2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link.
totally abused, way too vague. add that 'common knowledge' is defined as what a 6-month lurker of the sub would know, which would include most of the big names/orgs/topics listed under rule 1.
PEOPLE ARE STILL MAKING LINK POSTS by merey adding one line of description for it. especially with "school teacher/priest in Bumfuck, Idaho/Chimichanga, Mexico arrested" <----a post has to have ANALYSIS OR CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED RESEARCH BEHIND IT, maybe 1/10 of Q posts pass this test.
since Q-fags maintain that everything political INCLUDING pizzagate is subsumed by Q they should stay in THEIR OWN SUB.
repeat offenders making way too many threads per week like @migratorypatterns should have their posts deleted, even arbitrarily
Rule 2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link.
Rule 2 is fine.
Reason: We have many newbies, and people from other subs who wouldn't have a clue what OPs are talking about, when claims needn't be sourced.
Also, many people share Pizzagate posts on Twitter, so that people without any background knowledge about Pizzagate will read them. They can't be redpilled when claims are not sourced properly.
I can understand though, why people who have been here from the beginning, and are here almost daily, assume that some stuff is 'common knowledge'.
IMO, posts should be written in a way that newbies will understand them. This way, they'll get more traction, and can be spread outside of v/pizzagate.
First we have to define Empirical. Greek based (common knowledge). Greece was a proto-Roman empire predated by the Estruscans (common knowledge). Somewhere along the line common knowledge became empire, which is a different term, even though it supposedly came from common roots. Does that clear the fog?
view the rest of the comments →
auralsects ago
totally abused, way too vague. add that 'common knowledge' is defined as what a 6-month lurker of the sub would know, which would include most of the big names/orgs/topics listed under rule 1.
PEOPLE ARE STILL MAKING LINK POSTS by merey adding one line of description for it. especially with "school teacher/priest in Bumfuck, Idaho/Chimichanga, Mexico arrested" <----a post has to have ANALYSIS OR CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED RESEARCH BEHIND IT, maybe 1/10 of Q posts pass this test.
since Q-fags maintain that everything political INCLUDING pizzagate is subsumed by Q they should stay in THEIR OWN SUB.
repeat offenders making way too many threads per week like @migratorypatterns should have their posts deleted, even arbitrarily
think- ago
Rule 2 is fine.
Reason: We have many newbies, and people from other subs who wouldn't have a clue what OPs are talking about, when claims needn't be sourced.
Also, many people share Pizzagate posts on Twitter, so that people without any background knowledge about Pizzagate will read them. They can't be redpilled when claims are not sourced properly.
I can understand though, why people who have been here from the beginning, and are here almost daily, assume that some stuff is 'common knowledge'.
IMO, posts should be written in a way that newbies will understand them. This way, they'll get more traction, and can be spread outside of v/pizzagate.
YogSoggoth ago
First we have to define Empirical. Greek based (common knowledge). Greece was a proto-Roman empire predated by the Estruscans (common knowledge). Somewhere along the line common knowledge became empire, which is a different term, even though it supposedly came from common roots. Does that clear the fog?