From the sidebar:
Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.
Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules
(Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.
Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.
Last updated 2 years ago by clemaneuverers)
Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.
⭐ Rule 1 means we can have conversations and disagreements and even suspicions without using derogatory (disrespectful) language. This also means that we can say some people in some people groups are bad but we recognize that not every one of any people group are all the same.
Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.
⭐ Rule 2 means to use the report function for violations but not to overuse it for petty reasons.
Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.
⭐ Rule 3 means not to repeatedly post about other users and bully them but we might have to go total no meta posts because it is easily abused.
To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.
⭐ This means new accounts are unable to post until they have a comment score or a post score (from somewhere else) of 50 points. And you can use mod mail to ask the mod to look into it and approve.
Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.
⭐ This means constant low effort posting with no conspiracy theory or fact will be deleted.
Submission statements are making a come back. It also means we are not tolerating calls to violence (death wishing) and verbal abuse or harassment.
And a reminder that resorting to ad hominem (along with all fallacies) often makes one look emoti(o)nal, desperate and out of actual answers or rebuttals, in other words, you've lost, at least keep your dignity and integrity and try again another time having hopefully learned something.
Spam is often a generalized term and there are differences to me regarding spam from bots and spam from humans, spam bots will immediately be removed and permabanned. For human spam I would consider that being repeating/parroted speech and mass posting in a short amount of time, which will be assumed as forum sliding. Those posts will be removed and the poster will be asked to stop, if it persists there will be reasonable ban action and hopes the behaviour stops.
These have been the same rules since the community's inception and it has been over a year since they were enforced so we've all gotten a little flabby and now we are shaping back up.
Please let me know if any of this is unclear or if any terminology needs to be defined.
I'm here to spread truth too!
The truth is that lowering yourself to the standard of your opponents dramatically harms the cause of truth. When you call names because Jews do, by acting like a Jew you legitimize the Jews.
That statement includes the children. You're taking a self-designated term for race and redefining it to mean something else, which is grouping the innocent with the guilty. The Bible speaks about the rare cases in which children can be held accountable for crimes on their own recognizance, and this isn't one of them.
I'm comfortable with how many interesting posts and comments I contributed in the years before Neo1 made the most recent call for moderation, and in the months since when I stepped up my participation. So far moderation is a net improvement. There is not censorship of content, only of behavior that violates the rules (which are not about content). I've been pretty active in thwarting the recurring Indian pedophile accounts, and I don't see the forum having a problem with posts favoring gays or Jews. When I've moderated, as you know, I've promoted civil dissent but asked people to follow a simple honor code in clean language; I just approved you wanting to discuss whether the current interpretation of language standards doesn't reflect the community's desire, which is varied. Maybe you should start a post on it, without using slurs even as you are free to mention them as examples, and find out more objectively what the community is willing to share about its views.
If you recognize u/Thisisnotanexit is a she, that might help your appeal process in demonstrating your ability to read the room. You might even make a successful appeal that queue entries more than a few months old might be canceled as moot rather than enforced. But, as I said, I think your best route is to negotiate. If you reposted this post without a slur in the title, why would it be deleted? There is only one other post of yours she deleted, which was a meta about her. There is no evidence of going back years to delete old posts, maybe you're thinking of some specific example where the logs can show what really happened (maybe it was a different mod)?
Violation is not based on downvotes, that's part of the openness to debate that you mention. If you are really interested in a single standard, your proposal that you find "nazi" racially offensive might pass muster alongside the proposal of others (established by dictionary consultation) that they find other words offensive; but then you'd need to change your habits to be consistent, wouldn't you?