Before responding, take a moment to learn the history of the PG subverse here.
Once you've done that, understand that giving mods the ability to moderate based on their knowledge of the narrative invites mods that will steer the narrative using their mod tools.
You'll get mods that allow this:
The Rule 1 problem is the biggest problem in the subverse in my opinion. Tons of quality material like children being given hormone blockers at age 3, Planned Parenthood misleading children to believe that a person is not male/female at birth using the word "gender", organ harvesting, etc...
... and delete real PG leads.
The original idea of this subverse was to have a running ARCHIVE of everything, because no other place seemed to be safe to do so. Posts being constant links and re-links to known solid direct connections to PG with a new connection highlighted for others to look at and follow. After a while, parts of that should have gone into this sticky, and would be considered more or less canon for future leads.
The original idea of the RULES of this subverse was to keep everything in a very structured and easily-parsed format, allowing the mods to simply clean up the stuff that wasn't formatted properly, and didn't pass the direct-link muster. This would prevent the mods from pushing their own narrative, and allow them to keep the place clean enough so that both the new and the veteran could pick up the torch with relative ease.
Now to the discussion of the rule, and the possible changing of this entire subverse.
If you want a modification of any part of rule 1, state clearly the exact part(s) and justify your position.
view the rest of the comments →
Factfinder2 ago
I concur with @VictorSteinerDavion’s comment that use of the word “elites” is a problem. He suggests instead “those with authority and power, meaning; political, judicial, religious or corporate.”
That would be a start, but the entertainment/broadcast industry would need to be added. But even with that, people like James Alefantis and Jorge Puello would not be included. Add the hospitality industry, and you pick up Alefantis but still exclude Puello. To include him, you'd need to add child help organizations. And then there's the medical industry, fraternal organizations, the military, intelligence, the transportation industry, and on and on.
The point is, whenever you start listing, you're bound to miss something and you complicate the mods' job, not to mention limiting the scope of the research.
We need to face the reality that almost every facet of society today has the potential to harbor abusers because of the extreme infiltration that has taken place.
I'm in favor of combining Pizzagate and P Whatever because the division between them hampers research. It’s true that small-town pedo ring members aren't the ones in charge at the top, but they might be directed by string-pullers higher up, whether they are aware of being directed or not. A huge element of this is the possibility that some of the perps are mind-controlled patsies carrying out the dictates of an "invisible" hierachy.
Also, an abuser who has been caught victimizing his or her own child or a neighbor kid cannot realistically be deemed by us not to be involved in an organized ring. The fact that we don’t know about it yet doesn’t mean it’s not happening. We must remain open to the possibility if we’re serious about the research.
I think it's likely that many people who visit Pizzagate don't routinely visit P Whatever, and so connections that might have been useful are never made.
In my opinion, mods should not be censoring/deleting anything except obvious shillage and things that have nothing even tangentially to do with abuse or murder of children.
My proposal for the wording of Rule #1:
Relevance: The goal of Pizzagate research is to identify and expose the specific persons and organizations who are directly responsible at the highest levels for ordering and/or perpetrating the abuse and/or murder of children in the U.S. and globally.
Posts must be relevant to the goal of Pizzagate research and may include sourced information about conditions and circumstances that enable or have the potential to enable abuse as well as sourced information about perpetrators who are or have the potential to be abusing at the direction of others.
[edited for clarity]
The Pizzagate definition and examples of relevant posts would need to be modified.
Cigarette5mokingman ago
Replace "may include sourced information..." for "must include..."
Factfinder2 ago
In this context, "may include" means "these specific things are permissible components of Pizzagate research posts:"
1) Sourced information about conditions and circumstances that enable to have the potential to enable users.
2) Sourced information about perpetrators who are or have the potential to be abusing at the direction of others.
The overall requirement for sourcing of all factual claims made in Pizzagate posts is covered in submission Rule #2.
Cigarette5mokingman ago
Understood. Just think it could only help to reiterate the necessity for sourcing.
Factfinder2 ago
You'd have to add "must be sourced" at the beginning so as not to include the items that are permissible but not mandatory--like this:
Posts must be sourced and relevant to the goal of Pizzagate research and may include sourced information about conditions and circumstances that enable or have the potential to enable abuse as well as sourced information about perpetrators who are or have the potential to be abusing at the direction of others.