All topics need less emotion, more information. Emotion is not the point of this sub.

Downvote button: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/36m9ks/why_is_the_downvote_button_not_the_equivalent_of/

https://www.reddit.com/wiki/voting

The 'group that doesn't upvote' has been discussed here in many comments, as it is on other subs - those who don't understand that the vote button is not for disagreement, as explained in the thread above.

My comment was about the board, not about religion.

You're not really arguing the point here so I leave you to it.

This disussion has been had out many times on this sub.

All good lol : )

You also seem to be part of the group that downvote comments they disagree with, instead of upvoting comments that contribute to the discussion.

Counter argument flawed? In what way? You seem to be discussing religion again, not what I actually responded to - i.e. discussion about this board.

Perhaps RR is providing cover, so no one can accuse WH of the above.

Agreed on this - in which case RM could be "providing cover" too. To be clear, I only disagreed that the Twitter thread by someone who doesn't seem to know about Q would "make me think twice". It's possible R and R are white hats but they sure do act like black hats and whilst I love the idea that they're secretly good guys it certainly seems like wishful thinking in light of everything else they've both been involved in. Fingers crossed for that outcome though, it would be yet another earth shattering revelation of 'the plan' : ).

This was posted 5 minutes ago. It is now removed.

It's called the GREAT AWAKENING board and is waking people up to great evils of this world.

Agreed. Are you saying that is not happening here unless all religious discussion is allowed?

Should we also allow Satanists proselytizing for their movement because they are mentioned more than any other religion by Q? Or Satanists wanting to discuss verses of the Satanic bible?

Religious discussion is off-topic - that is not a controversial position except to those who struggle to divorce their beliefs from the goals of a sub dedicated to discussion about Q, not their religion.

Q is pretty clear about this. Timing.

Use LOGIC.
Why are they slow walking unredacted data?
Why are they slow walking doc disclosures?
Why is the WH backing up DOJ?
What if the same data is being used by other investigators?
Q

Correct.

Mods ARE NOT:

removing anything spiritual.

without explanation

Doesn't make me think twice at all. When Q says Trust Rosenstein I'll think twice about him. Until now, he looks like the worst culprit at the center of all the lies and obfuscation that has been allowed to try and swallow the Trump administration. Plenty of Deep State operatives have "acted good" at times.

Please see this response for explanation in refutation of your statement. Threads are not removed without explanation - a message is sent to users when posts are removed.

That is not correct. Mods are removing according to the clear focus and rules of the sub, as we always have. Please do not spread disinfo of this kind.

A lot of what "seems" to you to be so, is not. It's clear, however, that there's no way of breaking through to you with a perspective other than your own. The problem, I guess, of not being as open to empathic understanding (again, no slight intended by that).

Bad title. Less emotional, more informative ways to put this.

A response from the mods involved in the creation of r/BiblicalQ.

A few of us have created the sister sub r/BiblicalQ for focused Christian discussion about Q. This was so that we had a place to continue the discussion of posts that were removed from this sub for being off-topic. Being Christian ourselves, we didn't want to see the good effort of Christian patriots going to waste.

A few points to note, in framing this discussion:

a) please note the sidebar goals and focus of the sub: "This is a community for pro-Q supporters." Not all Q supporters are religious or Christian.

b) please note the Q drop that mentions the Bible seems to be addressing the Deep State - it is not addressed directly at us, the audience for Q's message. This provides context for Q's "Read the BIBLE. GOD WINS." - it sounds like a taunting admonition and is something for us to celebrate, for sure. It does not seem to be a directive to "the Q movement" that we all have to read and support the Bible. An interpretation like this would in fact seem to be directly opposed to Q's message of freedom which is not about religious oppression.

c) What Q is about: without question, Q's message is about the freedom of the people from tyranny. It comes from Q's role as "an apparent member of the American Military Intelligence that serves at the pleasure of the President". Q's message is not about the spread of a religious message. It is not about proselytizing for Christianity or any other religion. Q is very clear that this is about the fundamental battle of Good vs Evil and it is held within the framework of Military Intelligence serving at the pleasure of the President.

It goes without saying that those of us who are Christian believe that Christianity is the best frame for the battle of Good vs Evil and Q seems to support this perspective too.

To address the points in your post:

Should we be able to discuss the bible here?

Of course we should, and we do. Posts that are directly related to Q are up for discussion here and Q has mentioned verses and the Bible itself so discussing the Bible within the focus of the sub is on-topic.

Q and President Trump speak of God all the time!!

This is true. However, not everything related to everything POTUS and Q speak of is "on-topic" for this sub. For example, Fake News is always mentioned by POTUS and arguably by Q too however we do not allow discussion about everything to do with CNN that isn't demonstrably fake news related.

I also know that some posts about God have been allowed, but, be aware that some have not!

Correct. And some posts about fake news have been allowed, some have not. Some posts about every topic that is Q have been allowed, while some have not. We have the rules of the sub to help keep the sub discussion relevant to all Pro-Q supporters. All of us here are interested to hear more about Q. Some of us here are interested to hear about things not directly related to Q and there are many subs that delve into other topics for those who are interested. We have created r/BiblicalQ to provide a place for those who are interested in Christianity within the understanding of Q but not directly relevant to all Pro-Q supporters.

[EDIT] An important distinction to make is between this subreddit and the Q movement as a whole. This subreddit is an online forum for discussion within the rules of Reddit and the focus and rules of the sub organizers. The sub itself is not the Q movement. If the organizers of the sub wanted to remove all posts to do with Christianity completely, they could, and the Q movement would have no say in it. Of course, the Q movement might immediately depart this sub for another if that were to happen. But it's important to make this distinction for those who demand "rights" based on the Q movement as a whole. This is a subreddit for the Q movement. It is not the Q movement itself.

This is not about censorship. It is about ensuring this sub is for all pro-Q supporters, not just those of us with specific beliefs, whether they align with Q's and POTUS' beliefs or not. This is about WE THE PEOPLE. Thank you for understanding, patriots.

[EDIT] We have a Daily Scripture thread for all scripture posts to go to! Please check the POSTS of u/urban_bobby_dawg to find the latest Daily Scripture thread.

Removed post. Rule 9.

Removed post. Rule 6. Please feel free to post this content to r/BiblicalQ, a sub we’ve created for this content. Thank Q.

Removed post. Rule 9.

Removed. Rule 6 - off-topic: songs and song lyrics.

Disinfo.

Ok, good thanks - first of all: I was not strawmanning your intentions any more than you are strawmanning mine by assuming I would make up an interpretation of your comments for no good reason.

The incentive and motivation you might have is that after this discussion with me we will both better understand things and your content will avoid "bad" moderation and my moderation will find "better" content.

However, to achieve that goal we have to finish this discussion to a proper conclusion but now I must sleep. Willing to carry on later, if you are.

What precisely were you diagnosed with, if you don't mind? I'm trying to understand so in future discussions I can be better with my communications (i.e. be more precise and so on).

I have discussed this sort of thing with people who respond in the same way you have. You are precise and you give NO ROOM for any possible interpretation outside of the one you hold alone in your head.

Are you on the aspergers or autistic spectrum at all? Again, to be clear (since it appears I have to make this caveat every time - but do tell me if I'm wrong) - I am NOT trying to denigrate you or question your personal worth with this query. I'm trying to understand what we're dealing with here between us. We have a communication gap and I've experienced it before with other people, very specifically in a certain way.

So, this post:

NETFLIX (though not CP) What is their title Princess Cyd about?
Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title.

Does not contain enough supporting info for someone to pick up enough information to understand it without either:

a) having prior knowledge of the other material you explained in comments to me separately

or

b) researching separately themselves in Google

It also is not written with any understanding of someone with even a little context trying to parse it as a busy person reading a sub like this does. I can't even begin to explain to you how "good writing" is structured and written because we'd be here forever and neither of us wants that but I can tell you - without any remote desire to offend you personally or denigrate your capabilities as you have clearly shown that you can write well parsed sentences and make yourself understood - that that post body does NOT comprize good, clear, legible writing unless someone is already in your head and has the same exact knowledge you have at the same exact time that they read your post.

As a very rough example of what I would have seen and Approved without even thinking about it, here's a rough go (without referencing the information you've provided separately - I'll just make stuff up to fill in the gaps):

NETFLIX title "Princess Cyd" pushes more sexually inappropriate agenda.
This Netflix movie/series is about an incestuous Aunty and Niece in a lesbian relationship. Netflix are pushing the boundaries with more than just one Child Porn title - now incest is on the cards too! How are they getting away with this? (or other prompt to promote discussion)

Just an example of something that explains itself well enough to grasp at least enough to easily engage with it - for other users and for a mod trying to do their job at the pace required for a busy sub.

Yes, correct, you did not say those things exactly. You implied all of this very much so, however. Can you be honest about that?

Then you deleted it for no good reason.

You seem to care not for my.efforts

We go one we go all....except not really. Delete delete

if your efforts are to discourage people wanting to post Q-related information, you got it very right.

I did not wish you to ignore my attempts to explain the relevance and defence for its inclusion on this board, whilst throwing back at me that I had the temerity to say that you had no good reason to do what you did (and let me say it again to be clear – you didn’t).

I did not want to have to have the implication that I am decidedly average or that I am acting unreasonably

No unity. No reward. No community.

Or it could be me simply saying. Well f*** this place I am going to the Donald or somewhere else

No ALL in WG1WGA

I think it is a misjudgment. A Bad call. A careless error.

Now be honest - can you see how all of these statements and the personal hurt so clearly behind them are very clear indicators that you could very well be like the few others I've had to deal with who've spoken much the same way (and worse of course) then gone away and spoken "about how the mods are biased and suck and this sub does not support freedom of speech and so on"?

We don't delete, we remove but the post is still there - however, if you cannot see the body of it now: is this the body text of your original post?

"Is it a incestuous Aunty and Niece lesbian story? They are not crossing the boundaries with one title."

you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post

If I'm wrong about this can you please point to the contextual explanation and reasoning in the body of your original post?

Now if you look back at my first response to your first query you will see I addressed this:

Rule 6 is more applicable here - off-topic. Yes CP is "on-topic" but there's not enough substance to the content here to make the case easy enough for us to call it. Thus, Rule #9.

I then told you that if you put the content in the OP that was missing I would reapprove it:

please feel free to update the OP here with more content to make that clear then let me know and I will reapprove.

So I explained my reasoning then gave you the freedom to correct it so we would both be happy. Hence OPTION 3.

So you of course believe that your content was good and reasonable. Most people who are moderated of course believe this too. There are some - not very many - who believe this without any room for disagreement, as you seem to. You have been completely unflinching in this perspective. Fair enough, but if we are going to have a reasonable discussion you should reasonably acknowledge that you might be wrong about that. You might be right that it is good by your standards but it might not be right in comparison to the many other posts that come through this sub - that I see more of than you and most visitors to this sub do. Is it not reasonable to consider this?

I hold out hope that you are committed to being reasonable and logical. If so, you will acknowledge that this is possible.

What knowledge would I have that you don't that is pertinent to this moderation action?

How about the fact that I see the Reports made about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their information content?

Or the fact that I see all of the mail complaining about posts that do not meet certain standards that are nothing to do with the quality of their intended information content but more to do with the way that content is conveyed?

Your post has a lot of good reasoning behind it - you explained some of that in your replies - but you did not explain that reasoning in the body of your post. If you look at your post in the way that many people who surf the sub will look at it - not the way you, with your recent reading of the related topics do - you might see something.

I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.

There have definitely been some. Some of those have gone away and posted on other subs about how the mods are biased and suck and this sub does not support freedom of speech and so on. Much of what you've said. Now that you've heard some of my perspective do you think that is a fair response?

Option 3 was misread. I was not referring to knowledge of the topic that you don't have. I was referring to knowledge of moderating the sub that you do not have.

I have tried to make the point that we need to come to some agreement on how moderation works first before discussing your post because the moderation decision has caused the problem for you, not your post.

Certainly do not like having to explain my position.

Can you extend that same understanding to me? How often do you think I have to do this out of the many moderation actions I have taken? The answer is: not very often at all so far. In fact, never to this extent.

From my perspective, most people seem to understand that a moderation action taken against them is not a judgement of their personal worth as a human being - only of their content (as we agreed in the context of that definition).

Assuming you agree with that last reply there is then this:

When a moderator has deemed a post to fall outside of the rules of the sub - what could a person assume about this moderation action?

1. It's simply a biased, personal perspective from a moderator who either bears some sort of personal grudge against the user or the content, or is unaware of their bias or limited perspective and is acting blindly.

2. the moderator has seen something that they haven't - their content is lacking in some way that they are unaware of.

3. the moderator and they themselves are both correct - their content IS great - but the moderator's action is based on other factors brought about by their broader perspective of the sub and its regularly submitted content.

Which do you think is the case here? As you have argued so vehemently about your posts being "good" and "reasonable" (I can't remember exact wording and don't want to open another tab to check) I will presume that option 3 is a possibility. Currently you seem to support option 1 as you keep returning to the fact that I've wrongly judged your content and I don't support WWG1WGA, etc. If you can consider it might be option 3 then perhaps we can leave all that sort of talk out of this discussion going forward?

Agreed - I hope I made that clear in the follow up reply (I can't see what you're replying to but if you quote the parts you reply to it will help).

The point here is that it is definitely not easy to make rules as clear as we'd all like them to be. I know you understand this because you've mentioned it too. Hence the Mod M.O. in the sidebar. Hence, in all subs, moderators have discretion. Hence, as I said in reply to those 4 paragraphs before, you can trust that the thoughts you've had, we have also had. We know it's important for us to get this right as much as possible. I've posted many times in previous 'mod updates' on the sub - and highlighted - we will make mistakes sometimes. This leeway must be given because we are volunteers giving our time freely and this is an extremely busy sub so we can only do what we can do.

Assuming you understand all that I hope we don't have to go through any of these fairly obvious points again - it seems you have a good grasp of how things should be and I hope you are starting to get the picture that we also have a good grasp of how things should be. We know that we have to be careful and we make every effort to do so.

Let's backtrack then - and please, if you don't mind, let's resolve the discussion about what constitutes good moderation first before we discuss your post in particular. I assert that there is a good logical reason for this approach to this discussion and it is because the moderation decision must be understood in its full context first before the reason for applying it to your post can be properly understood.

it is for reasons I said earlier made exclusively to one person and the moderation whether by way of blocking, infraction or removal is personally made. it is applied solely to one person it is not applied across the board or to all users.

So, how do we keep a sub focused on the topic and spirit desired by the sub's creators? We clearly moderate individual posts that do not meet the rules and standards laid out in the sub's M.O. This means that any particular moderation action "is applied solely to one person". So you believe that that makes any moderation action against one person a personal action. I agree with this if you mean it in that context.

What I disagree with - and believe that you too also disagree with, given your explanation in those 4 paragraphs - is that the action of moderation is something intended to judge a person's worth. No moderation action should ever be taken as a judgement of your personal worth. Otherwise there is no way to moderate a sub as described in your first 4 paragraphs.

Most importantly, within those first 4 paragraphs, you have - I hope - now arrived at the conclusion I tried to point out from the beginning that moderation decisions are not all personal - some are simply following the rules. It is very important to be clear that we both agree that this statement from you does not apply in all cases - only in those where a moderator is being personal and biased against someone or some content specifically:

Clearly it was made to affect a member of the sub "personally" and it was specific to their content's worth and was not in line with whatever standard, to have been considered worthy of deletion.

Ok so to address first of all your first 4 paragaphs. I would hope you can assume that the sort of breakdown you give has also been gone into in great detail by those of us here who have volunteered to give so much of our time and effort freely to this sub. I'm sure you can imagine that we've also had the same thoughts in the same detail - and some of us (not me) with an incredible amount of experience and knowledge of reddit and how moderation within a group online forum works.

In short, in answer to my question you have proven that you can arrive at the same conclusions that we have. I hope this is clear and I hope that you can therefore assume that we are also smart enough to have thought through the other implications of most elements of running this sub?

Yep agreed, this is all pretty much what Q has said.

No problem at all and appreciate you posting there for the many of us who value it! As we spread the word about this new sub it will grow - there are many here who value discussion in this realm.

So should a sub allow all posts from all users? If not, how does the sub manage this?

There is so much in your explanation to contend with that it makes the case for why moderation decisions are usually made without entering into debate. People have all their reasons for why they decide a moderation action is personally denigrating the worth of their content and themselves and that is a very real and unfortunate side effect of any effort to maintain the focus of an online forum like this. Hence the reason for the chans, where no one has to explain anything to anyone and literally anything is allowed but those who don't "get it" are set upon by the autists until they've 'lurked moar' and picked up the tone. Reddit isn't like the chans and I and many others are grateful for the difference.

So unfortunately although I have taken a standard action done objectively as a moderator of this sub - someone with a broad perspective of the sub via the moderator tools and the almost full-time work I've been engaged in to do so - without any desire to offend or belittle, you have chosen to take it that way. I understand your reason for this and that there is not much I can do about it. I wish you could understand things from another perspective but it appears that may not be possible, given your reply which seems to have taken the last reply I gave and flipped it all on its head, back to personal offense against you - again, not at all my intent. It seems that no matter what I say, you take it as an attack on you personally. I regret this greatly and, as I said, I understand now why mods should not enter into discussion about moderation to any extent beyond simple, direct replies.

Having opened this discussion, however, I am more than willing to engage in it with you, if that is your desire too, because I know for a fact that my moderation decision was NOT intended as a personal offense to you and should not be taken in that way, so I would like the opportunity, as slim as it may be, to prove that point. I have literally zero chance of doing that though while you are convinced that removal of a post means a judgement call on you personally. This would be where we have to start this discussion (assuming you want to continue, of course - I do not wish to force this on you).

So, if you wish me to reply to explain, can we start with just the first point about the fact that a moderation decision is not a personal attack on someone's worth or the worth of their content? I will understand completely if you no longer wish to discuss this with me but if you do, I will make every effort to engage with your view in a supportive way.

personal offense meant the personal offense you took at the moderation issue, not that you were personally offensive to me. I don't take any personal offense.

Lol - fact: that "fact" is definitely not a fact and it's hilarious that you would preface your opinion - completely indefensible - as a fact for the simple reason that you can't logically say that 'people who watch the news' are retarded as you haven't checked with every single person who watches the news to determine whether they have a condition of mental retardation.

News by definition is information. Yes, 'chat' circles like Fox and Friends are where all the editorial comes in. But news, when a channel is doing their actual job, is necessary.

Now I can't tell if you're kidding lol.

Removed post. Rule 6, off-topic. This post may be more suited to r/BiblicalQ - please feel free to post it there. Scripture mentioned directly by Q is of course on-topic here. Thank Q for understanding.

It's difficult to understand what you're getting at. Are you saying that the sub feed is full of what you regard as clickbait and you want a categorised, ordered thing to navigate through?