Most of you know the operation that a user, by the name of SwampRangers, runs by using many other alt accounts. But in short, they overtake groups to control the narrative, and since his pawn became a mod in here - this place is 100% lost. I would advise you to seek other forums, or create them yourself.
More info on SwampRangers' organization - Part 1: https://conspiracies.win/p/1ARd3k2vVT/wow-seems-like-swamprangers-is-a/c/ /// Part 2: https://conspiracies.win/p/1ARd3k3C1T/part-2-swamprangers-is-a-group-o/c/
And of course, the "fairness" that you can expect from the new moderator: https://conspiracies.win/p/1ARd3l9OYI/notice-who-are-the-users-who-def/c/ /// Context here: https://conspiracies.win/p/1ARd3k3C1T/x/c/4eXvGpTaHTU
I joined this forum because Axelotl_Peyotl proved his worth in r/conspiracy and r/conspiracy_commons as a mod, who was removed for speaking the truth, and he recommended this forum. It was a great forum while he was here, but after he left, it slowly deteriorated into a disorganized echo chamber (but still with free speech), and now we can see it dead because a shill is appointed to be a mod...
Axelotl_peyotl was hated immediately for speaking the truth - https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ksk55w/meta_top_rconspiracy_mod_axolotl_peyotl_ive_been/
Although he was never hateful, even in his last message - https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/ksk55w/meta_top_rconspiracy_mod_axolotl_peyotl_ive_been/
And even a documentary was made for him - https://odysee.com/@foundring:1/axolotl:9
The many badges of honor of a real warrior for the truth! This is a reminder that real sparks of light in humanity are still treated as enemies and removed, while the evil ones win a short victory over them. The legacy that Axelotl_Peyotl created can never be matched in here, but some of you are still warriors for the truth, and I hope you win many battles... although you will be ultimately hated by the majority.
This forum will never be as strong as when Axelotl_Peyotl was here, and now it's in the hands of the shills. But I know some of you are warriors for the truth, and no matter how many places eject us, we will never quit speaking out the truth!
The shills have won this forum, but have they won the real war?
I know that.
I would never say SwampRangers group was ever Christian tho. Literally posted proofs that he's the mod of satanism and satan groups.
The point was that a good group is now in the hands of a known shill that nobody real voted for...
OK. So what. The US Government is in the hands of Satan. X (Twitter) is owned and controlled by Elon Musk, Meta by Mark Zuckerberg, TikTok by Larry Ellison. Do you think these people are saints? No, they're all jews and zionists. Deal with it.
We can't change that, but we can netutralize them. Most people don't believe anything posted on social media platforms. That's what we need to focus on. Make them irrelevant. So goes true for shills.
And what's your plan on making them irrelevant?
I still share my thoughts on forums wherever I can. A lot of places are controlled, but as long as you can voice your opinion, and reach someone - it's worth it. This small forum, where gifted conspiracy researchers lost the battle to shills, is not worth it. That's why other places should be found.
I'm glad to see some of the people here being active in new places already! Being a conspiracy researcher, while dealing only with shills, is a cruel way to waste a major talent in today's world.
I didn't write this post for shills, I wrote it to those, who are willing to change the world, because they are warriors of truth. And truth is most valuable in these times of deception. It's what the so called "elites" truly fear.
I don't really have a plan, but now that you mention I'll think about. One thing you can do is let someone, you believe is a shill, let know they hit a brick wall. A good way to do that is use a standard "comeback" that's appropriate within the context. Many templates are available to choose from, here is one.
What's your definition for "reach" in this context? if you are allowed to post, someone will read it. Is that good enough for you?
Again I think it comes down to definitions and expectations. "lost the battle" maybe something hard to quantify. Same goes for shills, not easy to spot. With every one of your posts there is always a chance someone may think you are a shill.
Personally, I would think you lost the battle when you react with anger or worse, hate. It's okay to be frustrated, but frustration goes away in short time.
Also, Neo (who doesn't want me to ping him) neglects to point out that anyone who clicks my name can see I claimed the forum names of satan and satanism (to prevent anyone else from abusing them when the landrush occurred), and anyone who clicks forward once more can see that they only generated one or two posts in four years (people tell me that qualifies as a "dead" forum).
Y'know, I kinda like it, getting charged with running totally dead forums, and also getting charged with running totally live forums, when they're the same forums. It's not only free advertising, it also shows up just how idiotic my accusers are.
I don't care and haven't checked or clicked on anything. As far as I can tell Neo has a bone to pick with you. Pretty common on all social media platforms I've been on.
"The point was that a good group is now in the hands of a known shill that nobody real voted for..."
That's a good point cause I didn't even know there was a vote...all the sudden we have a new mod
I brought up my intent to mod for almost 4 months.. Neo seems to only disrupt everytime they 'check in'.
I'm here to help the community.
A reminder of when we last spoke about this:
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0SKYT2/moderation-questions-megathread/c/4eXtiZPKNeK
I do recall that and was waiting for a meta post on a vote...I figured it would've went the same way as when we voted on allowing FE posts a while back.
I had hoped it would go that way too but the real community user participation was low. Is there anything with new moderation you'd like to see addressed?
Hi Dregan, I hosted a vote that went 4-1-1 in favor of having a mod team generically, but seeing that there were many more silent people I didn't pursue an up-down vote on any name. After about 10 days, where 6+ names had been submitted here and on Meta, u/Thisisnotanexit indicated that admin was willing to appoint her at a later date if conditions held. This appointment happened about 2 weeks ago. I've proposed that if anyone wants a further vote, anyone is free to host a discussion; the last such discussion had a strong 17-4-1 consensus against TINAE's interpretation of the rules, and she abided by that. But it wouldn't be fitting for me to propose a new vote myself, as my doing so here has raised more questions than votes. Let me know if you want links.
Thanks for the response. I believe it should've went to a vote for all members new and old who wanted to have a say.
Several people created vote threads just as you describe, the most conclusive one was 4-1-1 in favor of some unspecified mod team, with silent lurkers outnumbering those totals a lot. Anyone is free to start a new vote anytime, I'm mystified why they don't.
Welcome. Yes, out of six names proposed over 10 days when the subject came up, admin indeed selected u/Thisisnotanexit as a frontrunner, and then waited another two months to gauge the community's reaction to that preference.
Again, Neo1's original opinion of me was:
The link you point out includes my analysis showing that there were not a significant number of contributors to the vote, which is why I didn't press the issue with the community. I also analyzed a separate recent conversation that went 17-4-1 against TINAE's interpretation of a rule, and she accepted that consensus, so it's not like people are incapable of voting. So I think the admins waiting awhile to gauge consensus as an added method beyond the vote itself was a responsible way of collecting the consensus. I've also said anyone can start a new vote anytime, which hasn't happened for some reason. The fact that Christians take more responsibility for voting on community questions than average isn't significant in that respect.
I wouldn't have a problem with your proposing a conspiracy, but your username indicates inauthenticity, and your immediate reaction to getting deleted aggravates it. You were autodeleted for being a handshake, and TINAE then ratified that by judging you didn't demonstrate commitment to the published rules. Neither I nor TINAE has ever sought to hide how things happened, I have always responded with full facts and she has never denied any of the facts either; in fact she posted the moderation megathread for the purpose of ensuring discussion was connected and findable. But your conclusions are illogical and, I believe, would fail the tests of skepticism that we use here.
If you wanted to proceed with any of (1) logical demonstrations of culticness in traditional Christianity, (2) logical demonstrations that anyone is being deleted here for content rather than for rule violation, (3) logical demonstrations that I, TINAE, or u/Paleo should have done something different at some point, (4) better solutions for the community than what's happened so far, or (5) any new community question, I would affirm such an approach. But it requires being prepared to handle truth in a community of competing views, and you're not demonstrating much of that. So for now I'm going to call you Joe because your illogic style reminds me of someone, someone who often does successfully take the hint when I point it out to him.
Good faith users and their questions will be given almost all my attention til the matter is settled agreeably. I just thought you and anyone reading this should know that.