Should c/Conspiracies jointly petition admin for new moderation as opposed to it remaining an unmoderated Wild West?
Please answer YES or NO in separate main comments below, with any reasoning as desired.
This poll methodology is recognized to be unscientific but is better than nothing. Thank you for your responses.
Add: There is now a megathread. I would still appreciate contributors taking the time to add a YES or NO here to gauge interest on this specific question (thank you early adopters).
This "vote" had very little to do with it.
u/Thisisnotanexit was chosen because she came to this site with the Conspiracies crowd, has worked as a moderator on other communities already, was active in the community consistently for a long time, and multiple c/Meta threads asking for help with spammers like the pedospammer.
u/Thisisnotanexit is doing a fantastic job getting this community back to how it was intended to be.
This is a blatant admission you decided to install her as mod prior to any community input about whether or not to have a mod and who it would be.
The voting and Meta posts about community input about the mod position was all performative. None of it mattered. You made a decision from the beginning and the alleged community input was about you and the Swamp Cult being able to claim it was community driven.
Way to tell us you're a member of the Swamp Rangers without saying it...
What's your position on this site? Doesn't say you're admin and you're not listed as a mod. Admin that doesnt use the official admin stamp on here? Part owner or developer perhaps? Why are you calling the shots on who the mod is on c/Conspiracies and about who to ban or not?
Why are you mad? c/Conspiracies needed a good mod, now they have one. That's a good thing.
I like Swamp, I respect him. He's been around since the beginning like I was.
I don't recognize you though. Did you just arrive 2 months ago? Or is this an alt?
Technically J6. The Swamp Rangers organized on 2021-01-01.
Thanks for the thoughts. I'll keep repeating this: everything's running smoothly and with the increased interest levels we wanted, and all we needed was to get rid of two flat-birthers and two Hitlerjuden.
Your non answer about whether or not you are a Swamp Ranger is your way of admitting you are.
I've been around since The Donald got banned from Reddit. Saw someone advertise it in a Breitbart comment section and joined on. Over the years, the site has degraded and the energy it once had is gone. My main account got banned years ago because a mod thought my username was antisemitic, but it had nothing to do with Jews. They were too stupid to look it up and ignored my appeal.
Respect him for what?
I bet you were you one of the admin that approved of Anaconda back in the day when everyone couldn't stand him. I wouldn't say I'm mad. More like disgusted about how great a site like this could be, and how poor leadership has caused its downfall. You recently tried to reason with the pedo spammer. That's pathetic. You're never going to talk sense into those types. The way you said being a Nazi was worse than being a pedophile before, that's twisted morality. For being a Nazi, most of the time you'd think JG5 was just one of Jew hating Christians on this site that aren't Nazis. Yet, a legit pedophile isn't more of a problem? You ban the pedo left and right and go hard on him when he appears, yet the actual Nazi you say is worse... he's still here.
What's the deal with u/C? Did he quit or get fired? How many of you are in control of the site now? That one guy went AWOL and dispersing it was a good idea. Unfortunately, it appears you guys have a dying site that fizzled out and will fade into obscurity.
What kind of stuff did the feds talk to you guys about after Jan 6? They had to have cucked you guys so the site would stay up.
So you hate “nazis” and “jew hating Christians”, and you got banned from TD for “antisemitism” (but you were just being ironic).
And because of all of this you’ve decided to shit up c/conspiracies on a new sockpuppet, crying about the c/Christianity mod
I don’t get it.
Mods can't ban sitewide, only forumwide. If you've been here that long, you do realize that you can contribute to a thousand fora at scored.co with the same account, unless an admin bans you? And that I've never seen an admin ban that wasn't justified by publicly available data?
If you were banned years ago but returned here 2 months ago, you were either silent very long, or you had another account as well. Funny you don't wish to be transparent about either period, while you hold that people should have been able to approve your appeal via a simple dictionary lookup. So, while I believe your story, it also gives evidence of missing significant pieces.
Your complaints about the past sound to me like they arise from a sense of justice that hasn't fully confronted the duties of managing a free-speech site, and assumes there is a clear "never" about "those types" that others should validate as rapidly as you do.
C has always been quiet since he decided not to post constant tech updates. The admins' answers have always been the same, that there are no ownership changes, that the site continues on its original plan. I made my personal plans public here from the start, and they haven't changed significantly either, the site still accomplishes my original stated purposes. And one of the great things about it is meeting self-professed trolls like you!
u/Paleo isn't admitting any prejudice. As usual, he writes for those with reading comprehension skills. "This 'vote'" page was about a desire for a mod, not about the identity of the mod. There were maybe five candidates who proposed they could be mod, on several different pages, and it's clear the admins and Paleo based their decision on those several pages, where the vocal among the community expressed their views (and those who opted not to express their views had fair warning). The decision appears to have been made after a week or two of my and others' raising the point, but they didn't implement it for months, presumably to gauge people's reaction to u/Thisisnotanexit indicating direction.
Paleo is not a Swamp Ranger to my knowledge; he was well established here long before the Rangers were publicly announced (by Scott Lively, late 2020). Now I've said repeatedly that, when Neo1 (who doesn't want my pings) expressed a desire for a return to moderated activity, I affirmed him and pointed out here and on Meta that it seemed incongruous to have no active mod. I didn't press any agenda, I proposed a couple community questions like this one, as did others. There was sufficient consensus that moderation was preferable but insufficient consensus on who or how many it should be; so admin stepped in by having TINAE state a direction and waited to see that direction validated by the community. You could've stepped in anytime, maybe you did, and could've done anything I did, in your own idiom; it happened the way it did because of group dynamics.
(This being Conspiracies, I don't mind at all being told I conspired with others as if secretly to get things to happen. But it's not like anyone at any point had any better idea that the community was behind. They picked a good mod, she'd certainly be willing to yield some or all decisions to someone who could be a better mod, if one arose from the field.)
Paleo, to my knowledge, is a mod of 20+ communities that is trusted by admin to assist with and/or process sitewide concerns. His account has never identified as an admin account. It's been publicly stated that there are five part owners and that it's not important who; if you've been following the admin accounts, they indicate clearly their relative roles on behalf of those owners, and their closeness with ownership. TINAE stated publicly, 2 months ago, that admin had chosen her tentatively as mod, and Paleo has every right to be a channel for admin comms, including making his usual wise ban recommendations.
Now, please feel free to lay into me for speaking up on behalf of other anons that I know only by reputation. I am happy to explain things I know about, even in so much detail as to repel people. I will continue to believe that transparency is the best antidote to charges of conspiracy.
Prove it.
Prove exactly how many people it took to qualify sufficient consensus. Looks like it was just your cult.
That means she was pre selected without community approval. Prove where her direction was validated by the community. From the looks of it both those who don't like her and those who do had issue with the way she modded. She even admitted screwing up, and being too harsh. She backtracked on certain rules, and kept altering them. Her original direction sucked and she had to change it cuz everyone threw a fit. She failed. She was a hard ass long enough to ban JG5, RealWildRanter and others that Paleo told her to. Immediately after she changed course and those who were banned wouldn't have been with the direction she went. She was the plant that you and Paleo can control. She's only a figurehead and you and Paleo are running the show behind the scenes.
Tell us your real name if you want to be transparent.
The proof is that admin acted on this result as being the consensus of those willing to speak. You certainly didn't vote on this question, even though you still could (there's no deadine for voting). You certainly didn't propose or build any other consensus.
That one is in response to my statement of presumption. I could just say I am a sufficient witness for the statement that I presumed something, regardless of whether my presumption is true. However, what you probably intend is to know how u/Thisisnotanexit was selected. I can only appeal to her public statements and what answers she may be willing to give to direct questions. Here are the details of how it happened:
2025-10-31 Neo1 asks the community for roundtable subjects, noting the lack of Axolotl as mod, and I propose a subject and note the lack of mods for the past 8 months.
2025-11-02 Prompted by Neo's encouragement, I naturally ask Meta for advice, and point out that he and I could volunteer as caretaker mod names until a mod is more straightforwardly elected. TINAE, Graph, and JG5 [Add: and Malta] are also proposed as candidates.
2025-11-03 TINAE makes her own community question on the subject. I took the trouble to verify that the comment I link there from 2025-11-04 is her first mention of contacting admin.
2025-11-05 TINAE compiles a megathread of open threads and emphasizes her desire to stand as mod. On 2025-11-06 she indicates therein she received a generic admin response about investigating what to do with the forum. She continues to update about admin responses about generic questions.
2025-11-08 JG5 posts one of many Nazi threads. On 2025-11-09 TINAE states for the first time that admin has tentatively approved her as mod.
So I was right to remember 1-2 weeks, it was actually 10 days of thorough discussion.
Nope. The links show only a small subset of the community's discussion. How could we have gotten community approval to do anything if not by a consensus-seeking post (e.g. a vote)?
She indicated how she would interpret rules, remove death threats, ban the persistent ephebophile, shut down disrespect and attacks, etc. There were individual pushbacks, of course, but there was never any post soliciting community consensus that she should not be mod as admin hinted. When a small group of active people have a consistent consensus and the larger group declines to form consensus, their silence and inaction is taken in all societal paradigms as limited consent. If they cared they would have broken their silence and formed a different group opinion. As I pointed out separately, as soon as she laid down a strict interpretation of "disrespect" a consensus of about 17 contributors arose rapidly, against which I was in the minority; but I reported that too. Those 17 were willing to oppose her rapidly en masse on a matter of interpretation, but not willing to oppose her standing as mod at any time. That's how consensus is objectively gauged.
That's actually the leadership mark of successful adjustment to community requests. Imagine if she had stuck to her original direction in spite of community requests! How much more you would have complained!
I recall the regulars here telling her to ban those, not Paleo, but I'm not going to get the links for you.
No, her change was about not treating every disrespectful usage as a violation of the respect rule, and that change wouldn't have helped save any of the banned accounts, which the logs show were all banned for "constant disruption" (trolling). If you'd like the specific objective differences between the two those are clear in the logs.
This is Conspiracies so it wouldn't matter to you that I deny it (which I do). I rely instead on what I've already said being sufficient. I've said I met her here 5 years ago and we have similarity of thought in Christianity, with some different focuses. I suspect Paleo is a Christian but I don't recall him saying so. Now, since we proclaim Jesus will take over the world you can put that on a takeover conspiracy, but then you'd have to say Jesus was the bad guy, which BTW has never succeeded. If Jesus shouldn't take over the world, he's waiting to hear your reason; perhaps you could take it over better than he could and he patiently waits for you to try (so that you can give up on yourself and trust him to do it better than you). I said I'd be happy to answer specific questions about private messaging, which is very slight. But there's nothing behind the scenes, because everything Jesus said was to be made public, and we add nothing to it.
(Just for gedankenexperiment, how could one respond to a charge like this conclusively? If one found private messages or real-life connection, that would be a smoking gun; but in the absence of any, there is no end to the search and the accusation. Denial wouldn't help, sarcastic affirmation wouldn't help; I could produce all DMs and that wouldn't necessarily be trusted; a theory could always be proposed that I control everything secretly because such is unfalsifiable. It seems that the only way to be conclusive is to appeal to the accuser for terms of peace, namely what would constitute successful proof. If a person is continuously accusatory, one could ignore him; if a person is defamatory, one could, I suppose, fight back, but I limit that option to the most extreme cases of defamation, and have used it once here in 5 years. So my primary path is to seek to sincerely answer your questions until they reach a point of either satisfying you or embarrassing you.)
That's a beautiful illogic from the person who can't even tell us his prior account (fake) names. I've said from the start that I volunteer for Scott Lively and am accountable to the SwampRangers.org entity, which is more than most anons. If you need a first name and last name, put Jesus Christ, because I identify as his body and it's all on his tab. There may soon be a time I deanonymize here, as I've said, but it's not likely to be on a dare from a handshake.
Is there something you'd like to discuss with me directly?