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 →
Vindicator ago
ESOTERIC, I think you have a misunderstanding about Jesuit schools. Just because you graduate from one doesn't mean you are Jesuit or even Catholic. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of teachers in Jesuit colleges are Jesuits. "Becoming a Jesuit" is MUCH more difficult than simply getting a degree. It requires something like 12 years of seminary as well as taking several layers of vows, signing over all personal wealth to the order and other things far more onerous than someone as wealth and power hungry as John Podesta would ever subject himself to. I have a friend who thought he wanted to pursue this path, but couldn't hack it.
JP is no priest. He went to Georgetown to get a law degree. This is a narrative being pushed by shills who think Voaters are too stupid to know anything about Jesuits. I'm surprised you bought into it.
Less than 2% of Catholic priests are part of the pedo abuse scandal. A fraction of those are Jesuit. Saying that all Jesuits torture children just makes this investigation look like a joke. It's equivalent to saying all Democrats torture kids, or all cops cover up for elite pedophiles. If this is the claim made by the video, I wouldn't need to watch the whole thing to know it needed a disinfo flair. Another clue is that the "It's the Jesuits" crew are the same accounts pushing a bunch of hokey, cross-pollinated mythological crap. Before that, they were pushing a Jewish conspiracy, as well as a bunch of scientifically impossible stuff about elites drinking blood laced with adrenaline to get high while retaining their youth. So...which is it? If any of these narratives had any substance, they wouldn't keep trying new ones!
Crensch ago
Also, great response.
Crensch ago
I'm of the mind that Esoteric is a shill.
Vindicator ago
Maybe. Or perhaps he lacks skepticism and is too fascinated with mystical knowledge to be able to discern the fabrications of shills. We've got a couple of regulars on here who are into psychedelic pharmaceuticals in a quest for enlightenment that likely fall into the latter category. I'm pretty sure there's a room at Shareblue where the kids who troll us with this shit day after day binge-watch X-Files episodes and have editorial meetings to brainstorm crap like "King David is Achilles", "Pizzagate is about pineal gland harvesting for the cannibal elite", "They're abducting rare genetic mutants with coloboma", "the Knights of Malta are the Pope's assassins" and on and on.
Crensch ago
I do not envy you.
I believe my patience would be shot on a daily basis here.
Vindicator ago
I think you are right. ;-)
It would be easier if we could make whatever tweaks to the rules or administration of them we can to give the base of legit users less of a sense of being hindered by mods. They would then join in the shill-handling instead of believing every whining shill that claims we're pedos or compromised or whatever. I'm not suggesting asking for less evidence or being more lax...more like expanding the viable topics allowed (with the supporting evidence requirement still in place).
This is my first mod job, though, and the first time I've ever been seriously involved in a forum, let alone the most shilled one on the internet, so this may be a naive hope on my part. The frustration level of legit contributors -- which has grown steadily since December -- really does pain me, though. I appreciate you spending time here assessing things.
Crensch ago
It wouldn't be a stretch to add "ever" to that, IMO.
I can understand this.
Is this possible? Are there enough legit users that can spot a fake to be able to handle much of the shilling?