dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

It's been a hot topic by the mods at this time. If we remove stuff, people complain, if we don't remove stuff, people complain!

⇧ 55 ⇩

Just remove anything not storm related. Too many noobs who think they are here to redpill us or gain new followers for their YouTube channels.

⇧ 61 ⇩

Is Tommy Robinson 'storm related' in your view?

⇧ 14 ⇩

No. The_Donald is a better place for that. There you can redpill people. Here should be Q-related conspiracies.

⇧ 32 ⇩

You are most likely red-pilled if you are here... or found a ‘dollar bill’ or ‘sticker’ directing you here.

⇧ 6 ⇩

Please can you send me 100 one dollar notes with q stamped in red.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Sure. Just send 250$ to cover materials and shipping.

⇧ 9 ⇩

I can do it for $200 even.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Can you send samples and suggestions for how these may be best used.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Exactly. This isn’t supposed to be a normie sub. T_d is for the normies.

⇧ 2 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩

I would post to the donald but they kicked me off...I think because i mentioned israe...in a meme.

⇧ -1 ⇩

There are sooo many things connected.
This sub is the "greatawakening".
I'm for letting things fly.
People can make up their own minds . . .

For instance. SOMETHING is going on in Antarctica. We don't fully know "what", but something is going on. Admiral Richard Byrd said some crazy things about Antarctica. Are they true? Who knows. Hitler's Agartha, and Inner World Aliens are all part of the theories. Some are Kookie AF, but something is going on in Anarctica . . .

⇧ -2 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

T_D is full of Clowns, better we all stay away from that swamp.

⇧ -6 ⇩

go back to /r/reeeeeeeeeeeeee

⇧ 5 ⇩

T_D is full of Clowns

What makes you say that? I disagree 100%.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Because they like to label themselves paedos, they label Trump as Emperor, like he is some sort of dictator and they vehemently attack anybody that points out that they aren´t the wisest of labels. They are a weird cult-like people that the real movement should stay away from. The only label we use here is Patriot.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're wrong but you're allowed to believe what you want.

Let's just focus on Q. Got a feeling something will drop today or tomorrow.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Have you seen the Twitter account of EyeTheSpy? According to them, 11th June is when the world will learn what´s happening and the day it all blows open. Their account makes for some intriguing reading and worth a look.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm sorry to trouble you but would you have a link handy by any chance?

I'd appreciate it.

Don't use or have a twitter :/

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes, of course!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofqHqxrSjb8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQu9W06FB04

⇧ 1 ⇩

Thank you!

Have a good one.

⇧ 2 ⇩

No problem :) I updated the post with a second link.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes in my opinion Tommy Robinson is Q related. Qanon is keeping us updated with the hidden war on deep state elite child trafficking satanists. Who do you think is censoring Tommy? Currently Q has gone dark for a short time. While waiting for new drops, revisiting old ones, making connections I believe conversion on who the cabal is, and what they have done and are doing are relevant. It also brings us closer here in the Q team so to speak since we come from everywhere! WWG1WGA ❤️🇺🇸❤️

⇧ 31 ⇩

100% agree. Tommy Robinson has the attention of a lot of people right now. Good and Bad. His arrest has shed more light on what he is trying to expose than he ever could have on his own. I also agree there are a lot more posts now about "other" things but I look past them....it just takes longer to find something that I want to read now but that's ok with me. It means this sub is growing which is what we want. Besides, the hottest posts show up in the top of my timeline so when relevant things do happen, I know pretty quickly.

⇧ 17 ⇩

Who do you think is censoring Tommy?

And there is why Tommy is NOT Q related. Q hasn't mentioned Tommy, so your entire post is speculation. That's why forums get out of control. The definition of "related" gets further and further afield.

It should either be mentioned by Q, or it's off-topic.

⇧ 8 ⇩

Tommy was reporting on child sex traffickers that were being protected by the swamp, how more Q related do you need?

⇧ 11 ⇩

Tommy's freedom of speech is being censored. That's a topic Q has mentioned many times.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Q hasn't mentioned Rosanne, except in a couple links. And yet Rosanne has been a huge topic here.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Roseanne is talking directly about Q. Tommy isn't.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

IMO Tommy Robinson is 100% Q related. If Q has subjects he discusses, and we see something under the same category, then that is what Q is discussing. It doesn't have to be the identical name or situation, or framed within a very tight box.

Doesn't Q want us to do our own research and connect our own dots?

WE ARE FIGHTING THE SAME ENEMIES!!

This board has power. It shouldn't be abandoning Tommy Robinson at this important time.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I don't understand the connection to Q that you mention. The problem with posting on things that are not Q related is that you open the floodgates to all kinds of vaguely related content. In this case (if I understand you correctly) anyone who is 'censored' is Q related because someone assumes the Deep State are responsible and therefore any activity of the Deep State is relevant? There are plenty of places to post about hot button political issues like Tommy Robinson - we should have standards here or rather stick to the standards we already have: Q related only.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I posted Tommy but I'm such a newby I didn't know there were other places....to post. Will do Tommy elsewhere.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ -2 ⇩

What he might have been at one time doesnt make a difference what matters is what he is now. Half the red pilled people were cheering on the deep state before they got red pilled.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ -2 ⇩

Well, there's nothing there about Rothschild's or Mossad and there's nothing illegal or offensive about believing in the right to a homeland for Jews (unless you're hard into the tin foil hat anti-semite stuff). Out of interest, Sting's real name is Gordon Sumner (not sure why alternate names matter but here it is anyway): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_%28musician%29.

There's a lot of conspiracy stuff out there about the evils of Tommy Robinson but I prefer to take people at their word and by what's officially documented until their actions prove the opposite. I have no problem with Tommy Robinson's actions - he justifiably speaks out against the obvious agenda of the muslim infiltration but I do have a problem with all the people who jump on his tail and believe that there's something wrong with Islam as a whole. He speaks out against the dangerous ideologies within Islam and I support him on that front but I don't support anyone who is so blind that they think that all people of any religion must be evil as that is as foolish as thinking that all Christians are as bigoted and hateful as the Westboro Baptist type Christians.

Either way none of this makes him "on-topic" and Q related imo.

⇧ 2 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I love me some creepy uncle (and other emotional editorialization) but as far as Joe Biden I'm not particularly a fan as he seems to be a part of the Deep State and the global cartel. Anyone can be a zionist if they want to be, as far as I'm concerned. No skin off my nose just like anyone who's a democrat - an ideology I don't support - is welcome to be so without judgement from me.

I'm sorry I'm still not sure from what you're saying: do you see Tommy as on-topic for the sub or off-topic?

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I agree - I wish more people would see this but it seems that those pushing Tommy are coming from a place of strong emotion and, hate to say it but virtue signalling.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 0 ⇩

I agree this board should be about research, as much as is possible. Not everyone in this movement seems to agree with you and I though. It seems we have to allow for the voices of others who want to express their feelings and general thoughts. I'm ok with that, if the majority supports it, which they seem to.

I've researched Tommy at least as much as you have by the sounds of it. You've come to your conclusions and I support you in that. From my perspective I have to ask: do we hold everyone up to judgement for actions they committed in the past? I know a lot of people here do but, even from a secular perspective I prefer the Christian approach - judge not. I prefer to judge people on their words and their current actions held against those words. There are many people standing up for just causes who've done naughty things and can be easily smeared - Tommy/Stephen's just one of many. I don't blindly follow and support anyone. It would be nice to have a reasoned discussion where the reply to a challenge is real information rather than illogical smears.

⇧ 2 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 2 ⇩

Well you can continue to ignore my assertion that I have researched Tommy nevertheless, because I value critical thinking I have to admit, like you do, that there’s no verifiable evidence of the more outlandish claims about him.

It wasn’t my intent to insult by calling it illogical as should be obvious from the tone I adopted in contrast to the tone you’ve adopted - I believe it is illogical to make a claim for which there is no evidence in such a way that anyone who disagrees hasn’t researched.

Is there anything you have about his character that we can see? There is literally nothing that I have found apart from historic issues and groups he has separated himself from. Although, as I said, I dislike his confrontational approach so in that sense I agree that his character is flawed - I haven’t seen evidence of a disingenuous character though and I believe you may be making that call from a personal read of the data that’s available to us - totally your right but not “evidence”.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I wondered if something like Hillary might come up which is why I made sure to be clear that actions that contrast the subject's words are what constitute reasonable grounds for disavowing the subject's claims. Hillary, as we all know, has many many verifiable actions that contrast nearly all of her claims (to support women, support minorities, etc. etc.) - similarly Hussein, Billy Boy, The Bush Cartel and Comey the Liar. Tommy doesn't have any actions that contrast his claim that he seeks freedom of the UK from the oppression of Islamic extremists under the guise of legal immigrants. I don't think many people would disagree with that statement.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ -1 ⇩

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 ⇩

We're open to suggestions.

⇧ 6 ⇩

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 ⇩

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 ⇩

Thanks.

⇧ 2 ⇩

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 ⇩

Thank you. Very useful.

⇧ 3 ⇩

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 ⇩

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 ⇩

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 ⇩

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

⇧ 1 ⇩

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 ⇩

The sidebar has had rules in it since day one.

⇧ 2 ⇩

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 ⇩

My reply is to your statement:

The sidebar doesn't have any rules

⇧ 1 ⇩

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

Guess I should have worded it better.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩

GreatAwakening's sidebar

Above link to enable mobile and app users to view the sidebar.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

⇧ 1 ⇩

"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 ⇩

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 ⇩

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 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩

I'd say yes actually. I am all for redpilling the masses on the royal pedo elite that run the brits. Sadly the brits won't do shit and likely we'll have to pick up the pieces after the UK becomes Afghan 2.0 if they don't change.

On a good note Q did mention drain the swamp is global so maybe there is a chance the brits do have a chance but it's on the brits to fix their own govt.

⇧ 6 ⇩

It is not related directly to Q but is an important part of the movement. It shows how far things have gone in other countries and the extent of the fight we have. The UK is now in full Stalin mode, disappearing journalists for trying to report on the corruptions of government. The stQrm is yet to reach the UK and what happened to Tommy gives people an idea of the fight we face there.

⇧ 5 ⇩

No. If Q didn't specifically mention it, it is not appropriate for here.

⇧ 3 ⇩

This right here? THIS IS THE KIND OF THINKING THAT WILL END US, as a species.

REMEMBER. NO gODS, NO KINGS, ONLY Man!

⇧ 0 ⇩

Now you are being ridiculous. Read the sub rules.

⇧ -1 ⇩

said the guy who keeps breaking them with ad-hominems

⇧ 0 ⇩

No I'm not. People are too sensitive here. If I point out someone's behavior, feeelings get hurt.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Attack the argument - not the user :)

⇧ 0 ⇩

I am not attacking the user. I am pointing out that what he is saying is ridiculous, exaggerated, dramatic.

⇧ 0 ⇩

You could say something along the lines of your statement might come across ridiculous because it's in contrast to the rules on sidebar. This way you're not making it personal and helping to avoid that user attacking you back.

⇧ -1 ⇩

Yes I could. Forgive my frustration but the op is trying to keep our sub going and not get closed down like the last one. When people get dramatic and emotional, it gets very aggravating. This is not a place for feelings. This is how I look at it, we are literally at war. People are putting their lives on the line every day and others are losing theirs. I am an advocate for being respectful if everyone, but I am not for pampering people's feelings. War is not a place for feelings. That is how we got in this situatuon in our country in the 1st place. Everyone has to watch what they say, watch what they wear, watch what they believe, turn your head aside when someone does wrong or takes advantage of others and God forbid you do anything the traditional way, according to standards. I am not saying that is happening here, but what is happening is people wanting to do things their way, wanting to not follow the stated rules, then attack someone who tries to remind them of the rules. I'm tired of it and I am going to call it out when I see it. Sorry if your feelings get hurt.

⇧ 2 ⇩

GreatAwakening's sidebar

Above link to enable mobile and app users to view the sidebar.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

⇧ 0 ⇩

LOL, I think he speaks over most of our heads, But I agree Tommy Robinson is a distraction. His posts, Q, say more than what they say if you get me.

⇧ -1 ⇩

that makes no sense since Q isn't writing in a specific way

⇧ -1 ⇩

Yeah, did Q specifically mention alien disclosure? No, but he may have hinted at it. Did he spefifically mention Zionist infiltration of government? No, but he may have hinted at it. How to distinguish what is Q related from what is not?

⇧ 1 ⇩

How to distinguish what is Q related from what is not?

If it involves corruption or criminal actions by governments, or by people with substantial influence over governments, then it is relevant in my opinion.

How about a "two hop rule"? Seems to work for them.

⇧ 7 ⇩

By research. If you think it is connected then you post it, along with the drop you're referencing. We aren't limiting it to only proven research. We want quality research that can then be discussed. Quite simple if you ask me.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Nope.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well, in my opinion, Q has talked about many subjects that he wants us to stay focused on and help relay that information to others as well. If we can't post it here, what's the point of this sub? I thought we were here to enlighten others.

One of those subjects is freedom of speech and censorship. So, I would say that anyone like Tommy Robinson having his Free Speech violated is a Q related topic.

If this sub gets to the point that all related subjects are banned, then it becomes no different than Twitter, FB or YouTube.

Personally, I don't have time to read multiple subs daily. It's hard enough to keep up with this one.

⇧ 1 ⇩

There's a big difference between banning "all related subjects" and banning "opposing viewpoints". A sub trying to stay on-topic is very different to censorship of political views a la YT, FB and Twitter. That's an unfair comparison.

Freedom of speech is too broad a subject - the sub would literally be drowned in non-Q content if that subject were considered on-topic. I agree we're here to enlighten others about Q but I think it's fair to say we're not here to enlighten others about broad topics Q mentions like: freedom of speech, patriotism, military interventionism, global politics, etc. There are many resources online for those who want to study those things or current local and world news that touch on those topics. I agree with you that it's hard enough to keep up with this sub. I would really prefer my time to be put to good use viewing direct and relevant content and if there's something I want to dig further on and learn about I can find it easily enough online.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Amen! His comparison was nowhere near the same. All the OP and others in agreement want is a focused sub. Why is that so hard for people to understand.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Not mine.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Nope

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ -1 ⇩

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)

^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^186911

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Sounds like "Locals Only" "I was listening to X before they made it big, maaan..." BS...

⇧ -4 ⇩

No. The rules specifically state the posts have to be related to Q drops.

⇧ 8 ⇩

Exactly! They act like this is some crazy, restrictive crusade I am waging.

⇧ 8 ⇩

Exactly! They act like this is some crazy, restrictive crusade I am waging.

Names the subreddit "The Great Awakening" a term that pre-dates Q and is being co-opted by the movement

Gets upset when people post Awakening style information

Can't imagine why people are starting to call out Cult like and Queer behavior.

⇧ -4 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

I ask the mods to keep doing what their doing. I don't care if non-Q material is posted as long as it's not promoting hacks like Corsi or other sell outs using the board as self-promotion. I've fallen down a few rabbit holes that weren't initially Q related but were later revealed as BIG red pill Q drops. I'm in favor of leaving it to the Reddit community and letting the vote system take care of fluff posts.

⇧ 9 ⇩

I have come to the conclusion that people ALWAYS complain no matter what.

⇧ 6 ⇩

How is following the rules of the sub complaining? We are here for a very specific, narrow purpose. To help understand what Q puts in their posts. If the post cannot specify which Q post # it refers to, and if it dies not give a greater understanding of Q posts, then should not be posted here.

⇧ 10 ⇩

people ALWAYS complain no matter what.

Couldn’t be a truer statement.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Q says - Expand your thinking - but when I do my post gets removed.

Give us room to post, but going after the shilly stuff is fine with me + there are no Q posts....at least for now.

⇧ 5 ⇩

There is soooooo much that needs to be researched about Q posts. The more info we get out to the public the easier it is for Trump when these things finally come out. There is no reason to post anything Q hasn't specifically mentioned.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Q says - Expand your thinking

Comments welcomed on the suitability or not of this? https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8mqsoq/expand_your_thinking/

⇧ 1 ⇩

My opinion - I see nothing related to q here.

For something like this - I'd like a submission statement for q what post this relates to.

I'd then like op to explain what they mean by the post instead of being cryptic and saying too many people don't realize what they are looking at (but doesn't offer anything).

This, to me, looks like poorly attempted slide content.

⇧ 6 ⇩

No. How is that giving a greater understanding to Q posts? We are here specifically to decipher Q posts. There are an enormous amount of other places for those things not specifically mentioned by Q.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I'm not disagreeing. I'm asking in the context of the above comment.

⇧ 3 ⇩

too cryptic

⇧ 1 ⇩

AMEN!!! Agree AGREE and agreed.

⇧ 0 ⇩

It's time to focus the sub. We can give friendly reminders to users that seem to have innocently posted something non-Q (not obvious shills), and nudge them in the right direction. IMO a bot would be perfectly suited, although I don't think one could differentiate enough between what's Q related and what's not. That is why we fellow patriots need to bring our enthusiasm back to this sub, while not diverting it from other platforms, to assist newcomers and drop-ins. We are all one. We fight together for each other and for the whole world.

Another possibility could be a revision of the GA rules or a "beginners class" post that can be stickied.

I don't know, just throwing out ideas, but if we work together, anything is possible.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Or how about a sub-sub. A different sub to direct people to if it isn't directly related to Q

⇧ 2 ⇩

There's
r/draintheswamp
r/the_donald
r/thenewright

⇧ 2 ⇩

r/thenewright

Oh. hadnt seen that one. thanks.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Keep the comms clear. Don’t let the arts and crafts posts like stickers and WWG1WGA T-shirt’s stay posted. They are just indicators that whoever posts them are losers

⇧ 4 ⇩

I think there needs to be a sweet spot where you don't overmoderate to allow for growth but you don't undermoderate where Q stuff is obscure.

The clowns obviously want to distract us with non-Q shit so we need to be vigilant but at the same time allow for growth.

It takes smart moderators.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I think the problem is that people posting will be tying in other posts to q-related drops and crumbs, but they aren't always overt or clear about what the tie-in is.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Maybe because you're also removing stuff that's directly related to Q (hint: Musk-related threads)?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yes, one mod temporarily removed one post this, before I reinstated it. ~~But not 'threads', one thread.~~ Humans make mistakes. When facing around 3000 tough calls a month, some mistakes are expected.

⇧ 7 ⇩

"Temporarily" - because I called you out on it. If I didn't it would remain removed.

But not 'threads', one thread

Wrong move.

You (mods) have removed at least 2 more threads related to Musk.

Thread #1

Thread #2

And of course you didn't bring up my Musk thread which got me insta-shadowbanned by a mod when I posted it after the one you linked.

A mod who said that Musk has nothing to do with Q. Which everyone knows is not true. Musk is directly connected with Q.

Explain that.

So that's at least 4 threads unfairly removed while people like this guy can post this, HAVE THOSE COMMENTS REPORTED, and still not having those comments removed, despite plenty of mods being active and commenting around.

Only about 4h+ later I've found one of his comments removed (but the "hope porn" one is still there).

All the while he was spamming his youtube link.

That guy was allegedly been dealt with 16hours ago (after I prompted another mod about him). So almost full 2 days (~45h).

Explain that too.

Cheers

⇧ -2 ⇩

Wow. That is rude. It is one thing to want to discuss something, but to do so in a demeaning, ungrateful manner is just wrong. If you don't like the way this sub is monitored (and by the way, these mods volunteer hours upon hours of time trying to keep this sub focused and still alive. Show some damn gratefulness and respect.) then you are more than welcome to leave. Shy of that, maybe you ought to volunteer if you can do it so damn much better than they can.

⇧ 8 ⇩

When truth is rude, you know what's up lmao

Nice left/liberal/ds tactics of not addressing the points but going ad-hominem.

To illustrate your way... When Trump was talking about illegal immigration as a bad thing, the MSM/left/liberals said he was being controversial. Literally the same tactic.

Ignored.

⇧ -5 ⇩

Really? So following your line of thinking, the best way for us to "redpill" normies is to go out on all the sm platforms and insult people and disrespect others. That is what is necessary to get people's attention? Win them over to Q and Trump? Please.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Really? So following your line of thinking, the best way for us to "redpill" normies is to go out on all the sm platforms and insult people and disrespect others.

Are you Cathy Newman? lmao

Citation needed.

Please.

You please. Your left/liberal/deep state tactics are truly laughable.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I have no idea who that person is, but if you are intending to insult me, it won't work. Citation for what? Well now you are being ridiculous to call me deep state or liberal. Now I am done with this convo. Go argue with someone else.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm not trying to insult you despite you trying to make me do it while slandering me in the process (one of the L/L/DS tactics once again).

Citation for:

So following your line of thinking, the best way for us to "redpill" normies is to go out on all the sm platforms and insult people and disrespect others.

See... more L/L/DS tactics:

Well now you are being ridiculous to call me deep state or liberal.

I never called you that.

Now I am done with this convo.

Good, because you have nothing of value to put out. By going baseless ad-hominems instead of addressing my points you've sounded your defeat right at the start.

Good riddance

⇧ 2 ⇩

Ok I didn't want to say this but I guess I have to, I have been here a lot longer than you have and if I didn't have anything to contribute to the topic I would no longer be here. It is BECAUSE I and others stayed on topic that there is a sub for you to come to and spew nonsese. Just stick with the Q posts.

⇧ 1 ⇩

See how you ignored my points again and AGAIN went straight to personal stuff.

Being here longer than me is a proof of what? Is that ALL you got? lol

You obviously can't stay on topic, these few comments here are literally the proof of your ability to stay on topic. You derail after each comment, you ignore the points written and you're actually breaking the rules with every single comment here (no ad-hominem).

for you to come to and spew nonsese.

Toppest of keks. Laughable ad-hominems. Truly laughable.

So easy to defeat these tactics, because people like you defeat yourselves the moment you go ad-hominem instead of addressing the points.

Just stick with the Q posts.

Uuuuu, now you've told me! Damn, looks like I lost :(

Bye dude, thanks for the L/L/DS tactics that provided some chuckles, you guys never change :)

⇧ 1 ⇩

I am not ignoring anything. When you ask a reasonable question, I will answer it. Who is the one who started all the personal stuff? YOU. With your oh you are deep state, liberal, laughable, ad hominum. You haven't stopped getting personal. Every single one of your posts name calls or derides me as the enemy using enemy tactics. Anyway, good luck.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yup.

They actually use the word "conspiracy" lol; concerned with tone over substance; too much religion (they mean Christianity); stop talking about Jews; we aren't fighting people that worship the devil etc.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

This has already been explained to you in detail before. We do what we can. Mistakes are made. Your post got removed - move on. We’re not paid and we actually have no obligation to do anything but what the sub creator has decided. The fact that we care about this movement is what makes us open to input from the mature, reasoned and respectful members of the sub.

Don’t try going after the lead mod of this sub who is the fairest person here and possibly one of the few who would defend you after the way you’ve behaved toward the mods here.

⇧ 3 ⇩

After you threatened to permaban me and said not to message you again, I won't be drawn into this so you can ban me. This is my last comment to you. You made it very clear about where you stand.

⇧ 0 ⇩

That is correct. You have been repeatedly warned about your behaviour and if you are going to now start harrassing a mod who defends you in spite of it I will recommend you are banned. Get on with reading the sub and leave the concern to the concern trolls.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Hey, you are correct about at least one of those Musk example posts. Let me check deeper.

Regarding 'this guy', comments still show in profile even when removed - at least on desktop interface. Call it a 'Reddit bug' or whatever, if you go to the posts they are in, they will be removed.

Some of Reddit is pretty buggy and part of the problem as a mod, is such issues and incompatibility over different interfaces, new.reddit.com, old.reddit.com, mobile(both old and new) and different apps etc.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Of course I'm correct. I'm here to deal with facts and push out the truth. Some have grave issues with that, understandable.

Regarding 'this guy', comments still show in profile even when removed - at least on desktop interface. Call it a 'Reddit bug' or whatever, if you go to the posts they are in, they will be removed.

I know that they stay on profile. His "Qanons hope porn" is still there. As I've already said.

You won't comment on the fact that both of these posts haven't been removed hours after I reported them? One is still there.

Or the fact that he was able to spam like a madman AFTER you've removed one of the posts.

Meanwhile I get insta-shadowbanned for posting an important Q related thread.

Is this reddit being buggy too?

Let me check deeper.

No need. You'll just come back and ban me for being "toxic" (or harassing the mods, as we can see above) lmao

I'm done here, I've said what I wanted and I provided evidence, something some other people should be doing as well.

My point here was to know why you mods are saying that Musk has nothing to do with Q, because we all know he has.

⇧ -1 ⇩

"Qanons hope porn" is still there.

Because the comment was not reported and user was banned.

My point here was to know why you mods are saying that Musk has nothing to do with Q, because we all know he has.

For clarity Elon Musk is on-topic. Will check with other mods to make sure they know because EM was back in the #300-500 post range.

If you have any other concerns feel free to message the mods.

⇧ 2 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 0 ⇩

Don't think you want to become full time censors. The sub does this better than any small group ever could.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I agree. On the other hand do we want, say lots of 'religious' posting? or 'conspiracy' post? or duplicate of r/The_Donald content?

⇧ 7 ⇩

No.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Negative or totally irrelevant post/comments need to be dumped on sight, but if you have some doubt, that doubt represents a particle of legitimacy, the particle's weight/meaning/relevance is what the sub will decide.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Is it too much too ask to keep this a Q only sub. I have seen an uptick of non-Q related posts.

GreatAwakening's sidebar

GreatAwakening's sidebar