and I think it has done so.

Does someone actually have examples of bots.

Here's a couple I've banned recently (I'm purposely not user-mentioning them):

kamrulhira
pitchforkmafia87

They post almost exclusively from the same site/channel or two, and rarely if ever comment on any posts.

It doesn't take a lot of time to skip over things you are not interested in.

I disagree. If a user looks at the first 25 posts on /hot, and only a couple actually interest them, they're much less likely to go to the next page. But if they see 10 or 15 genuinely interesting posts, they're more likely to engage and scroll to see other posts. A low signal to noise ratio makes finding good content harder, even if the same amount of signal exists in both cases.

1 dreamslaughter 2017-12-29

Right, it's just a LITTLE bit of censorship, no problem.

What evidence do you have that it has reduced spammers? What evidence do you have that there are spammers. Spammers, bots and shills have never bothered me.

Don't you think spammers are smart enough to add a couple of sentences to their post?

A true spammer will add the two sentences without a second thought, but non spammers might be dissuaded from posting at all.

kamrulhira doesn't look like a spammer, and they have posted two (2) posts to r/conspiracy in their total history of two months. Is that really a problem. Please.

pitchforkmafia87 has 32 posts to r/conspiracy in the last two months, that's one post every two days. Is that really a huge problem. Please.

In my opinion, you are basing your censorship on a non existent threat.

About people skipping over posts they are not interested in, your opinion of how people look at posts is just that, your opinion.

I for instance look at all the posts on new until I reach the posts I have already read.

My opinion on how people read posts is that they read what they are interested in until they get tired of reading posts. I feel my opinion is much more likely than your opinion.

But, hey, how can just a LITTLE bit of censorship be a problem, right.

First they came for the spammers . . . Then they came for the bots . . . Then they came for the shills . . . Then they came for the . . .

1 trinsic-paridiom 2017-12-29

Well actually before I left a year ago I would need to spend about 20 mins to an hour sifting through the low quality fake news bullshit to find quality posts. It's like looking for a needle in a hay stack. So no, everyone does not just read posts that they are interested in on this sub because you had to wade though a swamp just to get to the real stuff.

1 dreamslaughter 2017-12-29

That has never bothered me, guess I'm a faster reader. I have the ability to skip over stuff without it bothering me.

I like the wildness, you are depriving me of what I want because you are a slow reader. Sound fair to you? I hope not.

I don't fear bots, shills and spam, they have never bothered me, never once.

What I really do fear and really bothers me is people in control making rules that they want that interferes with the free flow of information.

As I pointed out before, look at the stuff getting deleted:

https://www.reddit.com/user/rconbot/comments/

Every one of those posts has merit.

This time actually look at the titles of the posts and tell me you don't see a problem.

Use that list of titles and show me a few examples of things you think should have been censored? I looked at about 80% and could not find one that should have been deleted. I think if you are honest about this you will agree with me.

I call it the junk yard dog problem. Give someone a little bit of control and they invariably feel the need to control, even to the detriment of others.

It's a bad idea, I'm sorry you don't see that.

1 trinsic-paridiom 2017-12-29

This has nothing to do with slow reading, sorry. Real content was being obfuscated by fake news. There is a real interest to control the truth. I'm sorry you don't see that.

1 dreamslaughter 2017-12-29

The only thing controlling the truth is mods censoring, sorry you don't see that.

Look at that fricking list of deleted content and find me a few posts that you think should be censored.

Come on give it a try.

1 Drewcifer419 2017-12-29

It seems to have cut down on the spammed articles, and a wider variation of posts have made it to the front. Seems to be working well.

1 Claypot 2017-12-29

Is there any good argument to oppose this rule? All i see from the opposition of rule 13 is fear mongering of censorship. Adding more information to your link is not censorship...

1 Akareyon 2017-12-29

yes ... i dont speak english well
... not ilokvent in my onw lanuauge ... and have disleixa ... i need 2 hs for 2 setneces . but very good info in link ... very ipmrotnant copsnirarcy ...
interweiw with wissl blower
monsatno blew up twin towers
what to say in submisoin statement?

!!!!

Comment Statement: I'm not trolling. You asked for a good argument. This is one; it may affect only few; but these minorities do exist, and I met them online. Completely unreadable comments, everyone made fun of them until they came out as dyslexic, and suddenly, we all had huge respect for their trying.

But it's really the only one I can think of. Other than that, the rule has proven to be extremely effective in decluttering the sub. If it sounds stupid, but works, it isn't stupid. In fact, I think it's a great idea.

1 anarchopotato 2017-12-29

bad idea...

but i stoppped coming to this shitshow months ago..

have fun conde nast dicksuckers

1 ClassicFives 2017-12-29

I think the bot is a great way to enforce the rule which I also think is a great idea. My concern was bias in enforcement and it’s hard for time to be biased.

1 axolotl_peyotl 2017-12-29

it’s hard for time to be biased.

that got deep

1 ClassicFives 2017-12-29

Lol I wanted to say a robot but then I thought about it and was like...wait! Whoever programmed it obviously influences how it works, but time is a binary thing. You either did it or didn’t before it runs.

1 lucr3hulk91 2017-12-29

/u/CelineHagbard this looks good, thank you. I hope we can set our past differences aside and all make this sub a better place.

1 Orangutan 2017-12-29

Sounds like the moderators have a lot more power over the sub, which is probably the way they like it.

1 axolotl_peyotl 2017-12-29

In what way?

1 Orangutan 2017-12-29

Rules, Regulations, and Requirements. More oversight, not less. Claiming Reddit is broken and you need to fix it through these cumbersome measures.

1 bobthetitanic 2017-12-29

So what happens when you get another /r/Flytape , and they change the bot to their liking?

1 Orangutan 2017-12-29

Good question. You should pose it to /u/axolotl_peyotl or another moderator though that survived the purge or has been recently added.

1 Orangutan 2017-12-29

I enjoy my right not to have to explain myself to a panel or jury. Freedom of Speech. This justification process to the authorities strikes me as overbearing and a power grab that complicates the simple voting process that made Reddit great over the years.

I don't like having to justify my posts when the title sufficiently offers a synopsis necessary to determine if people want to click on it, vote on it, or not.

1 U_CAN_TRUST_HILLARY 2017-12-29

Wow perfectly summed up, content has also taken a nose dive. With everything going on in this sub (all the bans and unnecessary rules) the core group of content creators have already moved on.

1 axolotl_peyotl 2017-12-29

fud

1 MollyNostrils23 2017-12-29

That's the idea.

1 axolotl_peyotl 2017-12-29

I don't like having to justify my posts

yeah because you're a notorious spammer

1 2012ronpaul2012 2017-12-29

Come on AP. You’re better than that. We should be working together and we both know Orangutan is one of the best/last redditors still on the platform.

1 axolotl_peyotl 2017-12-29

Perhaps.

But Orang has maintained an aggressive attitude towards us for a while. Instead of stirring things up I wish he would offer more constructive criticism.

1 2012ronpaul2012 2017-12-29

Very fair. Respect is a must. I'm an outsider, but I imagine him being kicked off the mod team for dubious reasons has left bad blood in the water. Maybe you two and whoever else could bury the hatchet and make amends?

I told Orangutan I'd buy him a few beers if he makes it back to the right coast. I'd be happy to do the same for you if you're ever in VA.

1 The_In-Betweener 2017-12-29

Free beer! VA here I come!

1 2012ronpaul2012 2017-12-29

Finally! :)

1 MollyNostrils23 2017-12-29

Aside from the fact that it's the kind of thing that you could never imagine anybody with a genuine interest in anything 'conspiracy' related coming up with and demanding, it quite literally is making a statement. Which is something to think about in itself. We no longer have the right in this sub to post links that speak for themselves.

1 sudo-tleilaxu 2017-12-29

I think you guys should consider a whitelist of posters if that is at all practical and can bee added to the bot's functionality without a lot of effort. Longtime regular posters to the sub, who have no track record of abusing the freedom from censorship and moderation that this sub offers, should be considered for exemption.

Perhaps there could be consideration of having the whitelist as an incentive that people can gain over time if they show a good track record of participation and positive contribution to the sub.

On the other hand, I think /u/orangutan can also be a little more supportive as the submission statements are currently just being tried on a trial basis as a way to make this more of a conspiracy sub again rather than a place for people to spam low-effort links that they probably have not even read. (not accusing you of this)

I also think you are being slightly disingenuous in your oh-so full-throated support of of the veracity and validity of reddit's current voting system.

1 Orangutan 2017-12-29

I definitely would like to be considered for being on the whitelist here and I think I'd qualify for it as well

1 code_commando 2017-12-29

Secret plot to teach robots how to think must read:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7mznym/conspiracy_at_rconspiracy_requires_users_to/?utm_source=reddit-android

1 bostonbean 2017-12-29

Wouldn't this work better with a fill in the blanks type format...something that did not require to much time.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

Yeah, probably, but there's no way for us as mods to modify reddit to accomplish that.

^{Cheeky answer: Yes, it's called a comment box.}

1 bostonbean 2017-12-29

Ok Cheeky reply: I guess I Don't submit that often anyway

1 accountingisboring 2017-12-29

I think it is working great. It feels like home again in here!

Great job to you guys for making this happen. Your hard work is much appreciated!

1 AreEternal 2017-12-29

The rule is awesome.

1 samout 2017-12-29

Where's your Submissive Statement, CelineFAGbard?

1 toxic_banana 2017-12-29

This is a stupid rule. My vote is to remove it.

1 Ayy_Its_B-rad 2017-12-29

/u/CelineHagbard

What about people who skate the rules by posting it as a self post, then linking an article or just the info from an article?

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

First, it most likely falls under rule 12, so you can report it for that. If it becomes a regular issue, we can address it further.

But I'd also say self posts with a single link and nothing else are much less likely to rise than the same link, same title as a link post. I don't have any hard data to prove that, but it generally seems to be the case, and I don't know that spammers are going to spend the same time to make self.posts.

1 Orangutan 2017-12-29

Can we get a summarization on the https://www.reddit.com/user/rConBot/ that was added to the moderator list. So far all I've heard is:

It's a new bot/script the mods are using to auto-delete any link post under 25 minutes old, that does not have a submission statement.

I'll be looking into it more and posting some statistics on the bot and it's activities soon. I'm supportive of the bot, moreso interested in the type of posts it is most effective on. :)

and...

it's a submission statement bot, here to enforce

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

Dude, it's literally in the post you're replying to:

The second part of this update is to let you know that we are now running a bot, u/rConBot, to help us deal with the increased workload this new rule has created. The only thing the bot does is removes posts whose OPs have not made a top-level comment within 20 minutes of posting. This only handles part of the workload, but so far it has removed about 140 posts in two days of running, and I think we've reinstated about 5 posts whose OP had subsequently added a submission statement.

and further explained in comments here and here. I can give you any more details if you have specific questions, but this is all the bot does.

1 expletivdeleted 2017-12-29

there seems to be a more... "conspiracy-relevant" atmosphere since the submission statement requirement. i'm diggin' it.

1 pilgrimboy 2017-12-29

I concur. I think it is is currently working.

1 SocraticMethHead 2017-12-29

Maybe now we won't have the five daily posts arguing over who the "shills" are either. Posts which ironically do more to slide the forum and hamper discussion than literal shills would.

1 DieLibcucksDie 2017-12-29

/u/CelineHagbard works for ShareBlue and openly defends their "right" to be here.

1 Ieuan1996 2017-12-29

Source?

1 gatemansgc 2017-12-29

none, it seems.

1 RareOmen 2017-12-29

That mod did ban my RL friend for "trolling" when he was defending someone from a Top Mind who was mocking someone else. That was just really surprising to me.

1 Askmenothingok 2017-12-29

I think the “in the OP’s own words” is very important. W

1 cutol 2017-12-29

I love this rule and love y'all for implementing it. Love!

1 Orangutan 2017-12-29

Do users get notified if their posts get deleted after the 20 minute mark or whatever is in place?

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

Yes, you even linked to the bot's user history, which you can see is replying to all the posts it removes. Why are you asking questions that are easily answered with the information you already have?

1 Orangutan 2017-12-29

I don't think everyone reads every post here. I mainly use it as a news aggregator and don't try to get involved into the details more than I want to. I often probably miss things that others see and vice versa. Thanks for the reply. I was just wondering if posts were going to get shadow-banned now.

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

No, no shadow-removals. We as a mod team try to be as transparent as possible about why remove something, and at least post a reply when we do. (I occasionally decline to, especially if I'm removing several posts by the same user for breaking the same rule, or if I'm working through a backlog of multi-day old posts, and the post has comments and negative votes.)

I think we do better than pretty much every sub our size or larger in this respect, and we have public modlogs so you can see every action we take.

1 BareknuckleCagefight 2017-12-29

I've been seeing a lot of posts where the submission statement is like

Originally posted in [sub] by [user]

"[Copied text that is literally in quotes]"

and these stay up for hours/just continue to stay up. Do these submission statements not go against 'written in OP's own words (i.e. not copied from the article or description)'?

1 CelineHagbard 2017-12-29

I removed a couple of these yesterday, but yes, this violates rule 13 and should be reported, or let us know in modmail. We're still operating on a bit of a skeleton crew due to the holidays, so haven't been as responsive as we'd like.

1 BareknuckleCagefight 2017-12-29

Ah alright. I hate to call-out anyone but Jborg007 is a serial offender

1 jay_howard 2017-12-29

This is a great idea. I think it's kind of lazy to submit what may be a substantial link, worth discussing, without at least an idea of the context for which the link holds value. Good job, mods!

1 Magameme 2017-12-29

This rule is retarded. A mod took down my twitter link to the hash that Julian Assange just tweeted because I figured 99% of anybody who gives any sort of shit about /r/conspiracy knows about JA and the deadman switch.

1 nut_conspiracy_nut 2017-12-29

I stopped posting on this sub. Even when I find something very juicy elsewhere. It's a hassle. It's not personal; just user experience.

1 DieLibcucksDie 2017-12-29

They want long time posters gone so they can make way for more ShareBlue sponsored shilling.

1 Lyra_Fairview 2017-12-29

Such a lame rule tbh.

1 slick_stone_bridges 2017-12-29

This is dumb

1 zeropoint357 2017-12-29

Sounds like shillbots posting political tripe will HATE this. Anything that pisses them off is cool with me.

1 Floyderg 2017-12-29

Jesus Christ. Fuck off with your autistic control issues you pathetic little manbabys. Moderate as you have volunteered to do or just fuck off and kill yourself. Nobody wants your childish rules you stupid little fucks. Go and moderate a Nintendo sub and fuck off.

1 psy-op 2017-12-29

Why not add a reminder to the AutoModerator comment with the archive link?

1 dildy 2017-12-29