This comment from u/SwampRangers is admitting to a takeover of the c/Conspiracies forum by the Swamp Cult.

There is no cult. There is a regularly constituted cell of Jesus's body, submitted to First Century Bible Church and local elders, as publicly declared in 2021. It turns out that admin decided one of the cell members, who also was solid with Conspiracies before the cell was founded, could be mod. The fact that a few of us found we had some alignments 5 years ago and have retained those means that we might look at certain communities the same way. Since it's Conspiracies, I'm happy to answer any questions you'd like about private comms (of which there are very few) or about offline contact among accounts (none at all except that my wife also has an account at Scored, but doesn't use Conspiracies). If you have some proposal about how something could be better handled than it was, that would be worth hearing; but it looks to me like the right accounts were banned, namely two flat-birthers and two Hitlerjuden.

Both u/Graphenium and [no ping per user request] Neo1 did not want u/Thisisnotanexit to be mod of the forum.

I don't recall Graph saying he didn't want TINAE; he said this wasn't a significant community participation, and I agree. Neo was originally willing to support me and I believe TINAE for mod, but rapidly withdrew that initial stance based on his view of my whole account. So the first is without evidence, the second is an incomplete story of a shifting opinion.

It's a group effort to target the forum and create an illusion of a community consensus by only considering members of the Swamp Cult as the community.

And, as I said, it failed to indicate significant consensus, partly because people who desired neither to support my proposal nor to strongly reject it said nothing and were the silent majority, as the analysis said. Note that at c/ChristianAnarchism I did the same poll and got a clear consensus that everyone favored having no mod, and they thrive on that paradigm to this day. But at Conspiracies we're much more skeptical, and it's understandable that consensus processes don't arise and admin stoking is needed.

There are more that didn't want moderation and ones who didn't want u/Thisisnotanexit than did.

You might not have noticed that I did a similar analysis where there was a very strong consensus that TINAE's interpretation was not the community's, and she accepted this. However, there's no evidence that a majority were so opposed to moderation that they spoke up about it when asked or at any other time, and no evidence that a majority (excluding two flat-birthers and two Hitlerjuden) rejected TINAE personally. Anyone could post a recall vote thread at any time if there was such a consensus.

They swooped in, raised the call for moderation through lies, and got one of their own in power.

The events were transparent at every point. I was an occasional Conspiracies contributor and noticed that Neo had made a mod request I agreed with and that there was no mod, so I thought it natural to bring the issue to Meta. You can look at those two threads (I can link them if you need) and let me know what lie you detect. Again, if you object to the current state of affairs, I believe this mod is also transparent enough to host a full discussion of her qualifications; but such a discussion would need to have some other doable proposal in mind, and right now I'm not thinking of any.

It was never u/SwampRangers position to rig a passing vote for getting a mod, especially when it's one of his lackeys.

Anyone can start a community question of any kind at any time. The current documentary and roundtable threads indicate that the community is adverse to traditional voting in the first place, which is unhelpful but can be accommodated if we're good at listening to each other in other ways. Others proposed similar vote and analysis threads. I encouraged people to vote formally if they expressed strong opinions elsewhere, including those against mine. If you wish to call it "rigging" because I take the initiative as an equal contributor to post a binary question and to analyze the results, and because (against my intent) the majority of contributors ignore the vote, as I duly report, you're free to use words irregularly. Obviously this vote, and all such discussions, didn't put the question forward as to whether TINAE should or shouldn't be mod, so your last clause is illogical.

u/Slechta5614 admitted that there's a plan by the Swamp Cult to take over the site.

No such thing. Slechta was a regular here, who first advised me of the existence of c/Christianity while admins were the only active mods there. He has many broad sweeping visions for what God is doing by Christian action, and there is no takeover other than the fact that Jesus is taking over the entire world. If you wish to discuss that plan, it's the most transparent administration of all I've discussed. You can say anything against Jesus and be answered and the question can be decided by agreement between people seeking the truth. If you think that the admins, who have indicated public support of Christianity, should do something other than they're doing, say what. But I don't think you'll get them to do something other than their consciences indicate, and if they're Christians you won't get them to back down from Jesus's plan to take over the world and turn it upside down.

Now this is still Scored and every contribution is its own vote. And your statement is +1 for yourself and -3 for all others (I didn't vote on it). And you have three negative replies now. It's possible that this suggests your method of approach is mistaken, completely apart from the mistaken facts that I correct above.

This comment from u/SwampRangers is admitting to a takeover of the c/Conspiracies forum by the Swamp Cult.

There is no cult. There is a regularly constituted cell of Jesus's body, submitted to First Century Bible Church and local elders, as publicly declared in 2021. It turns out that admin decided one of the cell members, who also was solid with Conspiracies before the cell was founded, could be mod. The fact that a few of us found we had some alignments 5 years ago and have retained those means that we might look at certain communities the same way. Since it's Conspiracies, I'm happy to answer any questions you'd like about private comms (of which there are very few) or about offline contact among accounts (none at all except that my wife also has an account at Scored, but doesn't use Conspiracies). If you have some proposal about how something could be better handled than it was, that would be worth hearing; but it looks to me like the right accounts were banned, namely two flat-birthers and two Hitlerjuden.

Both u/Graphenium and [no ping per user request] Neo1 did not want u/Thisisnotanexit to be mod of the forum.

I don't recall Graph saying he didn't want TINAE; he said this wasn't a significant community participation, and I agree. Neo was originally willing to support me and I believe TINAE for mod, but rapidly withdrew that initial stance based on his view of my whole account. So the first is without evidence, the second is an incomplete story of a shifting opinion.

It's a group effort to target the forum and create an illusion of a community consensus by only considering members of the Swamp Cult as the community.

And, as I said, it failed to indicate significant consensus, partly because people who desired neither to support my proposal nor to strongly reject it said nothing and were the silent majority, as the analysis said. Note that at c/ChristianAnarchism I did the same poll and got a clear consensus that everyone favored having no mod, and they thrive on that paradigm to this day. But at Conspiracies we're much more skeptical, and it's understandable that consensus processes don't arise and admin stoking is needed.

There are more that didn't want moderation and ones who didn't want u/Thisisnotanexit than did.

You might not have noticed that I did a similar analysis where there was a very strong consensus that TINAE's interpretation was not the community's, and she accepted this. However, there's no evidence that a majority were so opposed to moderation that they spoke up about it when asked or at any other time, and no evidence that a majority (excluding two flat-birthers and two Hitlerjuden) rejected TINAE personally. Anyone could post a recall vote thread at any time if there was such a consensus.

They swooped in, raised the call for moderation through lies, and got one of their own in power.

The events were transparent at every point. I was an occasional Conspiracies contributor and noticed that Neo had made a mod request I agreed with and that there was no mod, so I thought it natural to bring the issue to Meta. You can look at those two threads (I can link them if you need) and let me know what lie you detect. Again, if you object to the current state of affairs, I believe this mod is also transparent enough to host a full discussion of her qualifications; but such a discussion would need to have some other doable proposal in mind, and right now I'm not thinking of any.

It was never u/SwampRangers position to rig a passing vote for getting a mod, especially when it's one of his lackeys.

Anyone can start a community question of any kind at any time. The current documentary and roundtable threads indicate that the community is adverse to traditional voting in the first place, which is unhelpful but can be accommodated if we're good at listening to each other in other ways. Others proposed similar vote and analysis threads. I encouraged people to vote formally if they expressed strong opinions elsewhere, including those against mine. If you wish to call it "rigging" because I take the initiative as an equal contributor to post a binary question and to analyze the results, and because (against my intent) the majority of contributors ignore the vote, as I duly report, you're free to use words irregularly. Obviously this vote, and all such discussions, didn't put the question forward as to whether TINAE should or shouldn't be mod, so your last clause is illogical.

u/Slechta5614 admitted that there's a plan by the Swamp Cult to take over the site.

No such thing. Slechta was a regular here, who first advised me of the existence of c/Christianity while admins were the only active mods there. He has many broad sweeping visions for what God is doing by Christian action, and there is no takeover other than the fact that Jesus is taking over the entire world. If you wish to discuss that plan, it's the most transparent administration of all I've discussed. You can say anything against Jesus and be answered and the question can be decided by agreement between people seeking the truth. If you think that the admins, who have indicated public support of Christianity, should do something other than they're doing, say what. But I don't think you'll get them to do something other than their consciences indicate, and if they're Christians you won't get them to back down from Jesus's plan to take over the world and turn it upside down.

Now this is still Scored and every contribution is its own vote. And your statement is +1 for yourself and -3 for all others (I didn't vote on it). And you have three negative replies now. It's possible that this suggests your method of approach is mistaken, completely apart from the mistaken facts that I correct above.