Do you want a make a pool? Or vote in some way for the most important news of the week?
Following Axeotl_Peotl's example, we can go for the most upvoted comment in here as the major topic that should be discussed this week. Most upvotes, or longest discussion WINS.
We can do that every week, so we can try to make this into a community. Otherwise, everyone is just sharing their views - old, new, wrong, right, etc... There is no community work being done in reality.
I know we agree on the majority of the conspiracies, but on some we disagree...
If we make a DISCUSSION posts about a certain topic and we actually manage to finalize it, then we can just copy the link to any new user that has any questions about this topic. I see this as a win for everyone of us. Otherwise, we just share known materials to veterans, who can help with a lot of information.
-
How can we activate the veterans in conspiracy research to be more active and share their information with newcomers?
-
How can we have a useful debate that actually reaches a useful and truthful conclusion?
-
How can we make this community more proactive than it already is?
We should unite our efforts to make a difference, otherwise it's every man for himself... And how has that worked in the past?
It's clear that the enemy wants to divide us, so it might be a good idea to unite in the ideas that we agree on. It seems like a good idea to at least try. I can definitely say that it worked when Axeotl_Peotl was making the pools in the past about the most important conspiracy of the week.
Rules:
-
Attack the argument, not the person.
-
Add more information to the topic, if you can.
-
Expose shills, who have no rational reason to go against any topic.
If you see a positive use for this, please share any topics that you think are relevant. A Charlie Kirk discussion, or a united thread would be very useful, but of course any suggestions would be appreciated, just say what comes to your mind as an important conspiracy topic.
We had already great discussions in here on the Lahaina fires and other topics, where users were compiling big posts that clearly showed the conclusion of a combined research (sorry, if I miss your specific example, I just forget things).
That would be an extremely useful database. If we can compile all the information in one post, someone can share it, someone can make a documentary about it, someone can research for more details...
We all have different qualities that can be useful to expose the truth to others. It is better to share them then just use them on our own. What has been achieved so far by a single individual? But if we combine our resources, we might have a real chance to wake a lot of people with extensive research and firm message that would help them conclude that the mass media is lying.
I'm sorry that I have to be the person to restart this topic, but I haven't seen anything similar in some time in here. (I don't review this forum daily, so if you've done that and I've missed it - I'm sorry). But if we decide on a day that is specifically for these discussions, we might have a real breakthrough using the brains of this community.
If you think that's a good idea - comment your best conspiracy topic.
If you think that I shouldn't start this - make a DISCUSSION post about your best conspiracy topic.
Either way, I hope you can share knowledge between yourselves in a united manner. That would certainly show the greatest result, imo.
It has one advantage, namely priority on saying and doing more important things (than e.g. black holes).
You ask that at c/Conspiracies? Henry Robert was smart but has been gamed six ways from Sunday.
Speaking very specifically of that, math has proven that communities cannot make meaningful decisions with more than two options. I'd suggest we first start with status quo (Wild West, no active mods) vs. change (by default, petition for a moderator). During that discussion, consensus may well develop on a list of names without a vote, but a second vote on particular names might help frame consensus. But votes in general are ... sus.
I appreciate your kind words, and affirm your desire to light a fire under the community; but I'm losing track of how many people have suggested themselves for mod (and how many in jest), and part of the rejuvenation will almost certainly involve a very important related community question, namely acceptance or rejection or agnosticism toward collectivism (to speak in code). If my code is unclear, check c/Conspiracies/new to see if there's a majority theme that keeps recurring here that might not be at all aligned with c/Conspiracies/top?sort=all and get back to me.
Compared to what? There are many discussions currently for this day alone. If you think your topic deserves a better insight - go post it. There are some posts that hold no real value currently, so you're definitely not doing anyone any good by not discussing it... That was my point - if you want something discussed - open a discussion about this.
But if I misunderstood your point, what do you prioritize currently that blocks a discussion about black holes, as you want those answers? I think we can focus on priorities while we also discuss non-priority matters, that's my view.
I don't know about Henry Robert... In the little info from wiki he wrote some manual about his own poor performance, and the discussion rose to a conflict... If that's what you meant, then you're probably focusing on the angry users, who spew nothing but insults...
As a mod, you will be able to mute them. That's the solution.
If they don't know how to reply, then you set the tone and lead by example. And if someone is making it into a conflict - give him a strike and a message to remind him of a potentially normal answer that he might've given, contrasting to the current insult-fest that was provided.
I can write more, but I might be wrong about this Henry Robert example you gave and my 2-minute research might be all wrong...
Please give me more information on this topic, so I can understand it and write an appropriate reply.
You meant "history", not "math". I'm kinda touchy on the subject of math but I know what you meant.
Even so, should we change our own ways to accomodate the beasts? Or should the beasts accomodate to us? For me, there is no question that we must set the bar, and whoever goes over it, that's the people we need.
If some users can't deal with a simple vote, then what are they even worth?
I'm not sure I understand you perfectly here... I don't see how votes are "sus"... We're not the government... We won't abuse the voting system... Or do I misunderstand you completely?
I'm sorry, I tried what you said, but I couldn't figure it out. "Acceptance, or rejection, or agnosticism toward collectivism" is not our problem, in my opinion. We can crush those topics through a debate. And a mod should be impartial to those topics, just making sure that a respectful discussion exists and it's following the topic.
Sorry, if I didn't understand you... I couldn't crack the code... You can write a personal message to me, if you fear something in open communication like that... I checked everything you said, but I don't connect that to any belief or agnosticism. Personally, I believe in Jesus, but I would never mute someone for talking against him, rather I would demolish him with facts. That's my opinion, if I understand you correctly, and I'm not sure I do. Please write me a message, or personal message, without a code, so the dumbess that I am could get it clearly. Sorry, I know it's frustrating to send a message and the other one to never understand it, but it's frustrating to me as well to read something and not get it. I hope you understand.
I primarily mean real life, plus whatever things I do choose to take time to comment on in my history. I put out a lot about black holes in comments last week and will do so again, maybe in post(s), but logistics exist.
Henry Robert is famous because Robert's Rules are the standard for how groups of people decide matters with relative fairness. It's based on Parliament and is used with slight changes by Congress. The point is any version of it can be and has been gamed. So we might have a surface consensus achieved by declaration of deliberative results, but it's only as good as its circumspection, and in Conspiracies we don't begin by taking any view for granted. Surface consensus is fine in most cases, and might work here, but the discussions are already demonstrating anarchy coding and less than serious attempts at consensus deliberation.
My mod style and its detractors are well-known. I wouldn't jump into a community to change its existing style, and unfortunately this one now has lots of anarchic style well established. So it's essential that those users who remember what it's been and want to keep that under new moderation are able to demonstrate that to the whole group of contributors, which is usually done by rough consensus even if Robert is totally ignored. And in the American Revolution decisive action by 3% can drive the rest and overcome forum-sliding and solipsism that manifest in larger percentages; but they did it by establishing consensus in pubs and churches.
The new mod team would here have great risk of censoring viewpoints while attempting only to regulate disruptive behavior. The rules are briefly (0) platform rules, (1) respect, (2) no tool abuse, (3) no sliding. (Note to new mod: Those need to be rightly reflected in options available when someone reports, a very easy fix.) [Add: the sidebar "disclaimer" added (4) quality, (5) no "trolling", (6) no stalking, (7) no spam, (8) honesty, (9) no violence; looks like the disclaimer, which I missed, is the source of the justification for most actions.] We could squeeze a lot of speech and logic regulation into "respect" but it would probably need elaboration before long; and if there's no rule about NSFW content it might be asked about before long too. I think that longer rules make it easier for moderation to be circumspect and transparent, but I wouldn't want to change them without input from the past mod logs and from the current community. This week several people have complained about the behavior of one Communities contributor or another, often suggesting moderation; many of these cases press that risk of censorship and, in a free-speech forum, also have the risk of ongoing meta deliberation that detracts from the work of Theorizing.
I did mean math. Arrow's impossibility theorem says, if there are at least three alternatives for voting, then there is no social welfare function satisfying all of three proposed conditions of rational choice, and was anticipated by Condorcet. History shows its application to politics; but that basically means that, anytime a self-structuring community arises with high truth-seeking focus, there are easy, asymmetrical ways to shove it off its focus, and so a critical mass of focus renewal is important for longterm stability. If people stay focused on truth then consensus is easy; conversely, in a mixed, open-contribution society, staying focused only arises by grace and is preserved by voluntary self-regulation, which is not easy. Voting is sus, well, everywhere, and in this country since its founding; we accept the numbers but they don't mean much, and many recognize that rough consensus is stronger than impassive manipulated vote totals.
So, one math application is, if we are beasts and humans, how do we as anons work out how to exclude the beasts? Mathematically, it's a giant game of Amogus and greater than 1/3 ratio of "beasts" can win the game. That requires strategy and not everyone brings strategy to the table (but the "beasts" can be counted on to be doing so).
If you didn't follow about collectivism, it'll become obvious in due time, it doesn't need to clutter up the meta threads. And I'm not trying to be oblique but to prioritize topics. More important is your hope of "crush these topics through a debate". It's great to have high hopes for deliberation to result in peace. You are here because you resolved not to underestimate the enemy, though? I might meme: "You hope because deliberation is good, I hope because deliberation cannot ultimately be effectively used for evil, we are not the same." I absolutely affirm the idea that the Truth (which I believe to be Christianity as God-revealed) will conquer; but we are in a place among many who have many skepticisms about Truth, and we benefit by that. The uniting banner of Conspiracy Theorists is not known to be Christianity (it might be on Mars Hill), and it can be Truth ("out there") but that needs to be commonly conceived and not just "Truthy".
The redemption of a community from anarchy to order is a noble and involved quest!
That's another point - if you're busy in real life, then that's not blocking you from raising the topic, it's only delaying your replies.
Sorry, but I never heard of Henry Robert until you mentioned him - not a valuable person. His thoughts have proven worthless. We need someone better than Henry Robert's ideas to decide what is worth debating and what is not.
If a person is not working towards a consensus deliberation, a mod has the power to mute them for several days. Remember that.
We have a goal. And if someone is blocking us from getting that goal, then they get the rough treatment. We can't make everyone happy and we shouldn't. Do you know how many shills infest this place? Are you going to work to make all the shills happy too? You shouldn't. We must exclude some users, so the rest are safe! Now, how do we do that is really tricky. But you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, goes the banal saying...
They also killed some people, so just be reminded of that.
If you're not ready to take a strong action against those, who seriously stop our progress, then what is your purpose exactly? I'm not saying that you must do it, but if you should, would you do it?
You can't make everyone happy.
If you had to ban permanently someone, can you do it? And under what circumstances?
A mod can ban someone permanently. If you can't do that yourself, for any reason whatsoever, then admit that. You're tiptoeing. That's not a mod's behavior.
Where do you draw the line? That's the real question here.
You're really pushing me here... I told you not to trigger me with math... One theorem doesn't make you understand math... And how can you prove this theorem is correct? Because someone said it?
That's not how math works.
Judging things with historical records only proves that someone hasn't learnt from the fact that "victors write history"...
What is being manipulated in an open vote? We're not the government... I don't have paid shills to promote my position... It's nothing like an actual vote.
I understand your point, but it's not applicable in a forum vote that is not controlled by the government, for the most part.
I am actually surprised by this part. True.
So, do you think of us as less than the beasts that we can't defeat them? Quite the opposite, we know their tactics, they are easy to beat - https://conspiracies.win/p/17tegZSGDy/friendly-reminder-on-how-to-spot/c/
Do you actually fear if the beasts are more than you? That only makes our win feels greater.
I tell you again - you can't please everyone. If you aim for that, you will lose. And I don't want you to lose. I want you to fight for the ones that are worth the trouble!
Never said that I would force my opinion onto others. I only said that if anyone has different opinion, I would crush them with facts.
If you're a true Christian, then remind me - did Jesus stay silent when his religion was questioned?
I'm not making myself to be a good Christian... I'm probably the worst Christian that ever existed. But what's my point?
Don't ban people for speaking against Christianity.
Offer facts to convince them that Christianity is correct.
And that has nothing to do with being a mod. A mod has to be impartial even about religion. Even if the religion is correct. A mod must assess who is insulting and not hearing the other side. And if the so-called-Christian does it - mute him for several days. But if the other side does it, would you still mute them?
And that is being done right now! We're on the front lines of solving this problem with anarchy. You can hide yourself or push for the solution.
I hope you push for the solution!
I like you, so I'm convinced you didn't think about how that sounds in this forum.
Since our good friend u/Paleo noticed our reports about spam, he banned u/persianprince sitewide within minutes of my giving him the details, because that is a known issue (demonstrable alt of CSAM poster). So I can use force. That's one of several issues I alluded to indirectly in the previous. However, most other people here know how to avoid becoming known issues, and that takes more subtlety. Consensus-building is a good way to work that, especially with several fronts to deal with.
Let's get that consensus.
Aside, I've found that on Scored there has never been a need for a mod to ban for more than a year (I've given a year a couple dozen times). A person who returns to an account after a year ban with the same violations as before might warrant permaban but it hasn't been worthwhile for anyone here (there's evidence that on other sites people do find it worthwhile). So, yes, but it's been unnecessary. There are a few circumstances, like the CSAM just mentioned, where admin has suspended the user, which is worse than mod permaban; they've been very responsible about that and it's never needed to be an ongoing issue for mods.
It'd be funny if impartial math triggers us both! Arrow's theorem is what I meant, but I'm certainly open to there being conspiracies in math (I put Georg Cantor at the center of some of them) as much as in history. 2+2=1984.
Let's see! We're all anons; we all persuade by our words, actions, and inactions; we all have equal power to game the system incrementally (even as obvious attempts are scuttled by the platform); we can bring in (paid or unpaid) shills easily especially if we already have, so we have unequal resources that might bear upon the forum; we can use drama like appearing persuadable or changing our vote; the vote itself is not called for by a published process but only by individual anons picking when to initiate dialogues, making it arbitrary; history shows counting is arbitrary (we already have one conditional vote); the governments have certainly infiltrated our forum already; and the crisis of the situation (mods who disappeared silently, etc.) can also be used manipulatively. Is that enough answers? Mathematically, we could all be perfect logicians and deliberate with perfect rationality, but then Godel would come along and prove that we'd be forever incomplete about it.
Now then.
So far, I've been reflecting with relative idleness about, somebody should mod, maybe I could, maybe it's a bit much for my schedule. You alluded to beasts and so I said from that standpoint we do have a little game theory to work with. But I also don't have anyone to regard as a beast metaphorically. I know there are enemies of Christ that are revealed as wolves in sheep's clothing, but my defense against them when they are unrevealed begins with the circumspection that protects all my interactions, and here I can also major in the skepticism that no interaction is necessarily what it seems. I learned (mathematically, in public-key cryptography) that the best defense is one you can tell everyone about because it's unbeatable. So I can talk long about strategy because if I keep it implemented as God directs I'm always safe even in my sharing my secrets. There is nothing about any enemy of mine that is undefeatable or fearful (Is. 54:17).
Yet establishing actual enemies (focusing on demons, satanists, and pseudoprophets), identification friend or foe, is not straightforward especially in a conspiracy-based forum. If you have a battleground mindset about anything other than the eternal then it's not a guaranteed victory. I don't rapidly dismiss someone as shill or troll, although I have a record of making quick judgments about an action being shilling or trolling. The right use of mod tools about actions like that need to be based on (1) a careful analytical understanding of the published rules (I already missed one and will need to edit my list), (2) consistency with prior mod rulings, and (3) community support. If I were to moderate a forum that is 80% rah-rah over topic A, I could see that there might be consensus to ban 20% of the community, if that were the published rule. But getting that level of agreement isn't easy, and is often dangerous because performative. This community has enough ambiguity that it will take soul-searching for any moderator.
TLDR on that: I just showed I can recommend for suspension, which is worse than permaban. Most cases are not as clearcut. Establishing "The Purpose" of c/Conspiracies is not clearcut beyond agreement around a few sidebar sentences. Moderation should remain moderate by definition and should account for history, promulgation, and consensus. Consensus-building is ongoing but takes time for congealing.
You are right that, in any well-regulated community, the truth will flourish and particularly the truth of Christianity. It's easy to use mod tools against a person who breaks an objective rule, so easy in fact that mods must constantly beware the intrusion of subjective rules. If mod tools (use of community-authorized force) are only used in accord with objective, promulgated, transparent, circumspect principles, then you're right it has nothing to do with the process of debate. But we haven't established that Conspiracies is a place that wants deliberative debate to be the norm! It may be possible for 3% to make it such a place if they are motivated, but asking God whether I'm motivated to set up such a place with this history and population is a question that takes time for me to answer. c/Christianity over time has been established as being willing to entertain civil debate, formally or informally, on all worldview issues, but I'm not sure that c/Conspiracies is or was such a place. Perhaps Axolotl intended that, but we have what we have today and not yesterday. Anything can be done and the question is which thing we will do.