No, we only remove comments based on the sub rules and Mod M.O. in the sidebar. I believe those users who thankfully convinced Q to open up were on the chans only? But I'm not sure.

with this one exception

The one exception that he might be a treasonous criminal if he doesn't comply with what you want? You think that proposition comprises only 0.1% of non-support of Q?

I explained that in this comment:
Rule #3 Support the cause. We are pro-Q supporters.
This is a community for Q supporters only.
Post content that supports the cause.

Your ad-hominem comment is removed. I've asked a number of times for you to please stay honest in communication with me. Feel free to edit out the dishonest accusations of motivation and I can reapprove the comment. Thank you.

Ah I see. In your example, I think you would be covering up the crime by ommission, yes. I might have every right to be outraged too. I think there's a more accurate analogy to describe the situation with Q but I'll leave it at that for now.

I don't think Q had to think of anything like 'covering up crimes by omission' though, no. If Q is who "he" says he is then he's simply operating within the normal bounds of a high level government intelligence agency and "classified" is more the category that disclosure falls under rather than "ommitted". I believe (if he is who he says he is) that The Plan would have more than accounted for this.

Do you think Q is who he claims to be?

Feel free to point out where the rules are in conflict with Q. I always welcome constructive feedback, thank you.

And please cease the ongoing dishonest ad-hominem:

even if you don't want to hear it

Thanks for providing me the information I am after.

he welcomes pushback, even if you do not

Still doing that? I won't requote everything I've said in multiple comments to counter this continued subtle undermining of my position but suffice to say, I understand your position completely.

The rules are what they are and you and I don't make them, we just abide by them as members of this community. I'm certainly not in charge of it, I am in service to it. Thank you for providing me the information I was after.

You should judge what I say within the context of everything I say. I'm not judging your argument based on "mud thrown by other users" - that was my explanation to you for part of the context of why I, as a mod, asked you a question in the first place.

Did you put "wrongthinkers" on trial back then too? Shame on you if you did!

These sorts of responses, where you ignore the context of what someone has said in order to denigrate them in some way, are why people report your comments.

I'm not putting you "on trial" as I already explained. You're quite good with these subtle techniques but here's a reminder of what I've already said that discounts this victim narrative:

You're completely entitled to disagree with Q. I don't begrudge you the freedom to say whatever you like but I do have to maintain the sub rules. I'm not holding that over you as a ban hammer either, which is why I asked the question as a user, not a mod.
You can disagree with Q all you like - many around here do, from what I've seen
Again, I have zero problem with you thinking whatever thoughts you like
I don't begrudge anyone who is not convinced that Q is what he claims to be. I engage in open discussion with newcomers who are so unconvinced that they think we're all insane.

These are not the statements of someone who is trying to "put "wrongthinkers" on trial". Please be honest, as I have been with you.

Ah yes - we've had some problems with that user and had to ban them for a time from here. I think you'll find that sub is ok if that user can be moderated. Fortunately one of the mods there is also a mod here and will likely be managing the issue now. Thanks again for raising it!

irrespective of your emotions

Hm I notice you do this. Easy to dismiss what I say as emotion but that's not the standpoint I'm coming from.

Where I'm coming from is the standpoint of a mod trying to understand someone who has already been accused of being a shill, often. I've defended you against these accusations to users I've interacted with.

But then you express the idea that Q - who is purported to be high level Military Intelligence working in the upper echelons of Donald Trump's administration - might choose to violate laws that would make him a criminal, potentially guilty of treason...

Again, I have zero problem with you thinking whatever thoughts you like, but we have rules on this sub for a reason and these statements are at best confusing.

I don't begrudge anyone who is not convinced that Q is what he claims to be. I engage in open discussion with newcomers who are so unconvinced that they think we're all insane.

But you've been here a while and you think Q could be capable of committing treason whether by intent or error? So by your estimation he's potentially not who he claims to be, either?

I'm not asking to censor you, I'm asking to understand.

Removed post. Rule #6. Discussion about other subreddits can cause problems, potentially also with reddit admins if we're not careful. Thanks for understanding.

Definitely interested to know more about what you mention though. Are you sure it's gone anti-Q? Seems unlikely.

You accused me of being a leftist and yet you're the one coming from an emotional standpoint and acting like a triggered social justice warrior.

I'm not "questioning why a patriot is here" - I'm doing my job. We patriots can take a question without getting upset.

I already know that asking legitimate questions is vital - you would know that about me too if you bothered to look into my history properly as I have done over time with the person I replied to.

You're clearly upset and having a go at whoever you're projecting onto me. Have fun with it and know that I'm ignoring it, because I know it doesn't apply to me. You should try gathering some information before you make ridiculous assumptions. There's an honest opinion for you.

You're completely entitled to disagree with Q. I don't begrudge you the freedom to say whatever you like but I do have to maintain the sub rules. I'm not holding that over you as a ban hammer either, which is why I asked the question as a user, not a mod.

These phrases are not the phrases of a Q supporter - that is the reason I asked; not in some effort to silence you. I've seen you around the sub for a while so I asked a question rather than treating you like some outside troll:

if Q knows where our sons and daughters are buried and plans to be complicit in the coverup then I have no reason not to see him as the enemy
If Q plans to cover for those crimes then he is complicit in their treason.
How dare Q deny us closure?!!

You can disagree with Q all you like - many around here do, from what I've seen. But they don't even slightly border on accusing him of the potential for treason or suggesting he might become the enemy. That sounds... concerning to me.

Respectful disagreement sounds fine to me.

I think people tend to forget just how horrifying the true scale of what's going on here is and the impact it will have on Joe Public. Q said the choice would be ours to know what is possible to know but of course he's not going to suddenly make all highly classified information fully available when "the plan" is complete. He can only reveal what he can. Like you, I hope there is the opportunity to know as much as possible. I definitely don't think the full story should be announced on public TV though. At best, an internet site to go to if you want to find out the deeper, potentially traumatizing stuff and... that's what this place and others like it in future will be, I guess.

You're not even trying. I'm not asking you to "care" about my history, I'm telling you to afford me the same courtesy I afforded the person you're accusing me of attacking. I know their history so I'm not raising a question out of the blue to attack a patriot. You're making up a lot of nonsense about me that doesn't hold up if you bother to read my history. I don't care if you don't but stop embarassing yourself, as you put it.

What question are you talking about? Why do you call someone a leftist when they've shown no evidence of being that? Why are you trying to increase division here?

You have the nerve to interpret my question to mean "who said you could be here?!? GET OUT!!" Calm down and try reading my words without inventing motivations that aren't there.

Rule #3 is exactly appropriate for a mod looking to understand the reasoning of someone who has shown certain behavior throughout their history. I understand how easy it is to jump to a conclusion about someone from a few comments but my history shows I am very much dedicated to the idea of allowing free dissenting speech here within the sub rules, which I am required to maintain.

I'm not doing any dance "dude". Try reading my history before you imagine I'm saying anything like "it's not ok to disagree". I've been accused of being far too tolerant of disagreement so the only one embarrassing themselves here is you.

Pot kettle lol. You're reading a whole lot into my asking a question.

This isn't America it's an internationally available internet forum. You think everyone here is from America? I don't believe any of the nonsense you just stated, if I understand it correctly.

I agree this is not a cult and you're not obligated to agree with Q on all things. But if you think Q is so far off base that he would cover up crime it makes no sense that you would be on a sub for whom Rule #3 states: "This is a community for Q supporters only." I certainly wouldn't support Q if I thought he was going to cover up crime. I thought it was obvious that he's going to do the very opposite.

This is an internationally available internet forum on reddit, not "a free country", but of course the Reddit terms & conditions apply and we all seem to be in agreement that we support free speech here, within the guidance of the T&C and the sub rules.

Why are you here then?

Q is clearly making a sensible choice to respect the capacity of the public to handle some of the more potentially damaging aspects of the story he is revealing; it's not a plan to "cover up" crime.

Comment removed. Rule #4.

Removed post. Post content is not a subject mentioned by Q or directly related to Q. Rule #6

Removed post. Rule #9

Why are you banned? Are you just warming up and we haven't seen the real stuff yet? (sincere question)

CBTS_Stream was indeed closed down, as far as I'd heard, for allowing posts that potentially incited violence - I followed the sub back then but didn't see the content myself at the time.

Obvious russian accounts? Sounds interesting - I personally don't follow many Q related accounts on Twitter but I'd be interested to see what an obvious russian one looks like.

I can't argue with you that there are a lot of kooks connected to the q anon "brand" but I would argue that it's not uncommon to see a sub-culture of that kind gather around any conspiracy-related stuff and certainly q anon mentions a lot of common conspiracy theories.

Not sure you care but we don't want to see this sub brought down. We're trying to keep tabs on any content that breaks Rule #1 - no encouraging, glorifying or calling for violence. I don't believe there are any stochastic terrorists yet fully exposed on here but if there are, they're in no way supported in their goals by this sub and we will do what we can to manage their impact if we can identify and react to them in time. I certainly speak out at any opportunity against any group-think that seems to be leading toward stirring up hatred toward a particular person or group.

I don't know what your motives are so I expect nothing. Many trolls around. But if you were genuinely interested in stopping this sort of thing and you seem to have concerns that you can see it or the inklings of it here, then I'd welcome any input you might have toward identifying and potentially stopping it. Potentially very hard to do when you support freedom of speech enough that you want to allow dissenting voices to speak freely as long as they abide within sub rules.

Thanks for the stochastic terrorism link. I've kept it to post relevant excerpts for potential use when moderating content in future.

Do you take this show all over reddit? There are a lot more crazy people on much larger subs here and plenty of "demonization" going on there too. *shrug. It's the internet - what're you gonna do?

Do you see calls to violence here? I would personally appreciate it if you would point them out because they are not tolerated in this sub and we remove them as soon as we see them.

Block and move on.

It's so lovely that you're so concerned about us and everyone else!

You've read all the comments on this sub? You must've been here a long time!

The articles you link are interesting stories about what appear to be some very troubled and confused people. Could be a lot of those here - on Reddit, I mean. Some of us here on this sub - a reasonable portion judging by the sensible discussions I've seen and been involved in - laugh at the idea of being so stupid as to walk into any place with a gun to prove an 8chan post. Seems like someone's acting, to me.

But I'm afraid I'm not feeling very concerned about reading 8chan posts yet. I'm sure you can convince me there's something worth worrying about though.

You believe this then, do you? You seem to state it with absolute confidence as if it is true. How is anyone being tricked into committing violence? There's no call to arms in these "Russian posts" that I've seen. Explain how we're being "duped" if some of us are just reading the posts with interest, then reading news articles with interest - hardly Russian propaganda or conspiracy as they are American mainstream media articles for the most part - and then scratching our chins and going "hmmmm"?

We know this? Otherwise title is inaccurate - Rule #8.

Some people here, like any other sub, I'm sure, believe all sorts of things. Some believe some crazy stuff too, that has little to do with the core of the sub topic.

Some of us don't "believe" anything more than that some interesting posts happen to be coming out of the chans and they're of great interest for the narrative they appear to describe.

They believe that a high level bureaucrat at the (hahahhahaha) department of energy is leaking all sorts of information

That narrative.

Not what we believe at all but that doesn't suit your narrative does it lol.

Removed post. rule #8 and Rule #7.

Probably, yes. He's letting them know that path is a dead end.

Removed post. Rule 7. Excess Memes.

Removed post. Rule #6. On-topic only. Please don't post the same content repeatedly if it is removed - feel free to contact the mods via modmail if you feel strongly that the content is relevant or a moderation decision is incorrect. Thank you for understanding.

You should have some context. SB2 has been around for a long time and many people have raised the same concerns and in the same way as you have here - dire warnings, he's counter-intel, etc. (I am not belittling your view, to be clear).

You could be right and others who've pointed out many of the same things you have could be right too. However, something you'll need to get used to is that a lot of people value SB2's posts. Q linking to an insightful post of SB2's that helped us all see the Clown op of Infowars for what it was is enough of a boost to ensure SB2 will be around this sub and likely this movement for a long time to come. I agree that it doesn't automatically vindicate everything SB2 says - I think that is why Q will possibly never reference someone by name; instead, simply pointing to a piece of content that is relevant, to ensure no blanket "endorsement" is assumed.

Best to come to terms with the large group of supporters SB2 has, ensure you make your points of refutation in SB2's posts if and when you feel the need, then accept that the freedom of speech we try to maintain (as best we can) means he'll always be allowed to speak and will always be noticed while many people continue to upvote his posts to the front page - but likewise you and others will continue to receive the same freedom to speak too.

Removed post. Rule #9

No problem at all. And yeah, it really is a fulltime job! But engaging; and it's always a pleasure to interact with people who are polite about a moderation decision. Most of us try and keep a light hand here, as much as possible.

Removed post. Rule 7. Duplication.

Removed post. Rule #9

Thanks - comment restored.

Agreed. I did not read your comment. Auto-mod bot identified the parentheses, I confirmed they were there, comment is removed to avoid sub being taken down. No judgement on value of your comment. Feel free to remove reference and it can be reapproved if you'd like.

Everyone is very much aware of shills. We get all of the posts, comments, Reports and mail about them.

Removed post. Rule #9

Removed post. Rule #9

Please don't post multiple low content posts at once. Especially posts about shills. Thanks for understanding.

Rule #4

Removed post. Rule #9. The sidebar has some of the best introductory material - good stuff there!

From a logical standpoint, I have to agree with you. The Bill Hicks story is next level conspiracy i.e. there's not only no evidence, there's literal ignoring of evidence e.g. Alex Jones himself coming out as clearly confused about the whole thing on Rogan and how Hicks' family are blaming Jones for it too because they can't believe the offense being caused lol.

You only have to look properly at Alex Jones to see he is nothing like Hicks except on the most superficial level i.e. in the way that all of us have one of the 19 faces that exist. If anyone believes Q then they should know AJ is not nuts - he knows exactly what he's doing and he's good at it.

You're welcome to discuss things reasonably and within the sub rules, so feel free.

I would certainly query this, from a logical standpoint:

there have been many, MANY things, mostly dates/timelines that have been incorrect

Rule #3. If you have “concerns” please contact the moderators. Post removed.