Agenda 2030, multiple PSYOPs incoming: Energy Lockdowns, Famine & Meningitis Plandemic outbreaks
(fileditchfiles.me)
NWO
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
Voters were listed at https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARK0RBc7L/community-question-your-response/c/4eXueGRlA3U
Admin are the known admin accounts (C, Perun, Doggos), TINAE didn't say who represented them.
As a fellow Christian, please take my public accountability to Scott Lively and my elders and SwampRangers.com, and TINAE's public accountability as my sister as stated at c/Christianity for the past 5+ years, as sufficient testimony. I respect your right not to take our testimony, but it's appropriate for sovereigns to negotiate rather than to act unilaterally, especially when admins and mods have authority stemming from platform ownership.
LOL so only 4.5 votes allowed you to hijack this forum?
What if i accumulate more than your 4.5 votes in favor of removing this new moderator from power? Then does the same procedural process work for me?
It was up to admin last time and it'll be up to admin anytime it's challenged.
The community had a chance to argue in favor of having no active mods. It still hasn't put forward a case that there is a consensus for that.
Good. Then we will utilize the same scammy procedure and choose a new moderator and make a call to action to remove this tranny. Then you can prove that "it's different this time" and why the procedures have to change now and prove, via your blatant hypocrisy, that you are jew or at least jew in nature.
With a meager 5 upvotes your fraudulent authority will be upended. Your 4.5 approvals are probably just all your own sock puppet accounts.
Might as well try it to show what a farce this has been
What a deceptive list of votes, where were they compiled? I distinctly remember myself and many others aside from your 1 listed being against the need for moderation: https://conspiracies.win/p/1ARK9l6ukF/x/c/4eXuKkvGsCZ
Do you have notes on moderation?
Well, your link sure doesn't show a consensus of any kind. It shows haggling about rules, which is now mostly stabilized.
The link I gave you is the compilation. You can click the links to view all comments to see the individual votes.
The fact that a community exists with rules is a default consensus by its founding members that carries over to members who joined later such that overturning those rules requires a large, clear, new discussion.
I encourage anyone interested to do as I have, post a binary (yes-no) question for discussion and analyze the votes. There was one question proposed about alternate moderation and, it not being binary, my recollection is that every contributor had a different idea from every other.