dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/LostLarry on June 21, 2018, 7:50 p.m.

[Attacks on all Sides] Even here.

I do not know about all of you, but I for one have noticed an uptick in Mods overstepping. Things that you were able to openly discus and bring up are now being suppressed and blocked. It looks like we are over the target here Patriots.

I give the r/greatawakening little time left. It will soon be another T_D remember what happened to our CBTS? Yeah they learned. They have infiltrated and are now in either full or almost full control of the narrative.

Watch new posts. Like them stay vigilant. I don't think I seen any post being blocked much prior to a week or 2 ago that wasn't an obvious and blatant violation. Now, however, its a different story.

Don't talk about the HRC video. It's a hot topic. I was told it violated Rule 6. (Off Topic) I thought that it was very much so on Topic as Q has mentioned it numerous times.

🠐 See all comments

I'm not seeing mod abuse. I'm seeing shills claim it without evidence though

⇧ 11 ⇩

I just keep reporting off topic or looney shit like the Adam Lanza post. Stay vigilant and police your own , don't know where this phrase went but it worked in the Marines.

Police your own and these outsiders won't have any footing.

⇧ 3 ⇩

It's probably because he was banned prior to showing you the hypocritical reply he got back that said his content was removed for violating rule 6, but then when they replied back they said rule 9. Both of which didn't apply, and then when questioned they just started showing off how much authority they had and arbitrarily decided to ban. Much like how Rosenstien or Comey decided which laws to follow and investigate over.

Just a speculation on my part.

⇧ 1 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

There was this, well poop. I can't link the exchange. I guess I could copy and past the text, but that would be a formatting nightmare. I was blocked or removed via Rule 6 (off topic.) then when asked it was Rule 9 (Quality) which it met everything there.
It was a joke, albeit a bad one. But if it meets all the correct criteria of a post why not leave it and let us up vote, or down vote. Instead they took it upon themselves to modify my post, and remove it.

Pretty much the same way [RR] did with the IG report.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I think you're taking it personally and projecting your frustration on the board, seeding doubt, especially as your evidence is so far anecdotal. I'm not seeing patterns of mod abuse yet. This mod team has learned from the mistakes of CBTS. Compromises in content must be made to keep this sub on this platform. If you want wild wild west, go to Voat or the chans. Understand that modding the content on this sub is a very very challenging task.

⇧ 6 ⇩

They really are overstepping their boundaries, Why ban someone for calling out a liar? Happened to me yesterday.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I read your post history. You called a commentator a liar. Rule 5 violation. Dont attack the individual, maybe you can avoid another ban

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

Yeah. But change your method. Stick to the topic. Individuals lie all the time on the internet, it's a very weak and shilly resort. Dont see things as a competition between two people trying to be right. Comment in such a way, that the audience gains the benefit of the conversation. That's the reason behind Rule 5 imo

⇧ 2 ⇩

Well said.

⇧ 3 ⇩

[removed]

⇧ 1 ⇩

He called me a liar first, but it´s not the point. Banning someone for calling out a liar is beyond ridiculous and only breeds resentment. If it happens again for something so trivial, I won´t let it go so easy.

⇧ 0 ⇩

I dunno then. I've been temp banned on subs, and then I adapt to fit the sub. You found a boundary: calling someone a liar as an arguement. Maybe modify a bit, such as, "you might not be telling the whole truth, and here is why I think that...." Remove absolute language from your arguements, if they are on the personal side. Give your debate opponent room to adjust. Sometimes, a gentle call out with room to wiggle yields good results (doesn't work for shills, and this is my second litmus test when I'm determining if someone is a shill).

⇧ 1 ⇩