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.
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?
I'm not here to provide reasons to vote for me.
I only offer to the community myself, as I do to the whole world.
I offered to hear what I did wrong and how I could make it right.
What did you do right?
Answer that first, it's more important.
At this point I see nothing I can do right in your eyes, including adding 52 and 60 to get over 100.
I wouldn't count "Society of Jesus"; but in the comment just below we have the idea that "Jesus hasn't uprooted" candlesticks. In the post where my 52 didn't add to my 60. Your questions are now boring me so I won't give more examples.
I have no problem with anyone sharing my works or with being honest or with sharing them myself. I reserve the right to contextualize the mistakes of others.
I offered you peace, the offer stands indefinitely, if you don't want it you don't want it.
Add: I'm glad I gave this comment in the same cascade as my first response to your public request for topics (the only one you recieved), the same cascade where I admitted being called a "Christiantard". Because it shows the full range of your personality in your interactions with me, very convenient. Anyway, it was a great idea to start with and it was encouraging to review the range. We math students do have a range to our personalities, people forget. Add: Being asked for 100 Jewish and 100 Muslim denominations on a dare, providing them all immediately, and then being told I didn't provide them, that is a local maximum of fascinating experiences here, one which I'm likely to share again. Add: While I'm at it, I may as well contextualize how to spell u/axolotl_peyotl. Those are two great words in most dictionaries that go great together but don't usually make the SATs.