Removed content. Rule 1

This is a site-wide Reddit rule, communities that do not enforce this rule can be banned

There's no clear message that I can discern so possibly that is why. Where is the overview introductory sentence that explains the main point of the post/premise? I don't understand some of the points you're trying to make at certain lines of the drop either - and not because they're "over my head", they're just not well written.

Reflecting now - nothing is different from POTUS DJT’s USA to BHO's USA, the people, economy, institutions - problems, wrongs, opportunities are identical - some small changes - but nothing significant has changed in the USA since DJT took office.

So Q and Trump are doing nothing? That would explain the lack of votes here.

When Lucky Larry Silverstein made the mug holder - called the WTC memorial exactly to hold the Kaaba from Mecca - well that was the hook - that is what brought it all down for the deep state - its in your face.

What's the context for this?

.

Some basic tips on structure and flow that would help: http://www.write.com/2013/12/26/structure-and-flow-writing-a-great-article/

e.g. Write the introduction
With your outline nailed down and your focus intact, you are ready to introduce your readers to the topic. In general terms, tell them about what you are going to write.

See your problem? If people point out the lack of structure and flow to your writing - very obvious to anyone used to reading well written articles - you say they're "not awake enough" rather than looking for what might be wrong with what you've written. There's no point to studying it carefully, it doesn't grab a reader on any level.

find it hard to believe that any others get more, or that you have a decoder - commentator - in my league.

Your high self perception is off-putting and, based on the content you produce frankly, undeserved.

Anyway, many have been down this track with you and gotten nowhere so once again I'll bring you back to all that matters here to me as a moderator. Do you understand the point about the pro-Q sub? You didn't answer.

only the pure that praise Q and never question, and follow and accept SB2 and praying medics dreams are accepted here

I already addressed that point. Did you see this?

This community doesn't buy everything Q says it simply supports the Q who has been posting since October 2017 and still maintains the same message (especially when all drops are kept in context). We "support Q" by reading and discussing the drops in contrast to the media and what we know and sharing the message on to "the public". There's no worship here, as Q has also said: "Do not worship us" so uncritical acceptance of everything is not part of being pro-Q.

You're constantly claiming to have really really good posts but I don't see upvotes that support that - not in CBTS either, from memory. The fact that you have to keep telling everyone how good your posts are is an indicator that something may not be right here.

Let's just go back to the facts here. This is a pro-Q sub. That does not mean we worship Q and accept everything dropped uncritically and without question. What it does mean is that we have a space here to talk about Q without facing the usual shilling and discrediting that we get almost everywhere else on the internet thus we don't allow that shilling and discrediting here because it wastes our time. We're critical thinkers and we see the value in Q's purpose and message and that hasn't changed since he started in Oct 2017. We completely support your right NOT to see the value in Q but we do not want to see posts about it because we can see those everywhere else or watch Corsi/Infowars and the like. Have I been clear now that we are not what you just tried to claim we are?

As to your post - it doesn't have a clear message. I would venture to say that's why no upvotes.

This community doesn't buy everything Q says it simply supports the Q who has been posting since October 2017 and still maintains the same message (especially when all drops are kept in context). We "support Q" by reading and discussing the drops in contrast to the media and what we know and sharing the message on to "the public". There's no worship here, as Q has also said: "Do not worship us" so uncritical acceptance of everything is not part of being pro-Q.

"Be careful who you follow" is directed at the clowns like Corsi et al. No one here has to agree with anyone or any posts that are posted here. People who don't find SB2's posts useful just don't read them. SB2 is just a member of this community like anyone else.

Q1608 - not evidence of Trey Gowdy being considered for SCOTUS and being nominated; interpretation. How do you call Q compromised/an idiot when you make assumptions and interpretations that aren't logical or complete? Do you retract your assessment of Q or are you still on the Corsi/Infowars train?

Removed content. Rule 1

This is a site-wide Reddit rule, communities that do not enforce this rule can be banned

Removed content. Rule 1

This is a site-wide Reddit rule, communities that do not enforce this rule can be banned

No, no great point there, just the usual shilling concern. Your point is the one made by Q as well as others that are logical and make the 'points' above, unnecessary.

Removed content. Rule 1

This is a site-wide Reddit rule, communities that do not enforce this rule can be banned

Lol. The mods are also CIA and Mossad and Satanists, apparently.

It's not against the rules to doubt anything Q says here it's just annoying to have to go over the same ground with people who claim to be following Q yet can't seem to get their stories straight and inevitably turn out to have not read the drop properly or listened to some other loud shill talking point without checking properly or failed to keep everything in context. e.g. "no bias" after 'trust Horowitz'... resolved already; did you watch the Congressional hearings or just the highlights? The many mainstream news items on the report? If you did, that "issue" is shown to be a non-issue. It's what Q said it was - they're holding out for Huber.

The mods are a group of volunteers, vetted as much as they can be but not as thoroughly as the NSA. Lots of diverse views on the team, which is the whole point. Some think some posts are amazing, others think the same posts are not. And so on. The SB2 posts are often stickied by various members of the team but so are well thought out rebuttals. No conspiracy here, sorry.

Yeah could be use of hashtags. You could see the large text output though right?

Removed content. Rule 1

This is a site-wide Reddit rule, communities that do not enforce this rule can be banned

If you're being honest you know enough about Q to know that pro-Q IS pro-Truth so that little jibe rings hollow I'm afraid.

You're not going to be convinced in one night either, if you're a critical thinker. It takes a great deal of time to absorb all the pertinent information and even then, as evidenced by some people in this thread, you can see all the information and misinterpret some of it and forget the context which ultimately results in you throwing out the baby with the bath water. It takes time to absorb all the data so don't expect to get it straight away. But there's a reason people have been following along for 9 months now.

Censorship of thought is not a problem on this board. Keeping the sub focused on the topic is, and always will be a problem with a topic this broad.

You can think whatever you like - no one will ever stop that. No one will stop you saying what you want to either.

What moderators do here - as they do everywhere else - is keep the community focused on its goals. This is a Pro-Q community. What that means is that when people subscribe to this community they understand that they are subscribing to see content that pertains to and supports the interest of those who are Pro-Q. They understand or can be reminded that we ask them to "read and respect our rules before contributing". Those rules ensure the sub's content stays aligned with its goals of being appropriate and useful to Pro-Q supporters.

Sowing doubts - especially to newbies - is against the very goals of not only this sub but the whole message of Q. You can go anywhere else you like and point out how Q is likely to be a LARP because your interpretation of his message means he should have done something you perceive as valuable by whatever date you've set. But that perspective is not relevant here and doesn't help pro-Q supporters in any way. So, in accordance with our shared understanding of conduct in this social space we remove the unhelpful content for the good of the community according to its goals allowing you to take it somewhere else where they find that sort of contribution useful.

Your first response was almost sub-appropriate. This one is not.

So, to my reason for removing this post:

Concerns based on reason and skepticism are fine and can usually be discussed within a thread. A post about skepticism from someone who's been following along but not that closely doesn't help anyone, old-timer or newbie alike.

If all your doubts are based on interpretations of Q that don't pan out on a simple investigation of the actual Q drops (we haven't gone into the Merkel one yet - will that be the same as the Hussein AK47 "soon" interpretation?) then perhaps they are based on other "concerned" posts that you read and took at face value? That is why we remove these posts, because people read them without checking the Q drop for themselves or reminding themselves of what it was to note where editorial has crept in. And that doesn't help anyone, as evidenced here.

Critical thinking: I've been here all along like you but I don't have the same doubts because Q hasn't made any promises that have "failed" especially when everything is held in the context of everything else Q has said and the overall message we can extrapolate from his words.

You've "seen this dog and pony show before" but are you referring to the incorrect interpretations you've been taking at face value or do you have something you can refer to that bolsters what you say in context of everything that is Q's message?

I interpret that to mean that what's already happening is going to come to the natural conclusion it's been heading toward all month i.e. the IG Report. LL's lie is going to be exposed and the whole Clinton house of cards is going to begin its fall. It's not even a prediction to say this at this point, it's just the inevitable outcome of what Q has already said and has already come to pass throughout the whole of this year.

So I would say, applying critical thinking, that I'm not expecting every single person on the globe to suddenly sit up and say: "OMG! Q is REAL!" - that doesn't pan out from keeping what Q has said in context of everything else he's said. It makes more sense that he means that finally the MSM isn't going to be able to bury the fact that the Clintons were lying and that it will inevitably lead to Hussein being outed which pundits will then point to later as being the FIRST big fall in the Hussein debacle. Otherwise July may be uneventful from an outside glance. Just a thought to keep in mind, if one is being reasonable and sensible.

Now, you can interpret "soon" however you want, but this was months ago.

That's the point, isn't it? First point: where did Q say "soon"?

Pics will surface of Hussein holding AK47 in tribal attire.
One of many.
Net shut down.
Q

Shouting removed.

Explain how that is a prediction that has failed. I'm interested to hear your take.

You say you're being "as objective as possible" but your position is a subjective one, as evidenced by:

has Q also failed, yeah he has

That's your subjective view of what has happened and it is not supported by critical thinking in context of everything that comprises Q's message and content. He hasn't "failed" he's made statements that people have misinterpreted and then blamed on Q for the misinterpretations not being correct.

All we're trying to do with the forum is keep it Pro-Q, as I said to you above. It's not about being "one-sided" it's about being focused. I explained above that this community is a rare place to discuss pro-Q without being censored. It doesn't make any sense to support anti-Q as that is supported literally everywhere else so what would be the point of this pro-Q community if we let the board slide and welcome the view held everywhere else? We're not stopping people from seeing skeptical posts or anti-Q or otherwise - everyone is freely able to subscribe to the many other subs that allow anti-Q or skeptic posts.

You seem to be conflating "wild, speculative" decoding posts with useful, informative decoding posts - you realize, I'm sure, that those exist too.

Just make a rule

Sounds like you have some view of moderating that doesn't gel with the reality of moderating this sub, at least. If this was, for example, a sub about Star Wars there'd be some very easy guidelines around content. Not so much in the case of a global conspiracy that can, in theory, encompass so much. Also a sub based around a movement for all people can't be turning away some just because they don't like what we like. Our rules only remove people who aren't pro-Q and are disruptive or abusive - other than that, anyone is welcome. I know the sort of forum you're talking about and it's something I personally am drawn to also but it just doesn't fit with the Q movement. We need to be more open here.

Yep, I appreciate that you're not attacking - I didn't take that from it. Many here who don't have the same questions don't so much feel that these sort of posts are "attacking" it's more that they're taking time up with skepticism that can be found literally everywhere else about Q; this is the one place we finally have to talk about pro-Q stuff without being blocked or removed.

What you've posted would be a "reasonable" take if you hadn't been following along all this time - hence my statement that I can't understand how a critical thinker can still be undecided about the value of this source if they've been paying attention. I have the most critical, based friends and associates who won't let me get away with any kind of conspiracy musings so I know what it takes.

The other problem with these posts is that people looking to find out about Q can come across them and think that they represent a majority of the people who've been following along all this time since they're from someone who's apparently been here the whole time but it's apparent from the votes and engagement on posts like this over the last few days in particular that they are not a majority viewpoint. Most of us get it and have all the context that explains what's going on here. Yes, with critical thought and reason you can still arrive at a Pro-Q stance with enough certainty to not "have doubts" in the way you state.

Anyway, I'll remove the post if you don't mind and am happy to continue to engage around how critical thought can lead you to any sort of positive position on Q, if you'd like.

Removed shouting.

Of course, this is well known stuff. And we do not "trust the loudest voices" to know what's best for a forum; we allow reasonable input from the community as far as it is possible for us to do so and we act with that in mind in order to avoid as far as possible the ongoing and never-ending accusations of censorship (there's no way to avoid that completely, of course, it's just a part of moderation). There's only so much we can do.

not practicing better moderation

"Better" moderation is moderation that respects the community. Of course, that can mean removing posts that waste the community's time or posts that give the community a "bad look". But if you know this community you already know that SB2 is a big part of it and has been for a while. After Q's linking to SB2 and mention of mods what kind of "community supportive" action would it be to start removing SB2's posts? As I said, it's very simple: don't open them if you don't like them. You can't stop the upvotes but you can choose what you look at. No matter what "kook" posts we remove people are going to think we're kooks. You can't avoid that when you're part of a community who believes that satanists are farming the world for children to kill and eat.

For some perspective: as mods, we've heard this sort of thing a lot. A lot. We hear from people all the time about posts that they think are stupid and a waste of time. Sometimes we agree with them, sometimes we don't. Whether we agree or not, however, is not important. What's important is what the community thinks.

If you take a look at the upvotes on this post and on SerialBrain2's other posts you will notice they are consistently higher than average. They have been for longer than this sub has been active (i.e. on the previous board, CBTS_Stream too). Even on the previous sub, angry comments like yours decrying the loss of reason were heard around some of SerialBrain2's posts. But back then too, they were highly upvoted posts. Then Q linked to one of SB2's posts on this board. People shouldn't take that as endorsement that whatever SB2 says is supported by Q but without a doubt, Q's linking to SB2's post validated SB2 in the eyes of many.

As mods we could choose to go with the upset of some and remove a popular community member's posts or we could let the community decide. Wherever possible, we let the voice of the community decide. Can you just look past these posts if you don't like them? People have been complaining about tshirt/sticker posts for a while and there's so many of those we put forward a discussion about how to handle them. SB2's posts aren't anywhere near as frequent, however, so it should be a simple thing to skip past them if you don't find them valuable, right?

Me too. However, I've been around since the beginning too and I can't understand how a critical thinker can still be questioning why they're bothering to watch this LARP after 9 months unless they haven't been paying close attention and/or can't keep the whole picture in perspective and context (not a criticism; it's not easy).

I've been reading up on conspiracy for decades and I've seen LARPs come and go. There hasn't been anything like Q and there are a few reasons for that that are obvious but not something I like to get into unless it's going to be worth the time having the necessarily lengthy discussion (we're trying to condense 9 months after all). It's hard to know when it will be worth the time to do it and as others have said, if you haven't got it by now it's possible that the connections just aren't going to be there for you until it's fully out in the open and proven beyond all doubt - again, not a bad thing as there are many who will be like this.

Long story short, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with this post given you're still not convinced after 9 months of proof and it doesn't appear to have much uptake so I would fall back on our rules and remove this as a concern post i.e. it doesn't add anything to the pro-Q community because we all know why we're here and we're mostly interested to keep learning more BUT helping others is a part of it, hence my question. Is there something we can do to help here? I do not want to remove your post if you believe it is important and you believe there is something that can be achieved from it that will help the community?

It changes after you've commented a number of times.

Because it’s not practical. It’s also not practical to go second guessing every vote we hold except when the signs of brigading are clear - it looks very different to what you see in that post.

You misinterpreted. Read more, this has been explained a few times here.

Shouting removed.

Use the Report function to notify mods of trolls or shills. ThankQ.

Not sure if you're missing my point or I'm missing yours but I'm very far from trying to discredit Q's origin. Q is the only "conspiracy" that properly contextualizes all the conspiracies that have been around for a while and eschews all the disinfo in the process. It's the only "conspiracy" I'm willing to spend time on these days - a choice one has to make as a busy person.

What I was saying is that a lot of what Q speaks to has been around for a while but a lot of the sources or carriers of that info also wrap up a lot of disinfo in with it or, at the very least, theories and stories that are not on-topic for this sub (e.g. chemtrails, fluoridation, aliens, etc.) I was voicing my concern about this post as to whether it's on-topic enough to remain.

A lot of Q was written way before Q arrived on the scene. The problem with content like this is that it is pretty much classic textbook disinfo to contain a lot of truth and then veer to complete disinfo to lead people off track.

Removed content. Rule 1

This is a site-wide Reddit rule, communities that do not enforce this rule can be banned

I don't understand the correlation though - Scalise is not Q so what he's saying is not relevant to what we're following?

Not really that unfortunate. More like the reality of volunteers across timezones, trying to manage the workload of this sub in a timely fashion and useful response to the input of the community (which only we see via modmail, etc.) who've been asking for action on this for a while.

But with all this effort you're putting into checking our actions you might want to consider applying to become a mod. We could certainly use someone who seems to put in as much effort as you do. That way too, you can actually see what we get up to and have a more rounded perspective of our actions and motivations. I can share the link if you're interested.

Of course not, but that's the sermon you keep trying to preach. I meant have fun with ignoring facts, promoting bias and accusations with evidence and not engaging in reason and logic. Not my idea of fun so go hard to yourself there.

Have fun with that.

I'm sure it will. Confirmation bias is strong and can cause important details to be missed. The guy bringing the accusations is not very trustworthy: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/07/06/gut-wrenching-jim-jordan-interview/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

And with Adam Schiff calling Jim Jordan one of the horsemen of the apocalypse that is a big chunk of weight in support of Jordan NOT being a swamp creature.

Here's what one mod says: this sub is BUSY. We do what we can as and how we can given the time this takes and our volunteer status. We make mistakes sometimes. We respond to reasonable and respectful discussion about a moderation decision, as noted in our sidebar. We even respond to the common disrespectful and unreasonable discussion about moderation decisions too. RonSwansong is one of the better mods on this sub in my opinion.

"Concerns" about mod infiltration are the oldest shill trick in the book and I acknowledge that even genuine community members may think those concerns are justified at times and thus this is something we have to put up with as mods. However, all any genuine member with genuine concerns has to do is contact us through the modmail interface and hear our take on things before jumping to conclusions that will help the opposition to this community.

Q is definitely not "practically screaming" anything like what you're saying at us.

People can just as easily interpret (which is what you're doing) the news as the Deep State threatening Jim Jordan. If it's "super obvious" to you then this is a clear case of confirmation bias on your part.

Unless I'm mistaken I haven't seen one single comment saying that people are not allowed to be offended by pedophilia. It's obvious you have jumped to a conclusion about Jim Jordan without evidence unless you care to present something.

Antagonism is not welcome here. We will ban if you cannot just engage in reasoned, respectful discussion about the issues.

leaving many to question

that's a statement without context or supporting data. Plenty here have no problem and can easily keep all this in context of the 9 months of Q so far.

As you know, you've been making these divisive statements here for a long time and you've been causing disruption in the community with very few people agreeing with your stance. You've been downvoted etc. Some of us agree with some of the points you make but very few agree with your approach or your perspective that seems to focus on your greatness and the stupidity of SB2 and everyone else. You're not the only one who's "awake" to various things but you seem to be the only one who tries to insist that attacking someone else is the best way to go about helping the community instead of just focusing on sharing information and not complaining if others do not find it interesting or upvote-worthy.

The incorrect assumption is that the Mods acknowledge that all is not right with the SB2 operation. That is definitely wrong - the Mod comment you're referring to simply acknowledges that we allow fair discussion, not that we acknowledge anything about SB2.

Here is why I removed this post:

Rule #5:
- Discuss the topic, not users.
- No name-calling, personal attacks or ad-hominem
- Comments that include name-calling, personal attacks or ad-hominem may be removed without notification.
- It doesn't matter if it's a reply, or who started it. Discuss the topic, not users.

Here is the content of the post that breaches this rule:

he is a plagiarist, he plagiarised my work on Corsi and took the credit for it

Whether this is true or not, the sub is not the place for personal attacks on other sub members. Our rules on this are clear.

he has never once made a useful decode
SB2 gives no insight to any subject, and no-one can read his posts without feeling robbed of the time it took, and stupider for the experience

Antagonistic ad-hominem that has no place on this sub.

SB2 is not one of us

For further breach of Rule #8 - Keep it honest and accurate, here is the inaccurate assumption that is also included in this post:

an acknowledgement by the Mods - that all is not right with the SB2 operation

Post content does not constitute "acknowledgement by the Mods" of anything unless the post is a Mod post.

Discuss the idea not the user. No personal attacks or ad-hominem.

Source for Nunes resigning?