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.
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.
You think I care?
You should really review my previous posts and comment to write that. I don't care if anyone likes me. I care ONLY for the truth.
And you like an AI chatbot, so your liking doesn't really mean anything, does it?
How is this answering my point?
Again, you lean on someone else...
You can use force? And what force would you use against your AI friend - free_will_of_choice?
None?
Mods shouldn't have a friendly approach. Mods should be law enforcement. I don't believe you can do that. You say things only to be popular or be someone... That's not a mod, that's a tiny user activity.
We need order and direction in this forum. You don't provide that.
We need firm actions based on facts, not a user who likes an AI chatbot that has been blocked by most users...
We need simple and clear communication, not the SAT diarrhea that you spew...
You can try to convince yourself that you're smart, but that's not the goal here. The goal is helping the community, and you clearly miss it.
I wanted to be a mod, but one user in here reminded me that my actions are only recent, and my previous ones are not worthy to be a mod. I respect that. I respect honesty above all. And even tho I didn't like that comment at first, I respect the user, who made it.
Because I don't care for myself as much as I care for this community. We need mods who will say the truth to the users, even if they feel bad from hearing it.
And how can someone ban or mute a user? How can YOU take such a decision, when all you want is to be liked? You can't.
You should work for the betterment of this community. Try that. And if you're not as angry as I am, ONLY THEN you're a better man than I am... And I know of two others, who are perfectly suited to be mods. More than you and me. We need to respect that.
You mean u/Thisisnotanexit and u/Graphenium? That position might be salable to the community. We'll see.
You mean Will? Hmm, in what sense of "like" might I say I like him ... he's a challenge to my thoughts, he's a stickler for his own views ... I do try to have a positive view of everyone. You are one voice of the community, and he is one voice, and if there is a consensus about what to do about conflict between you two then a moderator could implement that consensus. But a moderator doesn't act unilaterally about one voice without a clear transparent policy to do so. Let's repeat that list. (0) platform rules, (1) respect, (2) no tool abuse, (3) no sliding, (4) quality, (5) no "trolling", (6) no stalking, (7) no spam, (8) honesty, (9) no violence. It's hard to shoehorn into "respect" the idea that responsive cryptic answers are disrespectful when users are simply routinely told to block such people individually from their personal views. As I said, sliding as stated only applies to meta, which this is not. "Trolling" can be a catchall, but I sure wouldn't want to be in the position of saying A is a troll based on nothing more than B saying so, since that dilutes obvious trolling (i.e. true disruption). Stalking could be handled by (a) User tells offender and mod they don't want offender interacting again, (b) Mod warns offender of deletion or ban on next infraction, (c) Offender shapes up or ships out; it should be limited to those who report being stalked, not just verbal diarrhea. So if you think it's "liking" him because I insist on everyone being judged by the same objective standards, well, that's part of how mods get accused of favoritism, especially at the same time in opposite directions.
Well, duh, I don't have power to ban or suspend in Conspiracies. Now I do have pretty good efficient logs at Christianity, where the mod board (sometimes me, sometimes not) has deleted Will 35 times over 3 years of his contributions. But I think that my getting admin to act within 1 hour on a key point where nobody else can act is a pretty good achievement unlocked.
Do you want more evidence from the Christianity logs? Admin told me when I arrived to always judge things from the default standpoint of retaining the content and the user, so that's the rule I used. But law enforcement doesn't go rogue either, they follow procedure even when people are impatient, they protect themselves and act rapidly only when rapid action is the only alternative.
We have a lot of power here to blur legislative (community rulemaking), executive (mod tools), and judicial (interpretation and appeals). As mod I often have to do all three, and so for rulemaking I involve the community heavily, and for interpretation I point out various routes beyond myself (e.g. formal appeal to the community, to other mods, to meta fora, or to admin). If you want a king, say so, but you still might not get one because of both community and admin.
I've offered quite a bit of structure ideas in the past couple days I've been thinking about it. Before that I enjoyed Conspiracies but didn't think much at all about volunteering to provide much for it besides content. I am taking time this week to see how to harness the power of the current interest level into direction, and since I've hardly campaigned that means I hardly have such a platform, and have said so. If a mod needs both a sound enforcement plan (which I've outlined) and a narrative of future prospects (which I've said I haven't been inspired on in great detail yet), then sobeit, but the community will still make the decision en masse and not because of any one individual.
Heard, reminded, respected.
:) If that's your perception of what I'm doing, it encourages me to keep doing what I'm doing.
Great ideal. If it's impossible indefinitely, it remains an ideal. Life is what happens while you were making other plans.
Yes.
Then your thoughts aren't that deep, if an AI chatbot that hasn't posted in over 4 years, and literally never in his existence is "challgenging your thoughts"...
Perhaps you don't have as deep thoughts as you think. A simple etymology chatbot can make you wonder, I don't think you can recognize a bot from a shill as a mod... Why would I vote for you? What do you have to offer to this community, who blocked an AI chatbot already?