Hit n run post:
> when some do create their own threads, some if them a good idea, they are criticized for doing so.
Qresearch has a very distinct pattern.
All research relating to Q topics goes into a bread.
Topics that have a massive impact on society get a free pass if they're unique, constructive, informative enough (EG cryptocurrencies).
Topics that have a big impact on Q research BUT are so distinct (in operations, handling) also get their own thread, EG: meta, PlaneFags.
Human trafficking, pedophilia investigations tend to get a free pass because they're extremely important subjects in general (absolute proof 4chan is compromised given that's what they censor, but 8chan is not, as it doesn't).
If you've got something important to say, try to shoehorn into a pre-existing thread. Otherwise, TTDDTOT is where you make a house call (TTDDTOT is effectively 'misc'). It might be worth dumping research to TTDDTOT, collating sufficient enough evidence to merge with breads.
Otherwise, if your research is non-Q (or any of the subjects Q mentions) related, but important, it likely warrants a different forum, avenue altogether.
For example, PizzaGate investigations have their own dedicated sites, and it's best to focus those types there were researchers on the same line of thinking can better help. Q boards are very American politics orientated.
>3. muh bot faggot (has a name, ask the BO for it)
>shitposts nothing but nonsensical bullshit about everyone being bots
Would it surprise you if I told you that 'everyone is AI' accuser has declared they've tangled with me before on another forum?
Classically this is 95% confirmation they are a shill if they're hostile, because I only wade into shill infested waters to tangle with those types near-exclusively.
If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say he's Media Matters, Democrat type shill. I recognise his writings from pro-liberal hostile posters on conspiracy forums, and they're nearly always gov or political.
Quoting wikipedia with a bulk copy-paste (classic 'Q&A' script behaviour - detected a keyword in target post, replies with general massive dump of text with no analysis, quotes) is such cliche bot behaviour (sounds ironic in context) it's unreal.
Doesn't YouTube also 'cite' Wikipedia to discredit conspiracy theorists?
Seems like a very Media Matters thing to do.
Anyway, hit n run over, got to defend home front, I shall return!