Below is a direct message I have received from the above user.
(Copied to a number of mods:) I'd like your help as a trusted mod on the sitewide question of banning disreputable communities. I've proposed to u/C that the question is too important to limit to admin input alone, and that a transparent decision to ban would best be supported by community leaders acting formally so as to ensure circumspection and broad membership support. Since I've learned with C that "no news" means good news, I'm proceeding forward, and inviting you to participate in discussion in a new Scored forum shortly to open up (currently locked) at c/ReputationCampaign.
Please read the following proposed draft of the forum's welcome sticky: if you're willing to be part of such a panel to provide recommendations to the admins on this important community question, submitted for their approval, please let me know by Feb 28. By that time I will open and facilitate discussion toward conclusions (if any) on this question.
I've haphazardly sent this message to those qualified as described below and with whom I've had sufficient experience. I will try to reach the majority of qualified mods, but please pass this message on to other mods that you trust as well. Please write back if you want to have an active part in the discussion.
Volunteer Committee on Reputation Campaigns
This forum serves as a semiformal assembly of experienced moderators constituted for a primary purpose of analyzing the reputation-campaign clause of the Scored content policy. The moderators listed here are the so-far confirmed volunteer members of this panel assembly, and anyone else is free to comment on point as well. (Any use of moderator tools will be discretionarily applied, primarily to facilitate and maintain orderly discussion without disruption.)
The purpose of this assembly is to discuss and report on the question: "What should be the interpretation and case-use applications of the reputation-campaign rule of Scored content policy as informing a deletion of any entire Scored community?" Secondarily, the assembly may consider specific instances of any Scored community that has been publicly suggested by multiple testimonies as a test of this rule, or other interpretative policy issues.
Past admin comments indicate that any hypothetical community ban must be conducted with transparency at all levels: this suggests the initial stance that it should never occur except after a firm conclusion broadly held by a constituted panel, such as these volunteers. In this way an errant community is met, not by individuals acting alone, but by a proactively built leadership community in broad agreement. It is intended that this panel could then report its recommendations to the admin board, submitted for their approval, as the entire Scored population's formal voice through their societally delegated moderators. Final decisions would rest with the admins.
All moderators listed in the sidebar will have equal voice on the panel, along with any others that volunteer and meet the same base qualifications as follows. Anyone who has at least 1000 total Scores, has at least 3 months' activity, and is the moderator of a forum created Jan 2022 or earlier can contact the facilitator, SwampRangers, to be included on the panel. Reasonable attempt to contact all qualifying parties has been made. It is hoped that conclusions will be met with unanimity or broad consensus, but some votes may be taken among panel members to establish a record.
The motivation for this forum is to establish means by which every community member, and leaders in particular, can participate in a decision that affects the host's reputation and thus everyone. Admins are keenly aware of the probability of bad-faith forum creation, and of their need to remain at arm's length about determining what constitutes bad faith. Bad faith should never be assumed, but should only be concluded by a deliberative participatory process. The ReputationCampaign forum allows volunteer leaders to take this burden off the admins transparently and with the implicit support of the broad membership. The difficult decision to ban a community should never be engaged without leadership having the benefit of full consultation with those lower in chain of command. The structure was inspired by the similarity between the Content Policy hypothetical case and that of the orderly advice of Deuteronomy 13:12-18.
Comments in this thread will be an open discussion on the forum purpose. For orderliness, other than panel moderators, contributors should generally not start new posts in this forum except by prior permission from a panel moderator. Nondisruptive commenting will generally remain free.
here we go again. power hungry jannys always gotta fuck up a good thing
It's clearly a trap. All bureaucracies leak authority. When this occurs, it brings about the end of the institution through lack of alignment. That said, on the other end of the continuum, there are also subversive agitators whose goal is to bring about such a crisis. I definitely don't see a shadow council as being the solution. Better would be to do as axo and others have : "I'm in charge, I'll enforce my standards which may be arbitrary. I'll be transparent about my actions. If you don't like it, leave."
He also carries water for them. He won't ban bad actors if they talk nice to him.
Look at how fucked he is in the head pushing some bullshit "inverted space" idea. He literally thinks planets are some "dent" in a Dyson sphere or something fucking retarded.
I've tried to bring the issue because flat earth banned me to meta and C said "make more communities". Well I don't see a button for it and who the hell is OKing this swamp asshole to be mod of dozens of subs? The admins are in on this shit. Whole site is honeypot
In case this didn't get answered, the button for community creation is now the plus sign next to the bell. It goes to scored.co/create. The announcement of this detail in a quiet corner happened around 2/10 and okayed all users except total newbs to create as many forums as they can muster. I held off for a bit and then made a decision to act on 2/13. It turned out that I was the biggest claimant in this "landrush" phase, and knowing that risk I basically set up all communities as being self-determining by those interested. For this reason I invite contributions by yourself and u/DavidColeIntrepid at c/FlatEarth. You can also create a community under any new name if you're willing to moderate.
u/axolotl_peyotl has agreed to be a charter member.
So if the intent is not to be disruptive, then why "burn everything in the city"? This prevents the opportunity for feedback and consensus.
The passage also says to investigate and inquire and interrogate and establish fact, which is to be done formally. In other passages this is called offering terms of peace. Feedback and consensus is the goal. The city that is responsive is negotiated with (policy is agreed on ad hoc), the one that is unresponsive is proven to be irreformable by the jurisdiction of a competent tribunal. Also admin policy is not to burn, but to preserve an archive. Your thoughts are welcome at c/ReputationCampaign; since you meet the longevity rules, you can also join the committee if you can get modded to one of the older communities first.
Thanks for thinking of me and I'm not necessarily ideologically opposed to what you're up to though my personal preference approach is more distributed.
Well, after the recent mass infiltration of new communities obviously created to bring this site down, there needs to be strong action. But action by consensus over valid causes, not the reddit at-whim of a soyboy type of banning.
There is a particular religion that mounts such attacks and we do need to clamp down what is not free speech but is 'by deception shalt thou do war'. It is so apparent when looking at the /niggers sub for example that someone is out to create disorder to bring down a venue of true free speech. So many of the new subs are about hate, and this site is not fundamentally about hate but about true free speech.
But on any new 'mechanisms', let us have checks and balances if possible, so as to prevent dictators emerging.
Wasn't it the user u/SwampRangers that did much of that?
Now that you pointed that, yipes, yes. Now I see that as the creator of the disruptive subs he is additionally trying to do a massive effort to gain a lot of control and power. This is what JCM did on Reddit, and it is something that has to be prevented.
'ReputationCampaign' control? Shades of the Chinese police state. I can see this is a second prong of a multipronged attack on .win. May not be an amateur campaign, if you get my drift.
This oh-so-earnest troll says "Admins are keenly aware of the probability of bad-faith forum creation, and of their need to remain at arm's length about determining what constitutes bad faith." --- their NEED to stay off it? Bullshit. SwampRangers is trying to demand 'admins stay away, --I-- want to run things'.
Admins, please step in and do what you can to stop the power grab.
Things I do not understand - how did conspiracies subs get shifted to link to scored.com? How is it subs like /niggers and /nazi and the rest reside there? When I research that site it comes up as for sale? WTF is going on here? What is the deep connection to ConsumeProduct? It's looking like an insider has engineered this - was there an infiltrator with power? Did someone like the Israelis hack an admin password?
We need more than a single admin to step in so there can be control in case one admin has been hacked.
Finally. SwampRanger's posted comments violate the terms of service of scored.com as follows:
"Behavior
... the following behavior is not welcome:
SwampRanger's message violates the last clause on scored TOS. And I bet that alt names like that Panzer guy belong to him too as part of the whole scheme.
Could you elaborate on JCM's operation on Reddit?
EDIT: Perhaps start by explaining what JCM is. Please see my post:
Methods to thwart the conspiracy to marginalize us with terrorism and hate speech: Part 1 https://conspiracies.win/p/141rsptd4c/methods-to-thwart-the-conspiracy/
I don't trust any one here. I don't support Reputation Campaign which seems pretty clearly a route to power and control.
As for JCM the neocon, no, I'm not going to waste time exploring his sordid history. And in fact if you or Swamp are him or work for him we know where this is going.
I have always suspected that TheDonald has been run as controlled opposition until the right time for its owners to turn it into a Reddit. Now that Truth Social is ready, that will pull the rug from under The Donald.
Woah woah woah... I've never even heard of that account. I even googled it and got nothing. Why on earth would I be or work for that account?
I've wondered about that. It could be a long con. Those top minds accounts have worked for years.
JCM267 is a neocon who infiltrated Reddit and then took over many subs. His modus operandi was to create a lot of subs, become moderator, and then use his powers to get a lot of opponents banned. He also scrubbed references to him from the Internet with the help of his Zionist buddies in Tel Aviv. He had and has a million alts. He is a major reason Reddit went downhill and I'm pretty sure he has The Donald in his sights. A couple of major mods here know of him quite well because he fucked them over over there.
Oh fuck .. oh fuck. I just found out JCM started TheDonald. Okay then, this is the long game and they've been letting it roll along. Oh fuck. This is bad. We all have been played. No wonder Trump went to start a new site.
Okay, I am completely out of the loop. How did you find this out?
Also, was the TD at reddit or here?
cc: u/SuicideTruthbomber
Thank you, but I can assure you I work alone and only as the servant of Christ and a volunteer of SwampRangers.com. I have created zero disruptive subs, although the way in which the handshake OP published my private message to mods only, proving he is an alt, required me to respond by going public immediately rather than next week, allowing some to charge ReputationCampaign with disruption. But my distinction from folks like u/Panzerfaust will be known by my actions.
Thank you for your analysis and your Reddit account experience (which I don't have). I trust that by announcing all my communities in advance as self-determining I have indicated my intent to give the namespace to the community as it self-organizes; this is the same pattern the admins have followed about new community names that should be reserved; in particular Shithole and JOGGERS come to mind, and to a degree NoNewNormal was reserved by the admins until recently given to a slate of mods.
Here is C's quote I referred to, about "reluctance to 'own' that problem, no matter how obvious". Reading this was a primary impetus for me to propose direction, at the pleasure of the community and the admins, for this vacuum to be filled by orderly processes in the same way that I proposed direction for controversial namespaces to be filled. I knew this might class me in some first glances as being identical to those who immediately posted porn or Nazi sentiment, but I took that risk; again, check my actions.
On the conspiracy side I'd be happy to join you in research as I'm finding things out on my own too. I learned that Communities LLC (formerly Patriots LLC) was being formed independently without direct reference to r/TheDonald, and that TheDonald and ConsumeProduct were their first two big migrations to a website that also wanted pictures of cats but got hardly any. /Niggers is someone's attempt at pro-racism, /Nazi and /NWord are both my attempts at neutral discussion of the topics. It would be fascinating if anyone's actions, including mine, could have been predicted or persuaded unknown by some third party to create crises like we saw yesterday; it seems more likely to me that both Rdrama and SubvertRangers were uncoordinated and both arose on the same day due to their proximity to the rebrand.
C also said in my scroll, "there has been no change in ownership (ever - not partial or majority)". Actions support that.
Finally, I am in no way calling for nonviolators to be penalized. I am providing a formal process, which the community is free to reject or provide alternatives for, by which violations can be judged with the support of a consensus of users. The idea that a transparent representative process would result in recommendations contrary to the mass consensus of users would indeed be a call for penalties to what are nonviolating communities in the majority's eyes, and there is no intent for that to happen at all. The free speech by which you analyze this is an important safeguard of this. I encourage you to submit your thoughts to c/ReputationCampaign. Please feel free to start your own post there, although due to the forum rules on order I would ask you to include the statement that I specifically invited you to post, so others will recognize that fact.
Visit the account here and go through the list and visit some of subs moderated:
https://communities.win/u/SwampRangers
C will probably do it. C is a huge leftist. He's just aiding IP2 most of the time and trying to make fun of everyone who points out bot accounts and leftist censorship.
Not again. First Ruqqus, now this, and oh, add Carp and rdrama back on their bullshit for no good reason. At this point, I'm just curious what the next backup site is going to be once the .wins go the way of Reddit.
/pol/ is no longer safe
I don't trust anyone who mods more than 3-5 communities. So there should not be a community that caters to ban hammers...
Sounds like a BS excuse to take control like Maxwell did Reddit.
Anyone who wants that much control is automatically suspect and probably a terrible human being.....
ftfy lmao
Love him or hate him, it's C's barbecue and it tastes good (less good now, but nothing gold can stay)
C may be replaced, infiltrated, or just reveal their true colors at some point - but so far, they have done admirably and will not capitulate to morons like swamprangers.
This is empty, admin can do what it wants. Saying something is too important to be left to admin is an empty statement unless admin agreed to abide by anything some group agreed on and they have done no such thing. Good or bad, everything rests on decisions of the admins of any platform, that will never change. Any proposed 'trusted mod' group would have zero real power.
Isn't this like what they did on Wikipedia where they have a bunch of admins in the tank for obvious propaganda?
So this account can create a bunch of hateful content and then make sure nobody can interfere with it? What's the endgame? Destroying the site, of course. Could it be any clearer?
I will post more about this conspiracy and steps we can take to thwart it.
Anyplace that can name the jews is no longer safe. Not even /pol/ is safe. They're coming for us. Whether or not this ends well for them will be the question.
I support wiping the glowiefagget communities. No need to bring that heat on us all. Especially when it’s from the kitchen.
Fuck'em.
do we need jew lovers like Robby the Redneck? Nope, we don't.
I love you so much that I tried to save your soul. You hate me so much that you would rather spend eternity in pergutory than admit I'm right. You are not the man you think you are in your mind. You will find out eventually. Remember that I warned you. You could have saved your soul.
There is, and it's where you are going for worshiping false idols.
Jesus wasn't a jew. He hates jews and beat them with a whip. I'm going to block you now, because I am not interested in your inbred headcannon.
Now open to comments but not yet posts: c/ReputationCampaign
My comments on this handshake admitted alt who has spammed this to 5 communities: https://scored.co/c/NoNewNormal/p/141roEuuZy/i-know-this-has-nothing-to-do-wi/c/4OUg3g3PWeO