Yes! This is by far the best way to use this subreddit. Also need more earnest commenters. There are a few usual suspects that stalk the new que and post "nothing to see here" comments on posts about certain topics.

The problem that the CIA has with /r/conspiracy is that it's closely located near all of the normal people who are doing what they're told to do i.e on the rest of Reddit, they hope we will abandon this place and head off to a sandbox somewhere.

That's why we have to keep this place alive, and that's why we have to keep voting in the /new queue, or else anything important is going to be killed off before even 1% of /conspiracy get to see it

This man speaks the truth!

They want nothing more than for us to leave this place for them to control.

voat is the enemy

divide and conquer at it's easiest to spot

You really think that if the fucking CIA wanted this drivel to be seen they couldn't stop you? You're not fighting the CIA. You're not beating the government.

Sticky it ffs

Also need more earnest commenters

https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3i1dnk/is_the_earth_flat/cucfyr1?context=3

Too bad you won't be the change you want in this sub.

You linked to a post where I encouraged discussing the details of a topic rather than "nothing to see here" type comments to dismiss things without consideration. Whether you believe something to be true or not it is far better to discuss the details rather than using tricks like "don't talk about that, it discredits us" to avoid the topic entirely.

It is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ― Aristotle

When I hear someone bring up flat earth, the only thought I can entertain is that it's disinfo designed to smear theorists.

Ok, but whether or not that is true, it is a poor approach to take when discussing the topic. "don't talk about that, it just exists to discredit" does nothing to address the actual subject. It will not sway a person who thinks it is true, nor should it. It is simply conjecture.

If you want to convince someone that the flat earth model is incorrect, give them a logical argument against it like I did in that post.

Of course there is disinfo out there. Massive amounts of it and varying levels of it. The way to avoid being smeared by association is to point out that there is no association. I don't consent to allow anyone to speak for me. Whenever anyone makes a statement like "conspiracy theorists say" I point out that they are setting up for a strawman argument. Discussion on topics can't be allowed to be shut down by the threat of association smearing since that makes the threat itself an effective disinfo tool.

You sound like a Jew, question the holocaust or criticize Israel and youre an anti-Semite! Unless something is proven wrong, then it can be written off. Trying to censor discussion is ridiculous. Have you seen a ball earth yourself or do you take NASA's(government) word as Gospel? Unlike you, I dont place blind faith in governments that are documented liars, thieves, murderers, etc..

You linked to a post where I encouraged discussing the details of a topic

I want to discuss moon babies who fuck street musicians. I want to discuss it from both angles because I obviously don't have a preconceived notion of whether moon babies do in fact fuck street musicians.

I want to discuss it on /r/conspiracy because it is the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Now I know a lot of y'all will look at my evidence and not be convinced there are in fact moon babies in the picture. Here's the thing:

You won't get a good reaction from this subreddit on this topic unfortunately. Some people seem to be convinced that it only exists "to discredit this sub". That is clearly silly since this sub is a tiny part of the internet and the idea has exploded in many places.

Of course there is disinfo out there. Massive amounts of it and varying levels of it. The way to avoid being smeared by association is to point out that there is no association. I don't consent to allow anyone to speak for me. Whenever anyone makes a statement like "conspiracy theorists say" I point out that they are setting up for a strawman argument. Discussion on topics can't be allowed to be shut down by the threat of association smearing since that makes the threat itself an effective disinfo tool.

Your twisted logic can be applied to any disinformation campaign.

The topic of choice they are hammering today?

Shenanigans in Virginia!

That would appear to be the case.

Also regularly visit /Controversial to see what is being most actively hit with heavy downvotes. My most controversial topics ALL revolve around certain unnamed topics heavily hit by the usual suspects.

Please "friend" people whose content you value. Their names will appear in red and you can focus on their posts and vote accordingly.

Good advice!

So vote manipulation?

Focus on posters whose content interests you, for good or ill. Vote accordingly, up, down or not at all. Helps streamline your feed. Is that vote manipulation?

No, because it's supposed to be on that specific content, not just because the user's name is on the top.

I get what you are saying, but then what is the point of the "friend" option?

The feature can still exist, you just don't have to automatically upvote everything they post without merit

I never suggested that. What I was suggesting was a way to focus on the stuff you would like to upvote (or not) without having to wade through pages of stuff.

Ahh Shilltember. Explains why someone has has been downvoting all of my posts and comments.

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to put posts from media outlets in /r/worldnews (which it is!)? Just seems like the posts would reach a larger audience, and you're not automatically stigmatising the article by labelling as a conspiracy from the get-go.

Very good point!

Agreed. Content is king. It's possible we may overrate the importance of votes and comments because we're the ones involved. Content is king. We all know the potential for things to get passed around on a massive scale. If it's posted it'll be seen more at the top of r/conspiracy but it'll have its own legs with 0 upvotes 805 plays, 2d ago, by the fact it's been posted at all. Never lose heart lurkers want your links at a rate you'll never keep up with. Content is king.

Just my observation and take on things. As Thomas Jefferson said "Verify what you read on the internet".

We need such a reminder everyday!

Ever since the stock market started tanking, the shill activity has increased significantly. Someone needs to develop a reddit shill index.

But you have to be in /new to see this in the first place!

heh

[deleted]

No.

I disagree

How could any rational person be so woefully misinformed and/or naive?

Dude is definitely what he appears to be.

A flat earther bitching about misinformation and naivety? You are easy to decipher as well.

Oh noes! One of the lackey's is on to me!

You know for someone who spends as much time on a flat earth sub as you do, I think we should start calling you the "flat earther"

You sure are fascinated with something you find patently absurd.

Bang your head against a wall, I hear it's great fun!

Lackey? For who? Have I asked you to prove something before and it scared you? That's usually the MO for the brain dead sheep on your side.

I'm banned. So I'm not there.

For someone so against naivety and the spread of misinformation, you display and spread a lot of it.

I do no such thing.

I don't tell anyone here which topics or theories they should or shouldn't explore if they so choose.

You're the one who locks your thoughts away in a little box of majority approval.

I lock shit away? As soon as someone disagrees with you you call them a shill. You're schtick is laughable.

There's three of you I could name right now that have the same MO every time I see your name in a thread.

As soon as someone disagrees with you you call them a shill.

Funny how it's always the same "someone's"

There's three of you I could name right now that have the same MO every time I see your name in a thread

Oh my, the irony!

Here's the MO:

1) no matter what, the conspiracy is always right.

2) no need to provide evidences or support anything, you're just right

3) when asked for evidence to prove something, just yell "shill!"

4) youtubers and bloggers are ALWAYS great sources for information

Edit: lol, holy shit. Then you go downvote my comments from an Indians game thread a day ago. Fucking joker lol, I'll add one

5) downvote the last two days worth of comments

Edit: lol, holy shit. Then you go downvote my comments from an Indians game thread a day ago. Fucking joker lol, I'll add one 5) downvote the last two days worth of comments

Lol. Now who's the conspiracy theorist!

HAHAHAHA, you clowns need a life, tracking your upvotes.

For the record: I didn't do it and you can't prove it. So you're just spouting craaaaaaaazy talk.

How does it feel?

I start interacting with you, as well as the other two, and twenty-thirty downvotes rain in. Its better evidence than the fucking potato photo you posted that claims the Virginia shooting was a hoax. You're a clown user, bro.

However, at least the downvotes are meaningless. Unlike the other shit you spread here.

This.

...is fucking priceless

More drivel. Keep it up.

Oh, I'm loving this karma conspiracy theory of yours.

Tell me...Cui Bono?

I just said it wasn't important. Just that I noticed. And that it's the norm for your kind.

You're very quick to call me a shill, or insinuate I'm one. You should be able to easily tell me what you believe I'm a shill for? What false information do I put forth? What do I distract from?

Bottom line: if you be I've there is enough evidence to believe in the flat earth, I don't trust you to be able to provide enough evidence or critical thinking to support ANYTHING.

That'll be the end of my correspondence with you today.

Look Bob,

You seem all worked up. I'm sorry.

I never called you a shill. I assume real shills are actually good at what they do and are not easily discovered. You are not that.

I just like to insinuate it because it turns you into a sniveling mess.

What you are is a useful pawn. A nescient child, unintiated. Nothing more. So you can drop the persecution complex.

Still drivel. Shitposting all day. You think you're turning me into a mess, but really you're just polluting this place. And when called on it you start the "lol, I didn't REALLY care" act.

Lol, nescient. Flat earther....

You called me on what? Not caring? Are you confused?

Recall time boys and girls!

When asked, what the fuck he was on about, bemoaning some "conspiracy" regarding his precious comment karma.

/u/billionarebob replied with a cool head...

I just said it wasn't important. Just that I noticed.

Uh-huh Bob, not important. Better sleep with one eye open tonight or you might wake up with no karma!

I bet it really grinds your gears when a flatearther has the nerve to make you look fucking stupid, bitching about worthless internet points.

Again, nothing of substance here.

Keep pushing the flat-earth, it proves more about you than I can. Quick! Call me a shill! Its been awhile.

Keep pushing the flat-earth

I don't push anything bud. I comment and post in a sub called /r/theworldisflat

You don't have to go there...

and you're right, my ability to entertain new and challenging thoughts and ideas does say a lot more about me than you can.

Quick! Call me a shill! Its been awhile.

You're right, it has been a while since never, because as I said before, you aren't a shill.

You're a useful idiot.

Though for as much time as you spend around here arguing in favor of liars, thieves and murderers, you really ought to look into it.

Lol, you're right, I don't have to go there because I've been banned. It's gotta be comfortable for someone like you to know that any dissenting opinion immediately results in a ban.

I'm an useful idiot? Again, what agenda am I pushing? What liars, thieves, and murderers do I support? Or are you throwing out more bullshit?....

Dude is definitely what he appears to be.

Which is?

A friend of yours

A friend of yours

LOL.

This gives me an idea, actually. You know how certain people used to be referred to as "a friend of Dorothy's" in polite company? Well, we in /r/conspiracy could simply use the expression "a friend of Rockran's" to bypass Rule 10.

Or like how members of the mob refer to other members of the mob as "a friend of ours". I've heard that Masons use similar terminology sometimes too.

Or you could just try not accusing people of being shills when you possess no evidence of this.

OK, amigo.

It's called intellectual honesty. Give it a shot, you might like it.

How on earth would you know, mon ami?

I have described why what you are proposing is intellectually dishonest. Could you go ahead and tell me why you believe that I am being dishonest in any way? Or was that just an attempt to get a jab in by making an accusation without evidence, yet again?

I have described why what you are proposing is intellectually dishonest.

Saying something doesn't make it true, tovarisch. You couldn't be honest if someone paid you.

You couldn't be honest if someone paid you.

But you have no proof that I have been paid by anyone and you never will (I can be sure of that, as no one pays me to comment here). So, from my perspective, knowingly making accusations that you have no means of supporting is dishonest.

Now, can you provide evidence for your accusation of my dishonesty, or would you like to admit it was a baseless personal attack?

But you have no proof that I have been paid by anyone and you never will

And I never accused you of being paid to comment, did I? Nuance, my friend, nuance.

You implied I was dishonest then responded by saying this.

You couldn't be honest if someone paid you.

You don't think it's obvious what your intent was? Seriously?

But sure, let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt. You were still advocating dishonest behaviour with this:

You know how certain people used to be referred to as "a friend of Dorothy's" in polite company? Well, we in /r/conspiracy could simply use the expression "a friend of Rockran's" to bypass Rule 10.

You are proposing that you use a poorly disguised euphemism to hide your accusations of shilling to evade being punished. So there, two levels of dishonesty no less!

Now, can you stop stalling and either explain why you think I am being dishonest as you accused me, or admit you made it up with no justification?

Lol spot on!

A friend of yours

Oh, in that case I can ease your mind by telling you I've never met with, spoken to, private messaged, or in any way interacted with him/her.

So there you go, he's not what he "appears to be", you're simply mistaken. Case closed.

Unless that is you're trying to suggest he's a shill but don't have the balls to say so in a mod's thread? Nah. Of course not.

That's the great thing about these interactions.

I don't have to say anything that isn't already apparent.

So very true.:)

Do you respect him/her enough to enforce the rules when a user calls him/her a shill? Because a user responded to your very comment with a very poorly disguised shill accusation. Rule 10 isn't void when members simply change tactics from outright accusations to heavily implying it right? The user's motive and intent is clearly evident by their discussion in this thread, if it wasnt already very obvious

Edit: not to mention the personal attack

Let me see if I got this right?

Spend day after day after day decrying conspiracy theory (even though you clearly live and breathe it)

Rally obvious vote brigades on troll subs to bury popular conversation topics and obfuscate real conversation.

Then cry for fairness and justice when someone has the balls to point out exactly what it is you all do here?

Give me a break.

The sub is for conspiracy theory. So I think pointing out a conspiracy by certain users to manipulate this sub, is right on topic.

Spend day after day after day decrying conspiracy theory (even though you clearly live and breathe it)

Rally obvious vote brigades on troll subs to bury popular conversation topics and obfuscate real conversation.

Then cry for fairness and justice when someone has the balls to point out exactly what it is you all do here?

I'll go one by one here:

1 - There is no rule saying anyone has to believe conspiracy theories. Some people like to discuss things with they don't believe in with people who do. Head on over to r/christianity and look at all the "A" flair. Most people deal with opposing opinions maturely and with respect, rather than accusing of them of being sent to attack them. But you are clearly unable to display this maturity.

2 - I have never done this, nor have I seen the users you have accused of being a shill do this. I imagine your intellectual insecurity extends to downvote totals as well as commenters, and you've decided that any downvotes you receive must be some concerted effort to stop you?

3 - What exactly is it you think "we" "do" here. All I see is a couple users who happen to disagree with you. Why can't you accept that?

The sub is for conspiracy theory. So I think pointing out a conspiracy by certain users to manipulate this sub, is right on topic.

Except you are attacking other users and accusing of them of committing actions you cannot prove. You have literally no evidence that isn't fueled by your own inability to cope with people having different opinions than you.

Lol, Ah yes, the downvotes will tell us who is righteous.

Reminds me of another dark con on humanity...

Look mate, you can come to this mod thread and play nice, but anyone who has been around here as long as I have knows the score.

Now, keep politicking.

Lol, Ah yes, the downvotes will tell us who is righteous. Reminds me of another dark con on humanity...

Not sure how any of that is relevant to my comment.

Look mate, you can come to this mod thread and play nice, but anyone who has been around here as long as I have knows the score.

What's the score? Let me throw a guess out: The (Insert relevant boogeyman here [Monsanto, Big Pharma, Gov't]) comes onto this internet forum and hangs out downvoting the newest posts that challenge their position and employ commenters like me who are paid to comment a few times a week and challenge your opinion?

The problem is, you don't possess any evidence of this, aside from the knowledge that "shills exist". So you generally just apply it to anyone who happens to disagree with you in a transparently insecure attempt to shield yourself from opposing opinions. I know this because I know I am not a shill, yet I watch you accuse me and users who share similar positions to me on this forum on a regular basis.

You guys and your need for "evidence."

Do you even get it?

It's called conspiracy theory for a reason.

Once there is evidence, it's not really theory anymore is it? It's fact.

There is generally a pretty concerned and pointed effort to conceal any evidence. So there not usually being a lot of hard evidence to point at, is sort of the point of conspiring.

I ask you:

How would anyone be able to prove an effort made by a group of users to conspire against the efforts of this sub?

You could just talk about it anonymously or offsite?

As a matter of fact, on numerous occasions, documentation has been presented here to show that many agencies do precisely that!

It's been fun as always!

By the way, which iteration of that username are you on now?

You guys and your need for "evidence." Do you even get it? It's called conspiracy theory for a reason. Once there is evidence, it's not really theory anymore is it? It's fact.

In the colloquial sense, yes. Not in the scientific sense. Personally, because I am a respectful adult, I don't accuse people of being something when I have no evidence to suggest this. It is clear the mods agree with this to some extent, as rule 10 exists. Then again, given how poorly it is enforced, maybe they don't.

There is generally a pretty concerned and pointed effort to conceal any evidence. So there not usually being a lot of hard evidence to point at, is sort of the point of conspiring.

So there is evidence that I am a shill, but you have no means of find it or reveal it. How do you even know its true then?

Maybe I accuse you of being someone who has sex with livestock. I don't have any evidence of this, because people who fuck horses generally try to hide the fact they fuck horses. Does that really mean my statement has any merit? Of course not, it makes it an ad hominem attack designed only to attack your character. That is why there is a rule against it.

I ask you: How would anyone be able to prove an effort made by a group of users to conspire against the efforts of this sub? You could just talk about it anonymously or offsite?

Oh, I'm not sure. But I recognize that, and because I possess the maturity and self-awareness to understand that I cannot accuse someone of doing something when I have no proof of it.

As a matter of fact, on numerous occasions, documentation has been presented here to show that many agencies do precisely that!

And yet no proof exists that it happens on this forum (that I know of), nor do you have any evidence to claim that any one user here is guilty of doing this. Therefore, even though it is established that shills exist, you have no reason to claim someone is a shill simply because they disagree with you.

It's been fun as always!

Must be fun to lack the self-awareness to be embarassed by your disregard for evidence, and to somehow have protection from the moderators who seem to like to ignore their own rules.

By the way, which iteration of that username are you on now?

I've had other usernames to use here (This place doxxed a daycare and had a thread removed the other day for doxxing. Excuse me for changing up every once in a while) but they've all been pretty different from this one.

If you don't have evidence, its a hypothesis. When you have evidence, its a theory. If that evidence has withstood attempts to disprove it, it becomes fact.

Well you have just proven how stupid you really are. I could dive down to the bottom of the Marianas Trench and I still wouldn't be lower than your IQ.

No wonder you're a retarded flatearther and conspiritard. Reality is too much for you.

Lol, bottom feeder troll tracks down my comment history to put me in my place.

Ouch my feels!

Die in a fire.

Actually I was just surfing /r/topminds and happened upon you a good 4 to 5 times. You're a real fuckin nut.

Yeah, that's what I said buddy.

You decided to extend your troll jerk by hunting down my comments and sticking your tiny cock out.

Now, scurry along little roach...

......but that's not what you said....... and I didn't hunt you down. You just show up ALOT on topminds because you're an idiot. It was pure coincidence I found you again.

Anyways, please take a college course or something. Bump that IQ all the way up to a 4.

I have a lot of fans over there at bottom feeders anonymous.

Always lovely to meet another one.

Guaranteed my IQ is higher than yours too

...because...this...is...how...you...use...ellipsis

Guaranteed my IQ is higher than yours

Bro, you think the Earth is flat and surrounded by a giant dome, and that the military guards the edges of the world. You also have no idea how lunar eclipses work.

There is something wrong with your brain.

And let's not forget that we have reasons for that rule beyond just niceness. We're kind of a fucked place to talk about anything if debate is easy to shut down with ad hominem attacks.

I think most people who show up in /r/conspiracy are anti-censorship, because of bad experiences with painful truth being silenced. So why the hell are we trying to invoke censorship on each other? At best, it's the same shortsighted shit as the pilgrims leaving an intolerant system, not for true freedom, but to set up an intolerant system of their own. At worst, though, it could be a more orchestrated campaign to erode credibility for people with dangerous ideas.

Letting ideas stand for themselves, and not on the backs of their authors, is probably the only way to immunize yourself against such attacks on the community. Which is not to say that you shouldn't make up your own mind if someone is full of shit, and therefore a more generally unreliable source of information. But there has to be a line somewhere between that, and crying "shill" in a crowded theater.

I never said I wanted the user silenced. In fact, deletion of the comment is the opposite of what I think mods should do. Given that the point of the rule is to improve discourse, I would think that warnings for this behaviour with an explanation of why it isn't allowed (childish and dishonest), should be issued. That way, other people reading the thread can see that the mods don't accept that sort of behaviour.

I fear that the truth is that they absolutely do. This particular violation went right to this axo's inbox, and yet it has not yet been enforced. There appears to be little motivation to enforce the rules.

I never said I wanted the user silenced.

Oh, believe me, I'm not arguing with you, I'm agreeing with you! Sorry if I wasn't clear. It's easy to get habituated to everything being an argument, but that was not what I was trying to do, just build off of what you already said.

I fear that the truth is that they absolutely do. This particular violation went right to this axo's inbox, and yet it has not yet been enforced. There appears to be little motivation to enforce the rules.

I don't blame the mods for wanting to use a light hand. This sub in particular is rightfully hypersensitive to censorship, and perhaps ironically, that's exactly how a shill-accuser would perceive it if their comment was deleted. Of course, in this (particular) case, we know it's not actually the result of an evil cabal, it's just a reaction to destructive behavior.

I wish there was a good way to mod-label comments with a reprimand, without actually censoring them. Not only does that not play into censorship sensitivity, it also acts as a teaching experience, and a demonstration of the mods doing their job, rather than simply disappearing into the quiet. Short of that, though, a delete and a reply reprimand is probably as good as we're gonna get with current reddit architecture.

I don't blame the mods for wanting to use a light hand. This sub in particular is rightfully hypersensitive to censorship, and perhaps ironically, that's exactly how a shill-accuser would perceive it if their comment was deleted.

Ya, I agree they are in a tough spot. I wouldn't want to be in the position. Given the attitude of this sub, I think they either need to tighten ship and change the attitude or abolish the rule and stop pretending they give a shit. The rule doesn't really do anything if sub regulars are constantly breaking it.

I wish there was a good way to mod-label comments with a reprimand, without actually censoring them. Not only does that not play into censorship sensitivity, it also acts as a teaching experience, and a demonstration of the mods doing their job, rather than simply disappearing into the quiet.

I like this idea. I guess the most you could do is tag users with flair in this server. I actually don't really know how that works though. I would support a system like that for sure.

Given the attitude of this sub, I think they either need to tighten ship and change the attitude or abolish the rule and stop pretending they give a shit. The rule doesn't really do anything if sub regulars are constantly breaking it.

Can't argue with that. Enforcing any rules on here is difficult, even the ones that are clearly good ideas, and selective enforcement is clearly problematic.

I guess the most you could do is tag users with flair in this server.

I hadn't even thought about using flair that way, but you're right, that could be a good mechanism for non-censoring public shaming. Mind you, judging by the username of the guy in question, I think he'd wear it like a badge of honor. So idk.

Mind you, judging by the username of the guy in question, I think he'd wear it like a badge of honor.

Well, I think at a certain point, you would need to take stronger action against those who lack the self-awareness to be embarassed by their actions.

But I think the key to the method we have come to is that it improves discourse over time as user turnover occurs. The more new users that see a certain behaviour not being tolerated, the better the future becomes for the sub.

man, reddit is such a safe space to exchange ideas!!!

voat.co

The problem that the CIA has with /r/conspiracy is that it's closely located near all of the normal people who are doing what they're told to do i.e on the rest of Reddit, they hope we will abandon this place and head off to a sandbox somewhere.

That's why we have to keep this place alive, and that's why we have to keep voting in the /new queue, or else anything important is going to be killed off before even 1% of /conspiracy get to see it

Sandboax such as voat? Whatever happened to that place

You worked that one out!

[deleted]

Good for info, but not good for converting people

I wittnessed something weird the other day. I shared an article and it got around 15/15 or something like that, then it went down to 1/1 and is now on 2/3 ... How on earth would that happen?

Here, hear.

Lol i get the all of servers are busy when I click on some links in this sub.

Mind you, judging by the username of the guy in question, I think he'd wear it like a badge of honor.

Well, I think at a certain point, you would need to take stronger action against those who lack the self-awareness to be embarassed by their actions.

But I think the key to the method we have come to is that it improves discourse over time as user turnover occurs. The more new users that see a certain behaviour not being tolerated, the better the future becomes for the sub.

You implied I was dishonest then responded by saying this.

You couldn't be honest if someone paid you.

You don't think it's obvious what your intent was? Seriously?

But sure, let's say I give you the benefit of the doubt. You were still advocating dishonest behaviour with this:

You know how certain people used to be referred to as "a friend of Dorothy's" in polite company? Well, we in /r/conspiracy could simply use the expression "a friend of Rockran's" to bypass Rule 10.

You are proposing that you use a poorly disguised euphemism to hide your accusations of shilling to evade being punished. So there, two levels of dishonesty no less!

Now, can you stop stalling and either explain why you think I am being dishonest as you accused me, or admit you made it up with no justification?