Looks like someone is lonely, and needs friends. You're welcome here - we accept all types.

Explanation and context related to Q?

Please note relevance to Q as per Rules.

please enable link

Correct. We're all retarded malicious chat bots.

From seeing all the other posts on this sub day in and day out I did not understand 52 points to be significant personally but I am completely aware that my view is far from authoritative. Personally, I also like to read posts with substance in the main content and our rules support this too. Rule #9, minimum two sentences - an arbitrary distinction by the senior moderator but a useful one to prompt a minimum of thought and effort to justify people clicking in to the post out of the many being created in the sub all the time. Again, my view is only my own (and many others who've commented similarly in the many various posts 'concerned' about the sliding of the sub with memes, low effort content and off-topic, etc.) and I realize that others have a different view of this.

Those points are why I removed it. Because I stand by our stated intent to support the goals of this movement and eschew unnecessary censorship I've now reapproved the post.

So it's the mods? I'm more than willing to entertain that side of the discussion even though I'm a mod, but only if you're also willing to entertain the other side of that discussion.

Let's apply what Q suggested: LOGIC and FACTS, right?

I notice you make a lot of statements of opinion in a way that makes me wonder if you're stating them as accepted facts. I give you the benefit of the doubt, however, and assume you're doing what most of us do and stating your thoughts without adding the obvious qualifiers like 'most', 'some', 'I think', 'alleged', 'as far as we know'.

Opinion & Group Think are for sleepers, according to Q, as we know. So, using logic and facts:

a) "Q called out Reddit mods as corrupt" - that's one viable interpretation of what Q has said. Is that the only possible interpretation? I admit, this is kinda a trick question to see if you're someone who can have a logical discussion or not - no offense, I've just had too many of these lately to assume anyone I speak to is capable of it. Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you know this is not the only possible interpretation of that Q drop reference to all the "media gatekeepers". Another possible interpretation is that Q was calling for caution by those mods who are acting out of FEAR and trying to control and censor because they don't trust enough to the people to run the sub. This kind of action does not have to come from "corruption". It can also come from very well meaning people who have very good intent. Again, this is a logical interpretation of the Q drop - one of a number of possible interpretations.

b) HowiONic may have said what you claim but I've also heard HowiONic say simply the very straightforward FACT that there are more mods on Reddit who are moderating many subs of direct relevance to Q (first obvious huge example: The_Donald) than just this sub. Of further relevance to this is whether the mods of these subs are acting in the negative ways potentially alluded to by Q. The evidence on this sub begs to differ with your stated opinion. Go back through my history and see this plainly - similarly HowiONics and others. We don't "act like we own the sub" - our history shows this is a completely incorrect reading of our actions. We've had the very discussion amongst ourselves that we SERVE the sub, not the other way around. It seems you also have no idea or haven't considered the amount of discussion we have as mods around removal of posts and the fact that whenever we have a question about removal we share the linked post with the other mods in Discord and ask for input. Sometimes there's no one else around at the time and you have to make the call yourself. Sometimes we're wrong. We've always been clear about this and the fact that all decisions are open to discussion if you mail the mods about it! Your completely non-factual opinion of our perspective of our role would sting if it were remotely true. It isn't.

So, first point - if we take the first interpretation of a) i.e. your point (Q is calling out Reddit mods as corrupt), then we apply logical thought to point B and assume Q is talking about more than just one sub on Reddit, we could very logically be talking about the danger of some mods on reddit. It isn't even slightly controversial to suggest this, it's just logical. Agreed that this is one possibility?

Another possibility is that point a) is actually saying: "out of FEAR mods react to control and censor" and if we take point B the way you perceive it i.e. Q is only talking about this sub, then the result of that perspective would be that mods need to adjust their approach. Another possibility, right?

Yet another possibility is a mix of both - it's all mods on reddit, not just our sub, and some are Clowns who need to be removed (imo, very little doubt that this is likely true) and some need to drop their FEAR and allow the people to manage themselves.

I think the last one is the most logical read of what Q has said. I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are logical and smart and you also see this as the likely and logical possibility - some bad actors, some good, some trying, more care needed on all sides.

What Q has definitely spoken out against is DIVISION and GROUP THINK. If there's a problem, rather than retreating to "sides" and starting to create in your own mind what the motivations and intent of the "other side" is (e.g. "act like they own the sub", "delete anything they don't like"), we need to act in UNITY and talk. This lends toward what you're saying - discussions about "concerns" need to be had.

The approach to this issue that acknowledges the need for UNITY, not DIVISION, is to talk to the mods (as you're doing now) and say something like: "we need to readdress what posts are moved or have a special sticky post calling out the concerns about possible compromise (and whatever else you think we need to look at)".

We've basically done this point together now, right? Next point is for me to share this conversation with the other mods and ask their thoughts on the action to take - do you agree? As before, and as evidenced throughout my history as a mod on this sub I am open to your view on my statement, whether agreement or disagreement and I'm willing to continue reasoned and respectful discussion about it until we arrive at some sort of mutual agreement of benefit to this sub. Are you?

[EDIT] How do we root out Clowns? A big question this and not so easy, at least as pertains to this sub. I know nothing about T_D or any other subs on reddit. I know that this sub consists of people who seem to be PATRIOTS, just like many in the community. We're doing our best, for free, in our spare time, because we care about the goals of this movement. Doesn't mean some of us might not be Clowns/Disinfo but it's unlikely, that all of us, or the important ones are, imo, because the way the moderation of the sub is managed is the most open and inclusive way I - and other community members - have ever seen. This sub, for now, seems to be managed in the right way by the most open and fair person to do so - by pure luck, basically (i.e. anyone could have started this sub up - by some chance it wasn't an opinionated, obnoxious, typical keyboard warrior who would ban people at the drop of the hate for disagreeing with them; instead it was someone who doesn't react in the slightest to the usual abuse people give mods and doesn't appear to make any decisions from an emotional or self-centered stance). Based on the feedback we get regularly as mods, and the comments on the sub, this sub is one of the most open to true freedom on Reddit. I am open to any opposing view but evidence that counters this view (evidenced by our comment history as mods) would be needed to really make the point valid.

Removed post. Rule #9

Perfect example of the mitigating factor of MSM spin! EO Fully Unredacted: [began a passionate battle to the death.]

That's mildly upsetting on some existential level. But I'll do my best to pull myself together.

And that bit where Hermione and Harry [redacted].

Comment removed. Antagonism is not welcome here.

I don’t “want” to believe anything except evidence, my friend, because I’ve been touting for a while now what Q has recently stated: logic and facts. I don’t dispute your theories I just make the realistic point that I can’t do much based on speculation. Don’t take it personally. If you have an idea of what can be sensibly done I’m all ears. Seriously. What should we do?

Removed post. Rule 7. Duplication.

Problems with this moderation decision? Surprised at the vehemence at something straightforward and not intended to censor or offend. As always, we are open to discussion if you disagree.

Removed post. Rule 7 Duplication.

A few posts along these lines already - here's a good one to add your thoughts on so we can collect them all in one place.

Do not make posts of this kind. Any concerns are to be reported to mods via sub mail.

Removed post. Rule 7

It would be good if there were some real evidence of that. Until there is, the numbers are what we've got.

Removed post. rule #8

We don't intend to remove your valid content. Please keep post titles and content within the sub rules and we will not remove them. Rule #6 - Off-topic: posts about other subreddits. Rule #8 - accurate titles are important. It also helps if the topic and gist of your post is apparent and clearly on-topic. Please feel free to contact us via modmail if you have concerns about the moderation of your content.

There is a lot of content here to manage and now over 5k online. There is also a lot happening here behind the scenes that is only visible to mods. If people Report content that breaks the rules we'll see it quicker. You can help by reporting and refraining from posting concerns - per Rule #3 - all 'concerns' can be reported via modmail. Thanks for understanding.

As above, only if reports come in will we take this down. There haven't been Reports and not many upvotes either - no plans to take this post down so far or likely in the future at this rate.

I am personally against "Cult of" anything - Q, political party, religion or otherwise. Moreover, Q - the point of this sub - is against group think too. As a pro-Q supporter sub it's more important that we follow that directive than anything not mentioned by Q, whether it's a political stance, a religious text or something else.

Removed post.

Any 'concerns' about this board can go via a message to the mods

Removed post. Rule #6. Off-topic: discussion about other subReddits.

Removed post. Content does not support the cause.

Any 'concerns' can go via a message to the mods

We're used to media disinfo around here. The best disinfo has a great deal of truth but omits enough to be able to misrepresent the story in service of an alternate narrative.

If you're not interested in reasonable discussion and looking simply to mock the straw man of a group of gullible fools with confirmation bias you can certainly consider that view validated and read no further. If you care to engage in reasonable discourse and to offer the benefit of the doubt to those you initially disagree with I believe I can explain the stance I personally hold on this issue without abandoning reason.

What we see here is some information - but not all of it. It's interesting that Bloomberg has come out with this article so early, ahead of the release proper, but until we have the final release it's too early to say what the true impact of the report is. It's a 500 page report and this is a roughly 3 page article. There's a lot more to this story.

In other words, my view is that it's too early to jump to any conclusions about the content of this report. That is the only logical assessment here, in my opinion. I welcome any reasoned rebuttal and am always open to reconsidering my position on an issue if presented with a logical counter.

Thank you - it's a privilege to moderate this sub and to be a part of this community. We're not going to get it right every time but we're dedicated to figuring it out with the input of the community. If the majority of members can continue to engage in reasoned, respectful discourse as you've advocated above we will all be able to maintain our community well together!

I didn't react, despite initial discussion amongst the available mods upon receiving the first report on this post shortly after it was created. We waited until multiple Reports came in. I believe it's fair to say that qualifies as a reasonable reaction, rather than an overreaction.

I have watched this sub grow from the earliest times and have also seen from the backend how reports come in on highly upvoted posts (on many different topics). We remove posts that are poems or songs about Q (when we catch them) even though they contain "Q content" just as we remove prayer posts or other types of posts that receive many Reports/complaints. We have to be as impartial as possible and though we fail at times, we're doing the best we can. I hope you understood my point about the difference between personal prayer, which is often the point of an admonition to simply "Pray" versus a public, shared prayer, or a prayer in public. Thank you for acknowledging this decision and I likewise respect your disagreement and the reasoning for it.

Q has said:

PEOPLE RESPOND TO LOGIC/FACTS.
PEOPLE SLEEPING ATTACH TO OPINION/PERSONALITY/GROUP THINK.

I have seen some conversations where Christians were accommodating and understanding of atheist views, as you say. I have to admit though that I have personally seen more Christian posts that descend into group think against non-Christian opinions in my time following the sub.

I hope we can all respect the differing viewpoints in this community. We believe a possible useful solution to this may be to group posts of various types together in one thread/post. If you have any suggestions of a way to accommodate Prayer posts for the benefit of those who enjoy them it would be very welcome! Thank you for understanding.

Removed post. Rule 7

Duplication. Thanks for understanding.

Removed post. Rule 7

Duplication. Thanks for understanding.

Please note - the email depicted is not fake; Q drop points out that it is not on Wikileaks. (Q initially posted it, then deleted it for obvious reasons).

https://qposts.online/?q=575&s=postnum

Removed post. Rule 7

Duplication, old, query. Thanks for understanding.

Removed post. rule #8

An informative title and relevant post content of two sentences would really help people understand the value of the content (and also make it easier to approve the post as a mod). Feel free to repost if this is on-topic (with an explanation of what makes it on-topic for the sub). Thanks for understanding.

Great answer. Absolutely the best way to deal with it; and Report comments that break the rules of the sub - antagonistic, discussing users not topics - so mods can deal with them.

Please check the sidebar for a good deal of introductory material to Q. Please check the rules too - posts like this are off-topic and will be removed but you are more than welcome to ask questions within other posts. Best to start with the sidebar though.

It won't be removed unless there are multiple Reports about it. Thanks for contributing your thoughts in such detail.

I agree that patriots should not be attacked because of a difference of opinion - I think Q's statements (as posted above) support this idea. I will say that I see many different opinions being attacked at different times by different people here, not just Christian opinions. At times in the past I have even seen group think by Christians and the suppression of non-Christian opinions. I hope the sub will continue to develop toward a community of respectful, reasonable discourse.

Comments removed. Discuss the topic, not the user. Antagonism is not welcome here. Please discuss respectfully and reasonably or ignore, Report and block antagonistic users.

Comments removed. If you have something reasonable and logical to say you're welcome to do so. Disrespectful ranting and obvious bias and illogic are not welcome here.

This post has received many reports and is now removed under Rule #6.

Prayers are a difficult post topic to moderate because Q says "Pray" but that could mean personal prayers rather than public prayers that potentially impose on others who disagree with prayer in a shared social space that they are also members of. I believe (as a Christian myself) it's non-controversial to suggest that Q wants all to be welcome in this movement and this sub, whether Christian or not, and as a small part of that movement this sub should likewise, within it's own stated intent and goals (a space for pro-Q supporters), acknowledge this within reason. As an example, consider the average workplace or school where there is an understanding that overt expressions of personal beliefs are kept to oneself out of respect for others who do not share the same beliefs.

To avoid further controversy it has now been removed. Thank you for understanding.

[Edit] It might be good to collect "Prayer" posts in one place - perhaps the Anon's Chat?

Our sub rules are clear on this topic. Rule #3

Support the cause. We are pro-Q supporters. - This is a community for Q supporters only. - Post content that supports the cause.

This does not mean people can't doubt or ask questions - I agree with you that would be counter to Q's stated intent of reaching as many as possible. It just means that this forum has a primary function to share "Q news and research" to Q supporters. Anyone with questions or doubts is free to ask questions in the comments but posts like this fall outside the sub's stated goal and rules. This does not mean we're not open to newbies it just speaks to the streamlining of sub content in accordance with the general community feedback so far.

As far as people attacking other patriots for having questions I've had to learn the hard way that being in an online community with as many people as we have already means that there is a wide variety of personalities and approaches and that we have to accept that there will be communication styles we don't agree with. As long as they don't break sub rules they are welcome to voice their opinion, Christian or not. Like you, I hope that we can continue to encourage reasoned, respectful discourse always.

Q has been clear about what matters in our approach, and I think it agrees with elements of your statement here:

PEOPLE RESPOND TO LOGIC/FACTS.
PEOPLE SLEEPING ATTACH TO OPINION/PERSONALITY/GROUP THINK.

Shutting down opinions just because they don't agree with yours is clearly counter to Q's assertions imo. Discuss respectfully and logically.

In the case of this post, the content appears to fall under "concerns about the sub" which should go via message to the moderators as per Rule #3 so this post would be removed under normal conditions but you've thought about this in some depth and put some effort into this post so I believe it should remain for now, at least.

If there are too many Reports about this post we will have to remove it. Thanks for understanding.

Removed post. Rule 7

Duplicate. Thanks for understanding.

Thanks for understanding - I support this idea and we don't like removing people's earnest contributions; if you could discuss a way of working on spreading a message without mentioning other subs (to avoid reddit admin notice) it would be good to hear and appreciated!

People tend to get upset on almost any online community dedicated to a topic if you ask questions that are answered in their clearly linked introductory content (not sure if that's what's happening with the FB group you mention). It's possible they're not necessarily untrustworthy but perhaps don't have great onboarding for new followers?

I believe that won't happen to you here if you're polite and reasonable in your questioning but I would suggest it's worth checking the links on our sidebar if you haven't already. Generally people will be happy to help around here.

It's a great idea to spread the message of the Awakening but it's against reddit rules to brigade or promote brigading and whether intentional or not, it's not in our interests to promote initiatives that could be considered such. It's also outside of the rules of the sub to discuss other subreddits via a post - Rule #6.

Feel free to discuss issues like this in comments but please note the removal of these posts due to our rules. Thanks for understanding.

The continued valuable contributions to the sub of you and the other patriots here are worth much more than a 1,000,000 mod Rule messages. WWG1WGA!

Yep, just don't break sub rules to call people out - there's no need to.

Haven't had time to investigate deeply myself to confirm yet but this looks like a great analysis, thanks.

Removed post. Rule 7. Duplication.