Could we have open debate threads and then ones focused on digging new information?

If you want them, post them, and pray for the best.

The reason the sub is tearing itself apart is people are too busy gatekeeping to actually discuss the theories presented.

who cares if we're not on /r/all, tbh that's a big part of why this place is so shitty now.

This feud won't be over until one of the towers fall. The question is, which one is going to fall first? GOP or DNC? We'll just have to find out. The world will never be the same!

The tower that was the DNC is aligned with the Tower that is GOP

the Democratic voters don't have a tower to fall, so we will survive.The Democratic voters are going to have to build a fresh new tower.

I stand by this.

I think if you want a serious, organized effort Reddit is not the place. I come here to pass time and discuss topics I enjoy discussing.

I would like to see a derailing rule come into play, honestly this sub can function perfectly fine with all conspirators if people stopped attacking the topics they don't like, make a rule so mods can remove anyone that is just being an obnoxious arm crosser.

I'll admit I'm not innocent, one of the thing's that got me hooked on this sub was the fact it isn't some overly sensitive safe-space for a certain community, but I also try to intelligently explain my argument or view and provide sources to support my side, I don't just go into a post and say "this is dumb, your dumb, and everyone that agrees with you is dumb" that is the shit mods should be getting out of here.

To reiterate I'm not anti-dissent, I actually like playing devils advocate but I am anti-intentional de-railing... that shit needs to get fixed

My agreement depends on what you consider "attacking". Some would say asking "what's the conspiracy" is derailing. One mod recently said as much.

I disagree. I think asking someone to clarify the relevance promotes discussion. Many of the topics you see those kinds of posts on are just info dumps or links. If OP isn't willing to provide any context I think it should be fine to call them on it.

My agreement depends on what you consider "attacking". Some would say asking "what's the conspiracy" is derailing. One mod recently said as much.

Here's an example I saw a few minutes ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6hk747/gops_defense_of_trump_reaches_new_low_ignorance/

Notice how the entire comment section is basically about people fucking dolphins? Wtf is that? Maybe those people should start their own post about how much they want to fuck dolphins instead of derailing that post?

Besides dolphin sex, whole view of derailing is basically people posting about trump and the army of "but what about Hillary and pizzagate?!?" users derailing conversation...... or post about Clinton with the waves of "but she isn't even relevant anymore, so why don't you want to talk about trump"

If the people in the trump post would rather talk about Clinton, they should go find a Clinton post, there are a ton of them, and if the people in the Clinton post would rather talk about trump, they should go find a trump post, there are a ton of them, again I'm not anti dissent, you can argue the other side in any post but it's obvious when that isn't the intent....

I disagree. I think asking someone to clarify the relevance promotes discussion. Many of the topics you see those kinds of posts on are just info dumps or links. If OP isn't willing to provide any context I think it should be fine to call them on it.

I 100% agree with this, and I think the mods can do a better job weeding out the propaganda from both sides that don't comment or provide sources in their own post they just post links and twitter comments all day..... I honestly wouldn't mind an automod that can give a designated amount of time to the op to provide either a deeper explanation of why or what they're posting, if they don't get an answer in say idk 1 hour, the post can be auto deletes because it's clear he op doesn't actually give a shit

I think this is a fair point, and I agree that the type of derailing provided in your example shouldn't be allowed.

I wish we used primary sources more than just the MSM news or these random right wing conservative websites that pop up. There is too much propaganda from both the left and the right, and I wish we just focused on primary sources and argue and debate based on just that alone.

Yeah, I think would be pretty cool actually.

Yea I have used my jstor account to assist OP's in the past, and I believe most university students should have access, I'll actually try to do this more now.... or maybe over at /conspiracy2 because published articles won't be of much help with he current political discussions

I think that notions of banning certain sources and topics need to be stopped. If a source or topic is trash, let the Downvotes and comments reflect that. MSM, Alt media, /pol trickeration, it's all fair game. Obviously I'd like the quality of sources to be better, less absurdly misleading headlines, but if we inch toward censorship territory, we're done.

The contents of this sub change constantly. So it's weird when someone acts like this sub has a normal mode.

i think we should have confirmed CT tags in this sub (/r/roastme has "Verified Roastee" where they basically give you street cred to allow yourself to be roasted.

the problem now is lack of fact checking

people just post verifiable fake facts a lot of the time and not getting punished for it

fact check often, removed falsehood, and we'll get this place back.

Exactly. Can't believe how much fake stuff is posted and up voted here when it just takes a few minutes to verify it's false.

I wouldn't mind tags if they aren't used to exclude conspiracy related current news articles.

Naturally that is because the propaganda is my primary target and is one of the key components in the conspiracy against us.

That does not mean we have to accept click bait outrage partisan political attacks even though that is an important part of the propaganda, and what fills some so called news feeds, like AOL, yahoo, dredge report etc.

I agree, from what I've read things have changed. But -- let's be clear: there is no 'safe haven' on the internet.