Personally, I would just post brief explanations of each level near the rules and ask submitters to place the corresponding number in the beginning of the title. A moderator could also help re-enforce the concept by 'flaring' any submissions that don't have a number, perhaps even a brief comment requesting they consider labelling their submissions in the future. That would be my approach anyhow.
Seems like it could be nice. I am sure that some people would disagree over where a particular theory lies on the scale in contradiction with the original poster or perhaps with the mod-issued flair, but at the very least it would serve as a reminder to think critically about the evidence and weight behind whatever theory being discussed.
Perhaps we could have an archive document someplace where we as a community come to some kind of rough consensus on where various prominent theories lie on the scale based on available evidence, so even if a post isn't directly about a particular theory it might at least relate to one where this scale is applicable.
I had considered that, most people wouldn't submit something if they considered it to be a one or two on the scale. Still I think the benefits warrant at least a trial run.
We could always start a community document on Google Docs or something similar. That would be pretty neat on it's own. We might end up with a community built book.
I think that would be really cool. Something that I've been wanting to do for a while is make a complete reference document for all of the different terminology and characters that come up when talking about conspiracies and deep politics. That wikispooks site i linked in another post here sort of does that, but it's not quite as comprehensive as it could be. A document compiled and edited by users here would be pretty fun though, i imagine. At the very least it would provide something to help the community to bond a little bit.
I was sitting here thinking about it. The first place to begin would be how to organize it, I thought chronological would be the best. This would also offer an interesting perspective on how teh actors and conspiracies unfolded in relation to one another, which might lead us to finding more evidence. Could lead to some interesting visual aides as well.
Could be a good strategy. Though some of the conspiracy theories overlap others chronologically, but so long as we are ok with it being a little bit flexible in that regard, it could work.
I suppose we could begin by just compiling a big list of theories and such, and then work on whichever tickles our fancy one at a time.
view the rest of the comments →
catechumen ago
I would absolutely love this, perhaps we could sweet talk the mods into encouraging people to use this system. Maybe even flags for submissions.
Mumberthrax ago
How would we implement that? Like, having the poster offer their thoughts about where a given conspiracy post lies on the scale through a tag?
catechumen ago
Personally, I would just post brief explanations of each level near the rules and ask submitters to place the corresponding number in the beginning of the title. A moderator could also help re-enforce the concept by 'flaring' any submissions that don't have a number, perhaps even a brief comment requesting they consider labelling their submissions in the future. That would be my approach anyhow.
Mumberthrax ago
Seems like it could be nice. I am sure that some people would disagree over where a particular theory lies on the scale in contradiction with the original poster or perhaps with the mod-issued flair, but at the very least it would serve as a reminder to think critically about the evidence and weight behind whatever theory being discussed.
Perhaps we could have an archive document someplace where we as a community come to some kind of rough consensus on where various prominent theories lie on the scale based on available evidence, so even if a post isn't directly about a particular theory it might at least relate to one where this scale is applicable.
catechumen ago
I had considered that, most people wouldn't submit something if they considered it to be a one or two on the scale. Still I think the benefits warrant at least a trial run.
We could always start a community document on Google Docs or something similar. That would be pretty neat on it's own. We might end up with a community built book.
Mumberthrax ago
I think that would be really cool. Something that I've been wanting to do for a while is make a complete reference document for all of the different terminology and characters that come up when talking about conspiracies and deep politics. That wikispooks site i linked in another post here sort of does that, but it's not quite as comprehensive as it could be. A document compiled and edited by users here would be pretty fun though, i imagine. At the very least it would provide something to help the community to bond a little bit.
catechumen ago
I was sitting here thinking about it. The first place to begin would be how to organize it, I thought chronological would be the best. This would also offer an interesting perspective on how teh actors and conspiracies unfolded in relation to one another, which might lead us to finding more evidence. Could lead to some interesting visual aides as well.
Mumberthrax ago
Could be a good strategy. Though some of the conspiracy theories overlap others chronologically, but so long as we are ok with it being a little bit flexible in that regard, it could work.
I suppose we could begin by just compiling a big list of theories and such, and then work on whichever tickles our fancy one at a time.
catechumen ago
Sure I'm amendable. The overlapping is what I thought most valuable though, perhaps we'd find it's certain groups behind multiple conspiracies.