Prove exactly how many people it took to qualify sufficient consensus. Looks like it was just your cult.

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.

Prove it.

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.

That means she was pre selected without community approval.

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)?

Prove where her direction was validated by the community.

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.

Her original direction sucked and she had to change it cuz everyone threw a fit. She failed.

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!

others that Paleo told her to

I recall the regulars here telling her to ban those, not Paleo, but I'm not going to get the links for you.

Immediately after she changed course and those who were banned wouldn't have been with the direction she went.

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.

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.

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.)

Tell us your real name if you want to be transparent.

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.

Prove exactly how many people it took to qualify sufficient consensus. Looks like it was just your cult.

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.

Prove it.

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 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.

That means she was pre selected without community approval.

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)?

Prove where her direction was validated by the community.

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.

Her original direction sucked and she had to change it cuz everyone threw a fit. She failed.

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!

others that Paleo told her to

I recall the regulars here telling her to ban those, not Paleo, but I'm not going to get the links for you.

Immediately after she changed course and those who were banned wouldn't have been with the direction she went.

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.

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.

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.)

Tell us your real name if you want to be transparent.

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.