Thanks. As I said, my chronology has been posted here (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9) where parts 7-9 are about future events.
Some of your text suggests you think AI, or its sources, will have a better view of "how it'll go down in reality" than the Bible will. Those other sources are mostly wishful thinkers, with a few hints from cabal plans thrown in (but most of those plans are public anyway like UN "goals" agendas). They've also been batting horrendous averages on getting those plans done; they just rework them and churn them like any human institutions that fail regularly. IMHO, Jesus has revealed all that we need to know about specific times and sequences in the Bible, which I tried to summarize in the links above. Everything else is just geopolitics analysis and can change without notice.
From appointment on 2026-01-30 17:10:26 (GMT) through 2026-02-01 00:00:00, u/Thisisnotanexit engaged 360 mod actions. A few duplications, a single unspecified "other" action, and a handful of "ignores" that were appended to other actions, are not filtered out in the counts below, making them imperfect but sufficient totals.
Accounts listed with actions and counts [and percent adverse]:
amberscornful removed post 1 [100%]
Antero ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 2 [67%]
BeefyBelisarius ignored reports on comment 1 [0%]
BuckeyePatr1ot ignored reports on post 1 [0%]
ChippingToe ignored reports on comment 1 [0%]
CrusaderPepe ignored reports on post 6, removed post 6 [50%]
defenderOfMontrocity ignored reports on post 1, removed post 1 [50%]
Dps1879 removed post 1 [100%]
Dregan_ya ignored reports on comment 1 [0%]
DresdenFirebomber approved comment 1, banned 1, ignored reports on comment 5, ignored reports on post 5, removed comment 53, removed post 9 [85%]
ErnestWorrell removed comment 1 [100%]
FallenNephilim ignored reports on post 1 [0%]
freedomlogic ignored reports on comment 1 [0%]
gaw-mods-are-gay approved comment 1, removed post 1 [50%]
Graphenium removed comment 2 [100%]
guywholikesDjtof2024 approved post 1, ignored reports on comment 4, ignored reports on post 7, other 1, removed post 7 [35%]
Halivxu ignored reports on post 1 [0%]
HangYourself banned 1, ignored reports on comment 14, removed comment 40 [75%]
hl65 removed post 1 [100%]
jamesbillison approved comment 4 [0%]
JosephGoebbel5 ignored reports on comment 2, ignored reports on post 9, removed comment 16, removed post 17 [75%]
JosephMalta banned 1, ignored reports on comment 1, ignored reports on post 1, removed comment 8 [82%]
KarlSumeran removed comment 1 [100%]
LastEvidence removed post 1 [100%]
lightupthesequence removed post 1 [100%]
LilyThread removed post 1 [100%]
Mindhunter removed post 1 [100%]
Mrexreturns ignored reports on post 1, removed comment 1 [50%]
Neo1 ignored reports on comment 3, removed comment 2 [40%]
newfunturistic ignored reports on post 2 [0%]
normandis removed post 1 [100%]
Psalm50 removed post 1 [100%]
qboro_nyc removed comment 1, removed post 2 [100%]
RealityWiener removed comment 3 [100%]
RealWildRanter ignored reports on comment 2, ignored reports on post 5, removed comment 4, removed post 5 [56%]
StolenCBSContent1 removed post 1 [100%]
SystemGayAlt ignored reports on comment 1, removed post 1 [50%]
TallestSkil ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 2 [67%]
TCDforver ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 2 [67%]
thatware removed post 1 [100%]
Theunpopular1 ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 1 [50%]
Third-Eye-Vision removed post 1 [100%]
Thisisnotanexit ignored reports on post 1, stickied post 2 [0%]
TurnToGodNow approved comment 1, ignored reports on comment 31, ignored reports on post 3, removed comment 22, removed post 1 [40%]
Vlad_The_Impaler ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 3, removed post 1 [80%]
WeedleTLiar ignored reports on comment 1, removed comment 1 [50%]
Xsaymoklash removed comment 1 [100%]
This suggests to me that (1) all accounts at 0%, 50%, or 100% are the result of very few actions and, when adverse, are likely minor points that the account holder learned from; (2) all accounts between 0% and 50% are likely to have been subject to reporting abuse; and (3) all accounts between 50% and 100% are likely to need to review the rules better. Reviewing the list with these categories in mind yields categorizations that objectively agree with the rough impressions I had previously formed of these accounts. Though others are free to disagree, this indicates objectively at a first pass that moderation is being conducted moderately, i.e. with thought and attention rather than reflexively. While each person's conception of rules is different, I'm at least gratified that my own are not too different from those implemented, suggesting that refusal to follow the rules as stated is indeed a choice that can be disciplined, not a misunderstanding.
I propose that the community uses objective tests such as analyses like the above to make decisions about Not Feeding The Trolls. In particular, I said at Meta that two accounts, u/DresdenFirebomber and u/JosephGoebbel5 (in that order) are the first and second most likely to post large numbers of objectionable contributions at once, triggering the antiabuse filter when someone attempts to downvote conscientiously and thereby annulling the downvotes. I propose that, when a community member identifies another as a trolling account by some formal definition, one should not interact at all with such a person except for downvotes, and possibly rare attempts to wake the person up from troll behavior. (Note that even "troll" is not the best word, because dehumanizing, but it does have technical applicability.) I don't know whether paid shills are receiving anything for downvotes, so I can't comment on whether downvoting or ignoring is better.
I said I'd comment separately on appeals people have made about the reasons for mod actions. This survey doesn't cover that but I haven't seen anything untoward. I'll probably handle that by general public questions and comments in specific places rather than in a compiled report.
Other note to TINAE: We're probably ready for rotating stickies now, I find about 1-4 new stickies per day at a set check-in time, with unstickying after 2-4 days' time, are pretty good rules of thumb. This allows viewers of the main page to go directly to the best content and has no adverse effects (other than the mod getting accused of favoritism!).
If discussed, it is lowered to the level of discussion.
Correct, the word "Monad" is lower than the Monad. The word is sufficient for limited purposes but incomplete for perfect purposes. Only the Monad is complete in itself for its own perfect purposes, a reality we don't participate in, since all our experience is incomplete but sufficient.
Nevertheless, when discussed between two who see it in agreement, God says 'There Am I'.
Because it's sufficient, we can agree that "Monad" ("One"), and "True", and "God" are positive attributes that reflect this indescribable without describing it. When two seek meeting of minds, sufficiency of experience means sufficient agreement arises. Logically parsed, your statement says God affirms his being in discussion among two in agreement; so the surface sense doesn't say that much, although we might say it teaches another attribute, "Immanence". And you might want to say that God is "Agreement" itself.
None of this indicates any contradiction with developed Christian creed, which is why I'm mystified by your animus about it. It seems that you're affirming some core monistic concepts and you're denying some perversions of Christianity but that neither gets to a core that requires a parting of ways.
Last time Fideler was posted, I read it thoroughly and understood it sufficiently. I didn't feel a need to debunk much of it because so much was on the level I described here, symbolic connotations that appeal to minorities that need not be affirmed or denied by majorities who are unaware of the connotations.
I didn't say symbols have no effect, but a cross has no effect to a person who's never seen one. The cross, like any word, has effect because of cultural transmission of connotation in stable forms (languages), and that is just what symbols mean.
Anyway, you seem to have answered my other question without reference to Fideler, so Fideler must not be that important to the answer. I'll focus there instead.
What Jesus believed and taught is fundamentally different from what Christianity teaches us about Jesus.
So say many. All agree on following Jesus, then all diverge on what that means. The grammaticohistorical Jesus is the real Jesus, anything else is just imagination.
Jesus believed the kingdom of God is within us. Through generosity, through mercy, through good works, we can achieve salvation. Paul teaches it's belief in Jesus that matters. Only believe.
"The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21): Yes, Jesus taught the kingdom within.
"Ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Matt. 23:23): Yes, Jesus taught works.
"Thy faith hath saved thee" (Luke 7:50, 18:42): Jesus also taught faith.
"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rom. 10:9): Yes, Paul taught faith.
"The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:17): Paul also taught the kingdom within.
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12): Paul also taught works.
I guess I'm not seeing the dichotomy. There is a difficulty for those who think messages of faith and works are in contradiction, but classical theology resolved the tension between James and Paul long ago.
So all those Buddhists, all those Hindus, all those doists who are living compassionate lives, helping others, seek enlightenment, too bad. They're going to burn in hell forever because they don't believe the specific Christian doctrine that Paul is teaching.
That's not Paul, and Christians shouldn't teach it. Paul taught that they are judged innocent or guilty by the law found in their own hearts, Rom. 2:13-16, answering this exact objection in its original terms. Again, no dichotomy seen.
Jesus never said you have to believe in me specifically. He said follow the path.
Sorry, Dot: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me" (John 14:1). Nothing about following paths or ways turns up, but "I am the way" (John 14:6) and "Follow me" (18 times, including John 21:19). See, those are history texts that people accept about what he actually taught and they speak for themselves, and when you use their language to say something else it invites a question as to what is meant. On structure, I'll repeat my findings:
Jesus says have deacons, Matt. 20:26, 23:11; the Twelve appointed servants with this function, Acts 6:1-6 (while Saul was still threatening murderously). The Eleven count themselves bishops and establish the appointment of new ones, Acts 1:20; Peter also affirms Jesus as bishop, 1 Peter 2:25. Jesus built a church, Matt. 16:18, 18:17; the apostles affirmed it, Acts 2:47, etc.; and Luke calls the structure plural churches of the brothers right at the time Saul gets saved, Acts 9:31; and John and Jesus confirm this plural structure repeatedly in Rev. 1-3 and 22. Procedure is fluid but I don't see a special difference between Paul being procedural and any others; the biggest procedure appears to be the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, where Paul and many other church leaders all had equal standing. So I can be anti-institutionalism while still affirming that Jesus wanted a little free organic structure.
why does Paul get in trouble with the Jews?
Same reason Peter, John, and the rest got in trouble with "the Jews" before and after Paul's activity. Those Jews who didn't believe Jesus didn't believe any of his apostles.
Metaphorically speaking, the central message of Jesus is that wealth is wrong, business is wrong, hierarchy is wrong, organization and power structures are corruptions of spiritual truth. What matters is a direct experience of the divine spark in your own heart. Jesus explicitly rejected the idea that you need intermediaries, you don't need priests, you don't need institutions, you don't need buildings, the kingdom of God is within you, it's accessible directly.
Now you're getting to the meat! Some McDonald's locations sell sludge where the McDonalds had sold high-quality beef. And some blame could be laid on Kroc for that. But in this analogy, the blame falls much more on a long train of deviations from Jesus, historically documented in all 21 centuries since. Jesus on earth did appoint managers, he gave different offices to the apostles and also had many front men and sales workers to prepare some of his appearances. Paul says that his visions of Jesus were of the same kind and appeals to them as proof that Jesus did want him as a manager (not of an organization but of an organism, the living bride). The test of that vision is in what Paul did, and historically what he did was not problematic on the fronts you describe when compared to the Medicis, say, as the first example to come to mind.
So I've read it all but I don't see it as a difference between Jesus and the received Paul figure. I see it as a difference between Jesus and churchianity, from the popes on down. I'm all for constructive criticism of Christianity and restoration of the true historical Jesus, because it never lets me down and it explains exactly when and where I run with or against the institutional churches.
The gnostics were right if they said dividing God into three was polytheistic, but in those days there are several evidences that teachers knew the difference between tritheism and prototrinitarianism. Those tritheists who lurked were despised by Jew and Christian alike. The Jews wrote and recited the Birkat haMinim against these cultic tritheists (also ditheists) and other Judaizing sectarians, while the Christians ignored it because it didn't apply to them.
Also, no gnostics were murdered to my knowledge, you seem to be thinking of something else.
It's great to hear you contributed to M-theory and give some background. To the point at hand, if it's perspective that cognizes three, what happens when the One cognizes Himself? My answer is that He can cognize "Himself" as One, and He can also cognize "Himself Cognizing Himself" as Three (lover, love, beloved). One matter, two or three witnesses, is also the ancient rule. Therefore, we can cognize "God is not three" in your sense, but we need not contradict those who with different meaning are able to cognize "God is three".
"Christos" as used by Hebrew thinkers is exactly a translation of an ancient Hebrew term for the anointed ruler, used by David in 1000 BC without any Greek philosophy. It was never used for polytheism (except by the minor cults I allude to) and didn't connote or require any polytheism.
Nicea heard all the arguments and got 99% approval for its summary, with only three objectors who wouldn't budge, led by Arius. The minority's concerns were that what word by which we describe Jesus's "divine" nature as can only be a word that also applies to creation, because we have no word for the uncreated, only negations (a proper application of apophatic theology). This concern was not understood by the Niceans until much later, so the Arian churches continued to have gains in Western Europe for a couple centuries more because of calculated ambiguity on both sides.
Separately, the several Chalcedonian theology debates were closer to home and all the major wings retained their polities until in the 20th century they were all basically resolved semantically by agreement on essentials and liberty on understood frameworks of phrasing. I believe this is possible for those who continue Arian traditions today too. If you're interested in such a resolution, I'd suggest you first start by admitting the reality of what all the primitive Christians knew, the difference between polytheism and a monotheism that recognizes differences of cognition. Without making semantic adjustments for context your statement would not be read by trinitarians as truths or facts but as opinions and althist. The way to repair that breach is to speak honestly about what the prototrinitarians actually said, and the difference from what tritheists were separately accused of saying. Start with the fact that Paul was accused of polytheism for teaching "Jesus and Anastasia": that indicates what the true polytheists were actually teaching, by Paul being mistaken for one of them.
One thing about this Fabian cabal, they fail regularly but those who have sold their souls never give up. The prophecy of Revelation is that, exactly once, they will succeed in dominating the whole world and discomforting the righteous for just enough time to prove them all damnable forever. They continue to press on in the contradictory hope that they can not only advantage the prophecy but also outlast it. Covid being the most recent big example of the principle, every time they fail either middlingly or spectacularly. They don't care because they just sacrifice some of their scaffolding and keep building elsewhere, they love the destruction as much as the construction. Therefore all this imagination about datesetting is just as doomed as it has been the last 25 years or more, it will all fail, and the real Yahweh will reveal the real plan in real time without any changes and with total vindication of all he said before.
I'm not a datesetter, but I see things going very poorly in 2029 during the Israeli sabbatical year; I also see that being a significant deception and a full end-to-end test of the beast system, i.e. an attempt at complete domination that is known not to be final but experimental. Further, they will steal many ideas from Trump's rise to power (as Trump borrowed not a few ideas from Obama's doomed cabal attempt). That is not a prophecy but a guess. Right now we must live for God every day we have blessings and be prepared for the worst.
"The name of the game is bailout."
"You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work."
Here are mine, in reverse chrono order. Note that after the fake charges (I've never contributed to MemoryHole, e.g.) he just stops making up any charges at all. u/Thisisnotanexit reported getting some too, but I wouldn't press her to comment as she's indicating working on other things first.
You can no longer post in MemoryLane. /c/MemoryLane - 1 day ago
You are now restricted from posting in MemoryLane indefinitely.
If you want to appeal your restriction, please read the community rules and reply to this message. link block user reply
You can no longer post in ReportPedophiles. /c/ReportPedophiles - 1 day ago
You are now restricted from posting in ReportPedophiles indefinitely.
If you want to appeal your restriction, please read the community rules and reply to this message. link block user reply
You can no longer post in MeanwhileOn. /c/MeanwhileOn - 1 day ago
You are now restricted from posting in MeanwhileOn indefinitely.
If you want to appeal your restriction, please read the community rules and reply to this message. link block user reply
You can no longer post in WhiteGenocide. /c/WhiteGenocide - 1 day ago
You are now restricted from posting in WhiteGenocide indefinitely.
Spam
If you want to appeal your restriction, please read the community rules and reply to this message. link block user reply
You can no longer post in JewishPrivilege. /c/JewishPrivilege - 1 day ago
You are now restricted from posting in JewishPrivilege indefinitely.
Vote brigading
If you want to appeal your restriction, please read the community rules and reply to this message. link block user reply
You can no longer post in MemoryHole. /c/MemoryHole - 1 day ago
You are now restricted from posting in MemoryHole indefinitely.
Vote manipulation *
If you want to appeal your restriction, please read the community rules and reply to this message. link block user reply
Which one is the Saturn death cult book? It's not 2,097 pages, is it? Okay, that was a slight indirect dig, but I know you can take it.
u/Thisisnotanexit, would you like to comment on removal reasons vis-a-vis the other comments made on this page? Thanks!
But Paul insists that you need hierarchy and organization and structure to spread the message effectively. You need bishops and deacons and churches and formal procedures. So he's building churches all around the Roman Empire. He's creating an organizational structure. He's establishing protocols. This is not spiritual teaching. This is institution building.
Institutionalization took 300 years and has many contributors. But primitive Christianity had organic structure. Jesus says have deacons, Matt. 20:26, 23:11; the Twelve appointed servants with this function, Acts 6:1-6 (while Saul was still threatening murderously). The Eleven count themselves bishops and establish the appointment of new ones, Acts 1:20; Peter also affirms Jesus as bishop, 1 Peter 2:25. Jesus built a church, Matt. 16:18, 18:17; the apostles affirmed it, Acts 2:47, etc.; and Luke calls the structure plural churches of the brothers right at the time Saul gets saved, Acts 9:31; and John and Jesus confirm this plural structure repeatedly in Rev. 1-3 and 22. Procedure is fluid but I don't see a special difference between Paul being procedural and any others; the biggest procedure appears to be the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, where Paul and many other church leaders all had equal standing. So I can be anti-institutionalism while still affirming that Jesus wanted a little free organic structure.
The Pistis Sophia, hints at the perilous journey of the soul through realms of judgement and false lights. So, yeah I think it's literal.
Okay, will look into it in time.
By convincing the soul that it has failed, that it must return to correct its mistakes, the archons ensure the cycle of reincarnation never ends.
I can't logically conclude that. 100% of our evidence is from those who didn't stay with the light, so in all those cases the person avoids a cycle of reincarnation. As for the rest we can't use the light evidence to determine their fates because they don't return or provide evidence; we can only use general data about reincarnation. But I don't know that it's that important; verifiable facts are important.
Yes, Lucifer is also a good name. I'm just not buying the evidence that he has any creative power.
Now, I've been exploring my hesitant suggestion yesterday, and it might work, namely that the righteous might get to make a free choice as described in Romans 14. Those whose conscience doesn't want a body of flesh might, in the apokatastasis, get the right not to carry one, while those whose conscience isn't troubled might get the right to carry one, and each is fully convinced in his own conscience and neither deprecates the other. I'm still exploring whether that's a useful theology otherwise, but in this case it really breaks down the wall between traditional and gnostic views of the corruption of the present universe because everyone can get what they want.
Did you get permabanned from six Nazi forums all at once in the last half-hour or something?
Because I did.
Perhaps along with Conspiracies, other forums got fresh mods too "to make it fair". Of course it doesn't help if one or two individuals act the victim and the censor at the same time. And if admin allows inconsistency about the right of certain users to mod, that's been an open issue that I don't know the details of.
The tech doesn't make sense unless Mary was a virgin. If you change Jesus's parentage you change the whole being you claim as God. Your first two paragraphs were fine but nobody ever presents evidence of these alleged Bible changes or claims of cabal power. More likely the cabal only wants to have exercised such power so they get shills to believe they did, much cheaper for them.
On rules, 2025-11-11. Edits included.
Seeing as the community appears to prefer to build its consensus more irregularly I'll try this one by putting my thoughts out first and taking the heat rather than trying to formalize the order of discussion.
[Rule 0:] 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.
Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.
Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.
Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.
[Rules 4-10:] 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.
[...]
-
[Also 0.] Respect seems to have a simple objective test of no personal attack or namecalling. I've found it helpful to permit indirect concern (if there's a known rapist then speaking indirectly about rapists at least allows the level of respect to keep it at arm's length from attack and namecalling) and to be hard-line about direct statement ("you're a rapist", "you destroy community"). [Recommendation: Start only with the most objective namecalling, i.e. slurs.]
-
Straightforward, unless mods lie about reports, for which there is no beneficial reason. Reports must be credible and not just an attempt to punish another (or even to start a dialogue, which should be started through modmail instead).
-
This literally says any post whatsoever that is not about conspiracies directly but is about the forum itself (and for the most part we don't have established "conspiracies about the forum" so I wouldn't encourage the blurring of that line) can be deleted immediately if viewed as bullying or unnecessary; so any meta post should be extra respectful and objectively justifiable. (I see that while writing this I'm speaking about some things with two levels of indirection by comparing them to racism; I think that's passable for a meta.) Further, even if that's the case it must not be excessive meta, such as a couple times a day, because why in a non-emergency would people need to make several meta posts in a day? [Recommendation: No meta actions for a published transition period, e.g. 3 days, during which more objective definition of meta contribs can be published.]
-
Very low quality can be deleted freely; this would suggest to me, for instance, the meme with very little graphic improvement and very little title interest, as it's unlikely to provoke new conversation.
-
Trolling is vague, but I define it as disruption, behavior that doesn't fall in another category but is clearly uninterested in pursuing the community goal (rule 0) of fairness and transparency. Focusing on another user's past elsewhere on the forum, for instance, is not a matter for Conspiracies mods but for mods of the community where the behavior occurred; focusing on the past of this forum would only be submitted as a request for specific action from the mods, because complaining without an action plan is basically borderline disruptive. [Recommendation: Limit to objective acts of disruption initially.]
-
Stalking refers to continuing to interact with a person after the person has clearly indicated a request not to interact in a first page.
-
Spam generally means unsolicited, and in the Content Policy it includes consistent promotion of outside websites or of agendas (I did discuss this with a contributor in another forum, he knows who he is, so I'm not saying something new). (When I arrived at Scored I found from core mods that it was okay for me to inconsistently promote the website that has the same name as my handle.) We might draw a line between theory and agenda as relating to facts versus propaganda. [Recommendation: No spam actions other than monitoring ordinary levels objectively, and then wait until a clear outlier appears. I don't believe it's spam to repeat context many times if the context remains applicable each new repetition, e.g., if there is no change in the behavior contextualized. I'm getting tons of free advertising of my side forums, for instance.]
-
Intentional misleading allows mods to judge insincerity via demonstrations of illogic. I usually try to state the illogic publicly before taking action to see if the person responds positively, as it may just be a lapse rather than an intent. [Recommendation: No illogic actions without a post on classic fallacies.]
-
Calls to violence are easily handled. [Recommendation: Start with direct and indirect reference to suicide and dehumanization. Advocacy for the historical NSDAP (as opposed to historical research) might be considered by some as a call to violence, use judgment case by case. Advocacy for nazism in general need not be judged as a call to violence without specifics. Abuse of this recommendation is likely to be resolveable by reference to other rules.]
-
Abuse of others, although already handled under disrespect (including attack and namecalling), also includes categories like gaslighting.
These are simplified suggestions and I'm open to wording improvements. I propose that a minimal, objective adherence to baselines similar to the above should be the initial post-backlog transition stance, with lenience toward more debatable activities. If this, or a new rules thread, can be used as a community discussion, that should be beneficial to all. Essential to the transition will be transparency and openness to appeal, without the community overwhelming those anticipations of the mod team. I'll be commenting separately at a later time about individual backlog cases where there has been some question. I have no official status so am merely sharing views I think helpful for the community like anyone else.
Keep in mind, you can always do less than a 1-day minimum by setting a clock and remembering to undo a 1-day ban at some announced time like 4 hours. But, just out of my experience, this one might be at the 1-day warning level already, haven't reviewed it all. As you can tell from my other comments, I'm going to follow through on sharing my views about moderation candidly in time, as I know you're amenable to hearing from all sides.
TINAE has said she's likely to do a quick-clean, she's already done over 100 mod actions due to months of backlog. I don't see anyone being targeted, I see rapid approvals of presumably reported contribs only, with perhaps 90% agreement with the reporters; that's completely consistent with what I'd expect of any new active mod.
Removals of your material can be presumed to be due to listed violations. You allude to two removals of "facts" and I believe in audits so I'm looking into them in time. Sarcasm about moderation is not the way to go, nor is illogic about viewpoint handling.
I'm looking over the evidence myself. You speak in the plural, you should be able to list two explicit examples. Also in my experience, appeal is appropriate via modmail, admin, or community support. If you frame an appeal to the community as your being willing to accept its collective review of your evidence, it probably wouldn't be excessive meta. But the speed of your accusation suggests you might be jumping the gun.
Megathread, vote result in favor of moderation. Also discussed in Meta at the time as sublinked.
u/Neo1 is inactive but should be pinged to this post as his contribution was significant.
I read the book and it didn't answer the question I just asked you in a different thread. It is an example of what I said in this thread, namely that symbols have neutral meanings and people can direct symbols in various directions but the truth remains they are just symbols.
Who is the ONE, TRUE God? The Monad? I'm already turned to the Monad. How can we discuss the one true God without needing to fight against unallied notions?
The new mods in my experience do not ban people from speaking for viewpoint, but only for violation of objective rules not related to viewpoint. Your viewpoint against free speech is not bannable either, but your behavior independent of viewpoint can be.
This is not the way to test. conspiracies.win/logs is the way to test. I have not done any reporting since the announcement was made but I was tempted to report in this thread and I still might. There are plenty of ways to convey the content you wish without using slurs that are disrespectful to contributors and abusive to other users.
Congratulations! Please feel free to make an example of me for abusing the report function. Otherwise I'll wait for smoke to clear.
Open-mindedness is then the honor code.
Disrespect, collectivism: I'll reserve the right to report those gradually to the level I think fitting. Disrespect includes ad hominem, collectivism includes all dehumanizations.
Misuse: The logs will show if a particular user is getting overreported and people can then inquire if report misuse has occurred.
Hypermeta, low-quality, disruption, stalking, spam, misleading: Speak for themselves.
Violence: I'm glad people are steering clear of that.
Harassment: This one is loosely defined and abusable because anyone can report "feeling harassed". I presume this is limited to objective categories like gaslighting, excessive sarcasm, or illogic.
I'd suggest that briefly stated subcategories of rules, such as the one-word summaries above or the margin text, be added to the report function (using the Manage Rules page, aka /config/reports). The disclaimer should be broken into several report categories rather than left a single category. Currently you can only report for site rules or rule 1.