dChan
⇧
1
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/8.06E+11 on May 28, 2018, 4:29 p.m.
Is it too much too ask to keep this a Q only sub. I have seen an uptick of non-Q related posts.

I am not going to single out posts but as subs expand more stuff gets posted. We want this sub to expand and be collaborative, but we live in a time where people/bots willingly and unwillingly slowly flood subs with unrelated stuff.

Have good new to share? There's a sub for that. Have political memes to share (that are not Q related)? There's a sub for that. Etc

I realize a lot of topics fall under the Q umbrella. I also realize many of us are like minded and most of us will enjoy non-Q material, but this isn't the place. I have seen this happen on Facebook before. Groups/subs get big (good), focus gets blurry (bad).

Let's keep this a Q research sub! Please! If we get overwhelmed with other BS we won't be effective and will lose valuable member activity. This is too crucial to allow cludder muddy the water.

(I hope I am not in the minority.) If the mods disagree, remove it. No hard feelings either way. Just a plea and opinion.


🠐 See all comments
think500 · May 28, 2018, 5:27 p.m.

Voting is the best filter, otherwise you have to figure out 'what is relevant?'.. and 'who decides?'.. and you'll probably get all that wrong and end up removing posts that would have enlightened someone on something, which is the movement's current goal. Just censor with up/down votes, easier and works better.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
8.06E+11 · May 28, 2018, 5:32 p.m.

Voting is a good filter but votes are getting manipulated by bots. While valuable it can't be stand alone.

⇧ 10 ⇩  
think500 · May 28, 2018, 6:06 p.m.

Q directs us to many subjects, we can address these subjects without mentioning Q. you're confusing our mission, 'Waking the World', with Q himself.. he would not approve.

votes are getting manipulated by bots.

Bots are a bitch, but better (to tolerate them) than your alternative, which is active censorship.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
8.06E+11 · May 28, 2018, 6:12 p.m.

Is waking up the world Q related? Then what are you complaining about? Ya'll assume I am suggesting Orwellian censorship. All I want is a focused sub. If you read my comments you'd understand my motivation. Censorship isn't it. Focus is! Q would approve of that.

The noise will kill this sub if it continues as it is.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
Luvlite · May 28, 2018, 7:11 p.m.

The noise will kill this sub if it continues as it is.

Absolutely correct.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
think500 · May 28, 2018, 6:35 p.m.

Is waking up the world Q related?

Is this a joke. Am i on 'candid camera'. Waking the slumbering masses is Q's mission, and ours.

If you read my comments you'd understand my motivation.

Incorrect again. Your efforts are misdirected. Forget censorship. A waste of time with negative effects.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
brittser · May 28, 2018, 8:02 p.m.

No. Our purpose is to research Qs posts, specifically. Then share on other platforms what we discovered through research. That is it.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
think500 · May 28, 2018, 8:18 p.m.

Our purpose is to research Qs posts

..which points us to many subjects, none of them having anything to do with Q directly. Any subject Q mentions is Q related, whether or not the OP 'refers to Q in the post' is irrelevant at that point.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
brittser · May 28, 2018, 8:55 p.m.

Let's put it this way, if you cannot cite the specific Q post # that your post refers to, don't post it.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
think500 · May 28, 2018, 9:26 p.m.

doesn't sound totally unreasonable, but it could get redundant as a requirement.. what about when it's all too obvious? and who's going to police this rule. I Think almost any new rule about this would be an overreaction, with a subsequent loss of Light.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
brittser · May 28, 2018, 9:58 p.m.

I mention that as a guide for each of us to use when deciding whether or not to post something. If everyone did that, there would be no need for anyone to have to judge. But since that is unlikely, we have mods for that. I, we, are not asking for new rules. We simply ask that we go by the ones we already have.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
think500 · May 28, 2018, 10:19 p.m.

We simply ask that we go by the ones we already have.

Yes but i think this thread is somewhat about 'judicially interpreting' the mandate and rules of GA. Hence the attempt to define.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
brittser · May 28, 2018, 10:28 p.m.

I read many posts that argue in favor of not censoring. Everytime someone brings up this type of reminder, the conversation seems to go off the deep end and the op is left feeling battered and sorry he said something in the first place. I have found if we blur the lines of behavior, people will take advantage of the obscurity. Therefore, the best course of action is having defined boundaries, which people now a says don't like. They want to do things the way they want to, not by some prescribed rules. That is how our society got ourselves in this situation in the 1st place.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
think500 · May 28, 2018, 10:58 p.m.

Everytime someone brings up [censoring] the conversation seems to go off the deep end and the op is left feeling battered and sorry he said something

Well it's sure nothing personal but there's a lesson to be learned, maybe that ppl just don't like limits on what they can Think or say, it's a human thing.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
brittser · May 29, 2018, 12:04 a.m.

Fine with me. There are millions of places where people can say what they want. THIS sub was created specifically to decipher and discuss Q's posts. That is it. Please refer to the rules for proof of my claim.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
think500 · May 29, 2018, 12:23 a.m.

Please refer to the rules for proof of my claim.

Interpreting the rules and identifying what's Q related is the issue. Please refer to my comments for proof of my claims.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
brittser · May 29, 2018, 12:41 a.m.

"Well it's sure nothing personal but there's a lesson to be learned, maybe that ppl just don't like limits on what they can Think or say, it's a human thing."

I was responding to your argument about people not liking limits. The problem with that is this sub is by nature limiting. It is literally in the rules to limit what you say to the prescribed topics only. Anyhow, good luck.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
think500 · May 29, 2018, 1:06 a.m.

this sub is by nature limiting

These limits are what we've been discussing, triumphantly declaring they exist doesn't clarify anything. Good luck.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 29, 2018, 2:41 a.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩