This is a reply I made which seemed to get buried and which I couldn't find after I posted it. I apologize if it is redundant.

My interlocutor claimed I didn't know what I was doing and pretended I was the "new one" - when he had few contribution points but enough comment votes to vote people down. First he claimed I proposed what I was not proposing [misrepresented]. Then he implied this discussion meant nothing since nothing is going to change, nothing is on the table. What he was criticizing me for never became completely clear.

I thought this over: And now youve given me some questions.

Obviously, if what you say is true, the Mods have been without directives. Since there would be no need to change the definition of "Pizzagate" if the one they were working under was deemed suitable. 'Til now there has been no definition of "Pizzagate?"

If untrue, ( i.e there is a working definition )- that means someone one has found the present one "not good enough" and therefore is looking to change it.

So, when I weigh in, on my conviction : i.e. There should be an overwhelming necessity to remove something, if that is done [otherwise people can think for themselves], it's not because I don't think the "Status Que" is good the way it is. It's because I'm anticipating changes.

People can sort the info themselves. That is why they are here. No need to be thought police.. We get that anywhere. That's cheap. That's on every street corner.

This needs to be something different. A place where people who can not do their research, talking and thinking anywhere else, can go.

Why am I anticipating changes?

1 . Experience with para - political research: i.e. the past; Knowing what happens to such groups And also recently reading the directives handed out to people who are tasked with stopping them.

and 2. Reading some people complain that there is not enough culling of the materail - and claiming no one can read through it all, and that people get lost , and that no one can keep up with the posts because there is too much slippage, and things "disappear" after 24 hours.. when that is plainly not true. I look at the posts and check the pages.. And the same posts are there . I go through the pages and the slippage is not severe.

Why would they be making those claims if they did not want to throttle material?

And the majority here and the majority of upvotes are for keeping a broad data collection goal.

If more people come in here, when the flood gates open, that could change? I don't know. We will see.

I've suggested that back up /subs or "streams leading into the large river" could be assembled and collected.

Someone needs to say why that simple solution will not work, before they go changing the rules for stiffer criteria for staying on the /sub.