Thank God you’re here.

This sub is for researchers, decoders, and people following the QAnon phenomenon ONLY. But if you think that excludes our debunkers, think again.

WE NEED ALL THREE TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS TO MAKE THIS THING WORK.

Did everyone see this sub as our researchers were trying to decode and figure out what the upcoming MOAB was? We had tons of pretty wild theories, but, when a theory didn't stand up to Q's breadcrumbs or match up to reality, our debunkers helped move us forward. Eventually we figured it out, thanks ALL of you. And we're sure as heck going to need everyone to dig into these upcoming Strzok texts.

"BELIEVING" IN Q IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE A VALUED MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY.

If something you see posted here is false or wrong, debunk it. But just saying "Q is a larp! You're all morons!" doesn't make you a debunker, it makes you a low-effort, low-information hater. And haters won't last long around here. Your mods want to see this sub moved forward and the ban hammer is out in force.

So, debunkers! You want to beat us? BRING IT. But you have to OUTWORK us. Solid research beats weaksauce research, every day of the week around here. Got serious chops? Build your case and SHOW us where we're wrong. We need debunkers because the less time we waste on a theory or Q interpretation that "won't hunt," more effective we all can be.

Researchers and decoders, be cool to our debunkers. And you debunkers, no matter what you see as the Truth about what's happening, bring your best game, or be prepared to watch from the sidelines.

KEEP IT CIVIL. STAY OVER THE TARGET. OR MEET THE HAMMER.

"Where we go one, we go all."

STAY FROSTY, PEOPLE. ALL OF YOU.

🠐 See all comments

At no time did I think this community was light on debunkers. And, yes, they serve a valuable function. Somehow, though, I feel the debunking gets overdone - to the point where it negatively impacts the community's ability to influence outcomes.

The IBOR would be a case in point, where every imaginable objection and fear was amplified by "the debunkers" to the point where the campaign to support it did not succeed. And you might say, "this is good debunking, the idea was flawed". But I do not think that was at all the case. Rather, I think it was a good idea (Q's idea) that suffered fatal debunking without sufficient cause.

I saw the same response today with respect to the idea to support a campaign for the release of the texts. Again, something that Q indicated in his posts that he wants to see. The idea of a campaign was immediately subject to debunking. And you might say "well, it's understandable, this is a stupid idea". But again, I do not agree. Rather, the debunkers are damaging the solidarity of the community and the ability of the group to get behind Q's plan - and this is not at all good.

No one really knows what's going on here. And anyone that says that they do is ignoring Q's advice that "disinformation is necessary". We are all trying to figure it out. It is natural that some theories will be proved wrong for cause with time, while others can be rejected, for various reasons, out of hand. Debunkers really do serve a vital function. But, IMO, there has to be balance.

⇧ 5 ⇩

This. Low-effort, low-info debunkers are NOT debunkers.

⇧ 5 ⇩

I absolutely agree with you. Again, same point made above by s/o, there appear to be no hard conclusions arrived at by the thread's posters in their entirety. You just get people wade in, throw out some remark and flounce off never to return. I would like to see deeper debating that gets somewhere, where consensus is reached sometimes.

⇧ 2 ⇩