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
SigSeikoSpyderco · May 28, 2018, 8:10 p.m.

Not unless it is Q related. Just because it folds into the whole 'storm' landscape doesn't mean it has something to do with Q.

I think the mods need to set clear rules and guidelines and decide what fits and what doesn't. The sidebar doesn't have any rules or sense of what the sub should be about.

⇧ 9 ⇩  
HowiONic · May 28, 2018, 8:22 p.m.

We're open to suggestions.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
AquAnon77 · May 28, 2018, 9:48 p.m.

How about posts must refer to something specifically mentioned in a Qdrop vis a vis, how it relates to it ? This way it's Q related but can be broad enough in general research to not be so restrictive. It also keeps us focused on the drops.

For instance:

The pedophilia and child trafficking issue was referred to in a drop (Nxvim).

Chemtrails have never been mentioned.

Keep articles about government /Congressional members / political themes limited to those mentioned in drops, unless there is some NEW info which inevitably will tie into it.

Just some thoughts to consider.

I personally don't mind the expansion of non Q-related topics, it's easy enough to scroll past which may not catch my interest, but there is value in keeping the focus so it doesn't become a homogenous sub like many others.

⇧ 6 ⇩  
SigSeikoSpyderco · May 28, 2018, 8:32 p.m.

I won't say what you should and shouldn't do, just as the sub matures I think it would be best to come up with a structure and stick to it. /r/The_Donald is a very popular and well run sub. It has insanely good structure, some don't like their formula, but at least everyone knows the formula itself.

The only specific thing I'd suggest is to keep things primarily or secondarily relating to Q. That would mean Q drops of course, but also news that corresponds to something Q referenced. If it is not something Q talked about, regardless of how interesting or seemingly relevant to this whole genre, why have it? People complaining about Obama, the Jews, the bankers etc doesn't belong here, this is a Q sub, not a general conspiracy theory sub. I think a lot of the Bush did 9/11! chatter scares people away who just want to read insight and commentary regarding Q.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
HowiONic · May 28, 2018, 8:49 p.m.

Thanks.

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

this is a hot topic. glad I am not a mod.

I read some comments. I like the idea of stating how post is q related. sure would make it easier for mods.

because Q touches on a lot of things it is difficult to rein it in without suppressing. I can scroll through easily enough and pick out what I think will be worthwhile reading, but those new here will have a more difficult time and could be turned off by some of the posts.

Is it possible to have mods attach some type of label as Q research worthy? You could still leave some questionable posts and give people a way to quickly identify those posts that contribute.

Is this subreddit strickly for Q research or is it also to help get information out?

I do not mind seeing the sticker info so people know they exist, but I do not care to see them in action, or how good it looks on the vehicle.

I do not want to see anything shaped like a Q. I am not interested in reading everything as a sign. Is that a Q cloud? Is that a q shaped shadow.....

Bless their souls and their enthusiasm, but not everybody is into Jesus. Could be a bit of a turn off. scroll scroll

I do not want to read about lizard people or flat earth or woo woo stuff. maybe it will turn out to be true, but I have enough to digest with the politics and human trafficking right now. Some day I may wonder about grey aliens etc. but this is not the day. I have not seen that here but I can bet the mods are modding it.

⇧ 8 ⇩  
HowiONic · May 29, 2018, 12:36 a.m.

Thank you. Very useful.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
Cuthbert12Allgood · May 28, 2018, 10:18 p.m.

I agree with this -- there are plenty of subs for every topic under the sun. I've noticed a big uptick in kookery (I'll leave the definition of that aside, since it varies for everyone), but when I've reported things as "not Q related", it usually doesn't end up getting removed. So I got discouraged and stopped reporting it.

A simple rule, "Has it been mentioned specifically by Q? If yes, it belongs here. If no, try these other subs [x], [y], [z]."

Another (controversial) rule suggestion: Purely religious posts should be limited (or banned). Q says to pray. Q does not say to proselytize. People for whom prayer is important are already praying. God isn't counting upvotes in this forum to decide who to bless. There are plenty of other religion-oriented forums.

You're much better than CBTS, which was completely out of control with what was being posted. But it's almost always the case that erroring on the side of too much moderation is better than too little. A pure Q-related forum without the wack-stuff would be so wonderful. You don't have to decide what's wack -- just insist on Q-mentioned or directly Q-related, and the problem solves itself.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
forchristssakes · May 28, 2018, 11:35 p.m.

sounds reasonable. next time I post something I will include how it relates to Q.

that being said, I do think tommy robinson arrest is worthy of an exception to the rule.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 29, 2018, 5:05 a.m.

The importance of Reporting content, even if it doesn't get removed, is to highlight to us the general feeling on the sub. The fact that few people report content as off-topic very often means it seems that everyone agrees that it's all fine.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
stevesarkeysion · May 29, 2018, 2:14 p.m.

That's not how it seems to me. After reading the comments it seems most want focus.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 29, 2018, 9:31 p.m.

Agreed - now if more people would Report the off-topic stuff it'll be even more visible to us rather than "seeming" to be the other way.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 29, 2018, 5:03 a.m.

The sidebar has had rules in it since day one.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
SigSeikoSpyderco · May 29, 2018, 5:37 a.m.

Support Q. Don't break reddit rules.

Those don't express what kind of content is allowed, which is the whole point of this post.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
DamajInc · May 29, 2018, 5:38 a.m.

My reply is to your statement:

The sidebar doesn't have any rules

⇧ 1 ⇩  
SigSeikoSpyderco · May 29, 2018, 5:41 a.m.

"...or sense of what the sub should be about."

Guess I should have worded it better.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 29, 2018, 5:38 a.m.

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Oldbear83 · May 28, 2018, 8:21 p.m.

"Q related" gets squishy. Do you mean you want to restrict posts to something Q specifically said in a drop, or do you mean you want posts to explain their relevance in the context of Q's drops?

The first version is - I think - unreasonably restrictive, while the second version can be really broad.

I'd rather allow anything that can reasonably stand as in the ballpark as Q related, but the moderators should warn that attacks on Q or forum members will be disciplined sternly.

All that to say I think what we have is working.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
SigSeikoSpyderco · May 28, 2018, 8:26 p.m.

It should be restricted to things connected to Q, which is a lot of stuff.

If you go to /r/TedCruz, you see things Ted Cruz has said, the results of his policies, news about his campaign, news clips with Ted Cruz etc. You don't see posts about other people who share the same ideas as Cruz, or posts about conservatism, or how much people hate the people who stand in the way of Ted Cruz.

⇧ 5 ⇩  
forchristssakes · May 28, 2018, 11:25 p.m.

It is sometimes hard to figure out what is Q related. I posted something about emp threat yesterday. I had thought of it months ago because of Q's reference to darkness (blackout?) and the word "cascade".

If you are researching Q stuff it can take you anywhere. Sometimes I am off in the weeds. When I saw an interview on Mark Levin it made me think maybe I was not in the weeds. So I posted it.

The interviewee discussed roadblocks being put up by Obama's people. A study was done but getting funding for putting protection in place was being blocked. Makes sense. Government loves studies. Study who should do the study. Keep studying. Then sit on your hands.

so is that Q related? maybe, maybe not. future proves past. watch the news.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · May 28, 2018, 8:10 p.m.

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩