1
0
0

Proposed sidebar description and rule changes (self.911truth)

submitted by SovereignMan[M] - stickied post

Over the past six years /r/911Truth has evolved. The current stated purpose and set of rules needs to evolve too. The recent addition of two new mods (possibly more to come) and the following proposed changes are mostly due to the most recent and most massive attacks on /r/911Truth to date. The discussions have degraded into personal attacks on both sides, stalking of this subreddit and some of it's proponents by supporters of the official narrative, and massive brigading... also by supporters of the official narrative.

So, we're restating the purpose of /r/911Truth and instituting new rules to, hopefully, put an end to the problems. There are plenty of other places on the internet where 9/11 fundamentalists can discuss the official version and discuss amongst themselves what they think of the 911Truth Movement. As soon as these new rules are implemented, /r/911Truth will belong to '9/11 Truthers'.

Sidebar:

Welcome to 911truth! The purpose of this subreddit is to present and discuss evidence showing that US Government's version of the events of 9/11 cannot possibly be true. Posts supporting the official version, including links to sites purporting to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement (depending on context), are considered off-topic here.

Rules:

  1. Stay on topic. Off topic comments are subject to removal.

  2. No personal attacks (includes calling someone 'troll' or 'shill'). No abusive or threatening language.

  3. Derisive slurs against people's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, social order or creed are not tolerated.

  4. No accusations of rule violations in comments. Please report violations.

  5. No stalking, trolling or brigading.

  6. No spam or advertisements.

  7. No caps lock.

  8. Facebook, Twitter and other social media links are subject to removal.

  9. No memes. Other image posts are subject to removal at moderators discretion.

  10. Posting links in other subreddits pointing to specific submissions or comments here is subject to a ban, depending on context.

  11. Misleading or sensationalist titles are subject to removal.

We mods are willing to consider some suggestions for modifications but, unless there is massive protest amongst the 'truthers' here, the goal will remain the same.

all 68 comments
sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順

[–]SoManyEducatedIdiots 2 ポイント3 ポイント

When I first found this sub, I commented about how glad I was to find a 9/11 truth forum without the shills & duhbunkers and now the place is infested with them. I'm very glad to see that you're doing something about it. The new stated purpose is a good idea.

[–]Fattigstudent 11 ポイント12 ポイント

This sub is really a cesspool of ignorance.

[–]SoManyEducatedIdiots -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Yes, now that this sub is infested with shills & duhbunkers your statement is fairly accurate.

[–]GayUnicorn6969 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

And we have been directly linked to a brigade sub yet again, supporting even more the need to implement these changes.

Now below, members of the brigade sub are starting to get upvoted consistently.

[–]Endemoniada 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Welcome to 911truth! The purpose of this subreddit is to present and discuss evidence showing that US Government's version of the events of 9/11 cannot possibly be true. Posts supporting the official version, including links to sites purporting to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement (depending on context), are considered off-topic here.

This is the final nail in the coffin of the possibility of actual discussion and debate here. You did what I asked though, you're at least being open with the fact that you do not want discussion, you only want agreement.

Stay on topic. Off topic comments are subject to removal.

This could be rewritten as "agreement with certain topics are off-topic, therefor agreement with those topics are bannable offenses".

No personal attacks (includes calling someone 'troll' or 'shill').

This has never been properly enforced before. Should I expect it to be going forward?

No stalking, trolling or brigading.

The only thing actually happening here is trolling. The other two are figments of your collective imagination and the results of a massive martyrdom complex.

Posting links in other subreddits pointing to specific submissions or comments here is subject to a ban, depending on context.

You, SovereignMan, recently defended the posting of links in this subreddit to another sub's post, because it had added "don't vote! don't comment!" in the title. Does this rule apply in the other direction as well, or are you free to link to and brigade anything and anyone you want? Conversely, are links to your subreddit OK if we add "don't vote! don't comment!" somewhere in the title or body?

This place needed change, I agree with that. This change is 100% for the worse, however. You are closing yourselves off you criticism and scrutiny, and turning this subreddit into the Church of 9/11 "Truth" Worship. Again, if that is what you truly want, no one can do anything to stop you. However, do realize that this will only invite more scrutiny and more mockery. If you don't allow discussion or debate to begin with, what incentive does anyone have to follow the rules? We'll just link to your posts anyway, take the ban, and keep linking regardless. Maybe you can fool yourself into thinking that the criticism of your pot-hole'd ideas has gone away, but rest assure that you have simply willingly gone blind, deaf and dumb to it.

Seeing as these rules are specifically designed to ban anyone with dissenting views, and my views certainly do dissent from yours, I don't expect I'll be here long. I had a good time here. Some people actually did want to behave like adults and have their ideas scrutinized so that they could come out stronger on the other end of the debate. Many more didn't.

[–]11traps11 6 ポイント7 ポイント

Woooooah, gear down big rig!

Hard to pretend anything like brigading or stalking could happen outside of anyone's "collective imagination" when all one needs to do is hop on over to conspiritard and check out the comments and threads over there.

They're already up to date on these proposed new changes to this sub and have a LOVELY topic up about a new mod here. Nothing but positive energy flowing this way from that sub, with one user referring to him as "GayFuck". Further down in the same thread, you're in there with a "Stalker! Stalker! Stalker!" post. Real adult behaviour you're displaying.

Also funny how you say this:

However, do realize that this will only invite more scrutiny and more mockery. If you don't allow discussion or debate to begin with, what incentive does anyone have to follow the rules? We'll just link to your posts anyway, take the ban, and keep linking regardless.

Why the switch to the "We'll" when referring to linking to posts, scrutiny and mockery. It's a tad odd when you're using "I" then switch over to a group mentality of "we", all while claiming anyone who thinks this could possibly happening has "a massive martyrdom complex".

[–]Endemoniada -4 ポイント-3 ポイント

Further down in the same thread, you're in there with a "Stalker! Stalker! Stalker!" post. Real adult behaviour you're displaying.

It's our sub. We're allowed to behave as we wish, according to our rules. I don't see what the problem is. If we can't comment on your behavior here, then you can't comment on our behavior there.

Why the switch to the "We'll" when referring to linking to posts, scrutiny and mockery. It's a tad odd when you're using "I" then switch over to a group mentality of "we", all while claiming anyone who thinks this could possibly happening has "a massive martyrdom complex".

Over-analyze all you want. As I've stated many times, I post to both subs and am subscribed to neither. I count this sub as "mine" as much as I do the other one. I say "we" in here as well, just as I do over there. That's why I'm so concerned about the changes here, because I actually do consider it my sub as much as I do any other sub I frequently comment in.

Regardless, there are new rules now. Nothing you or I can do to change that. Let's just see what happens. However, as I pointed out, now that my personal views have been banned from being uttered or discussed in here, I don't expect I'll be allowed to contribute for much longer, in which case I have no reason to care about any consequences for posting links to this sub. That's all.

[–]bgny 4 ポイント5 ポイント

This sub is the truthers now. Too bad. Now each of us has a home.

Make 9/11truthdebate. Then add a truther mod. Then debate till your fingers fall off. But this is our home.

"It's our sub. We're allowed to behave as we wish, according to our rules. I don't see what the problem is."

[–]GayUnicorn6969 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

This is the final nail in the coffin of the possibility of actual discussion and debate trolling, harassing and brigading here.

Yes, yes it is.

[–]Endemoniada 0 ポイント1 ポイント

By all means, disrupt the actual discussion by posting a meaningless comment that in no way whatsoever furthers any actual thought or understanding.

[–]GayUnicorn6969 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Not at all, I corrected your false statement. I wouldn't need to do it if you'd stop making more false statements.

You make more false statements and I will correct them. You stop making false statements and all is good.

[–]Endemoniada 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I am not making false statements, thus I can continue making my statements all I want.

Logic is fun!

Once again, in the post above I actually did ask a number of pretty direct questions, all of which you managed to ignore when you unnecessarily "fixed" part of it in your reply.

Also, are you actually saying I'm wrong in that regard? Because as far as I can tell, the new rules literally state that any discussion where one person disagrees with official "truth movement" beliefs is "off-topic", and thereby subject to removal. How on earth can you possibly defend that as maintaining any actual discussion and debate. How can there be a debate, when you've literally made it against the rules to be a proponent of one of the sides available?

[–]GayUnicorn6969 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

How can there be a debate more trolling and brigades, when you've literally made it against the rules to be a proponent of one of the sides available?

You are right, it won't be possible to have any more trolling and brigades now, which is one of the main purposes of the upcoming changes. Do you want to continue doing this or did you have enough already?

[–]gavy101 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Excellent rule changes.

[–]bgny 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Clear definition, clear purpose, clear boundaries, clear rules. Finally, the 9/11 Truth Movement has a home on reddit.

[–]11traps11 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I agree with the proposed changes 100%. I absolutely love the Purpose mission statement line. Thank you for doing what is needed to help create a more positive community atmosphere.

[–]SinRepentRepeat 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Thank you for doing what is needed to help create a more positive groupthink community atmosphere.

FTFY

[–]texdeveloper 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Thank you. This is necessary and the forum will grow because of this.

[–]talkquarkytome -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I like the new purpose you wrote. Let's see how well it works with the accounts using craftier shilling techniques, like the Bill_Murray2014 account. Undoubtedly it will at least make things more difficult for him. You can always update the purpose in the near future to eliminate loopholes right?

[–]Fattigstudent 0 ポイント1 ポイント

What do you seriously expect when you can't be reasoned with? 3

[–]Blindbat611 0 ポイント1 ポイント

I agree with all of them except the "no meme" rule. Back when I had a facebook account there were a lot of really good "truth" memes. In hindsight I wish I would have saved them so if I saw them again here I would have the opportunity to save them.

[–]Dayanx 0 ポイント1 ポイント

SHould not include infographics.

[–]SovereignMan[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント

You might try /r/conspiracymemes for them.

Edit: Let's see what others have to say about it though.

[–]Bill_Murray2014 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Just one question I want to ask you direct.

How about making the part about the purpose of this forum is "discussing evidence showing that US Government's version of the events of 9/11 cannot possibly be true" post specific?

I.e. let the OP decide whether or not they want any sort of back and forth going on between people on both sides of the 9/11 fence.

Just with a simple tag option. As opposed to making that general mantra forum wide. And then make that an official rule, no breaking the tag rule.

[–]11traps11 3 ポイント4 ポイント

There are plenty of other places on the internet where 9/11 fundamentalists can discuss the official version and discuss amongst themselves what they think of the 911Truth Movement.

I think that a 9/11 on the fence "debate" style subreddit with a whole other set of rules could be a great place to post in theory.

I just don't think that place is here on this particular subreddit, personally.

[–]Bill_Murray2014 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

I think that place if it existed would be fine.

But as far as I know, this place for as long as it has existed has been about discussing 9/11 "no matter what theories you believe".

Now that it seems that that will be changed to only if you believe in a controlled demolition or some form of inside job theory, then this place, as much as you and many others may enjoy it a bit more, will look like it has closed it's doors to all information and has in effect, closed it's ears if you will.

Trolling, insulting, defaming, deflecting and disrupting of course need to be dealt with and always will. But the changes being enacted are nothing short of censorship.

The recent brigading has been used to enact censorship, plain simple.

[–]SovereignMan[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント

That would have absolutely no effect. The people so heavily targeting this sub have no respect for the 9/11 Truth movement at all. They're certainly not going to respect a simple request like that. Aside from that, it would defeat the whole purpose of the new description and rules. Also, it should not be incumbent on the submitter to have to remember to include a tag on each and every post. Forget the tag and get flooded with pro-government comments? No thanks.

[–]CouchRadish 0 ポイント1 ポイント

The people so heavily targeting this sub have no respect for the 9/11 Truth movement at all.

And you think that cutting out any dissenting opinion is going to stop that?

[–]GayUnicorn6969 1 ポイント2 ポイント

And you think that cutting out any dissenting opinion is going to stop that?

The members of the brigade subs have clearly showed no respect for the current rules. This change will show wether it becomes more effective or not at preventing the previous attacks and continuous disruptions.

[–]CouchRadish -1 ポイント0 ポイント

From my perspective, you're just piling on the shit.

There are numerous options to take this sub. You picked probably the worst.

Look, just make the sub private if you're so afraid of brigading.

[–]GayUnicorn6969 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Look, just make the sub private if you're so afraid of brigading.

This sub will do what is best for the truth movement cause, which is to reach out to as many as possible to provide them with information or at least allow them to participate and get informed regarding the problems and contradictions present in the 911 official version of events.

Keeping the sub open is 1 necessary step for that, updating the rules to keep members of a brigade that come here just to troll, brigade, harass, spam, etc. out of here is another necessay step.

If you are so angered because of the upcoming changes then you should gather up all your brigade sub members and create a new perfect 911truth sub where you can do everything you want. This discussion is now over.

[–]SinRepentRepeat 0 ポイント1 ポイント

This sub will do what is best for the truth movement cause, which is to reach out to as many as possible to provide them with information or at least allow them to participate and get informed regarding the problems and contradictions present in the 911 official version of events.

...Without allowing both sides of the story to be expressed.

You want a completely biased regurgitation of the talking points of truther rhetoric while allowing absolutely no discussion.

That is called a special pleading fallacy.

You are free to do this, of course, but this kind of bias will only encourage people to question this subs motives even more.

Clearly there is a very specific agenda that you people are following. I just wonder who is paying you.

[–]GayUnicorn6969 0 ポイント1 ポイント

...Without allowing both sides of the story to be expressed.

We tried that, but the brigade subs abused it constantly. Blame them.

[–]Bill_Murray2014 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

You've made it sound like a far larger task than it really would be.

On the point about people targeting this sub who have no respect for 9/11 Truth, well I doubt that that will change anyway.

Whether you implement a system that I have suggested above (people are not idiots, I'm sure they'll be able to remember sticking a simple tag on their post), or your suggestions, you and the other mods are still going to have to be very active.

At least with my suggestion it doesn't sound like you are censoring this place. Which regardless of the reason why you are doing it, it's still censorship.

I mean no disrespect with any of this criticism, I just cannot believe that you can't see this.

[–]GayUnicorn6969 1 ポイント2 ポイント

At least with my suggestion it doesn't sound like you are censoring this place. Which regardless of the reason why you are doing it, it's still censorship.

You can all make a new sub dedicated to what you want to discuss without any censorship related just to 9/11 official accounts. There you can also brigade, harass, disrupt, insult, mock and scorn yourselves all you want. Call it r/is911truthracist or r/data911truthhates or even r/911truthuncensored, whatever you want.

In here it's time to end the wave of users that have showed clearly their real intentions by abusing the current rules and sidebar description, such as repeating everywhere "Feel free to discuss 9/11 no matter what theories you believe!" when trying to justify brigades and disruptions.

[–]khamul787 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Posts supporting the official version, including links to sites purporting to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement (depending on context), are considered off-topic here.

So the subreddit isn't about 9/11 truth, it's about your 9/11 truth. No opposing opinions are welcome. That's what you call an echo chamber.

[–]GayUnicorn6969 0 ポイント1 ポイント

No opposing opinions are trolling is welcome.

That's correct.

[–]Mohammed420blazeit -1 ポイント0 ポイント

r/911"truth"

[–]fivish -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

WRONG, it's r/pyongyang

[–]texdeveloper 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Question about rule number 8: what about live updates for events concerning 9/11 ? I have noticed a lot of live updates happen through facebook and twitter for other events.

[–]GayUnicorn6969 2 ポイント3 ポイント

That's why it is subject to removal. You can post it, but if the mods deem it to be subject to removal then it is removed, if not then it stays.

[–]SariodSquared -1 ポイント0 ポイント

  1. OK
  2. There are shills here (people who pretend to be members of the 9/11 Truth Movement or pretend to be open-minded about the subject when, in reality, they have a set agenda of using sly tactics to dupe people into seeing an orange when an apple is placed in front of them; to keep people from questioning the official narrative and belittle people who do question it). Calling someone a shill shouldn't qualify as a personal attack; it alerts other users so that they can watch the person's actions more carefully and not be duped by them. Though, I suppose they could post something like possible shill instead of just shill.
  3. OK
  4. OK
  5. OK
  6. OK
  7. You mean in thread titles right? I see no good reason to ban caps in comments if someone prefers typing in caps.
  8. OK
  9. I like memes that support the 9/11 truth movement (and critical thinking in general) but the first page has a limited number of slots for threads and a meme usually isn't worthy of occupying one of those slots. Links to such memes in comments should be allowed though (as long as the user didn't create a thread just so they could post a comment with a meme link in it).
  10. OK
  11. OK

unless there is massive protest amongst the 'truthers' here, the goal will remain the same.

Please don't use the label truthers. I know it can be a pain to type out something else but it's worth the effort. That label is deadly.
If you're not sure what to type, start by typing what you think defines a "truther" and truncating it as much as possible without losing the meaning.

Welcome to 911truth! The purpose of this subreddit is to present and discuss evidence showing that US Government's version of the events of 9/11 cannot possibly be true. Posts supporting the official version, including links to sites purporting to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement (depending on context), are considered off-topic here.

Sounds good, but if it turns out to not be enough to keep the shills & fundamentalists away, please keep in mind the possible addition of a requirement that anyone who posts here already agrees that it is essentially impossible for the WTC buildings to have come down in the manner which they did without the use of some form of controlled demolition. And this stipulation should be accompanied by links to the supporting evidence.

[–]gavy101 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Please don't use the label truthers. I know it can be a pain to type out something else but it's worth the effort. That label is deadly.

That is what we are, we are after the truth, the label is fine.

The opposite of this is denier or fundamentalist

[–]SariodSquared 0 ポイント1 ポイント

It has become primarily a derogatory label just like the Birthers label. It is used to propagate an us-versus-them mentality; to marginalize the 9/11 truth movement; to give the impression that the movement is a small pocket of associated like-minded people when in fact the movement is everywhere -- it's a movement composed of millions of individuals all over the world, associated and unassociated, from virtually all walks of life, and with all sorts of different views and beliefs.

[–]Endemoniada -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Sounds good, but if it turns out to not be enough to keep the shills & fundamentalists away, please keep in mind the possible addition of a requirement that anyone who posts here already agrees that it is essentially impossible for the WTC buildings to have come down in the manner which they did without the use of some form of controlled demolition.

Kind of like, perhaps, a creed of sorts? Or maybe a straight-up declaration of faith? Or, possibly, a requirement to recite an oath of allegiance before being allowed to express your Moderator Sanctioned Pre-Approved Opinion™?

Yeah, sure, that sounds perfectly conducive to open thought and free expression of ideas to me.

[–]cow_co -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

/r/1984. That's all I have to say.

[–]cow_co -1 ポイント0 ポイント

What a way to convince us that your theories have substance! Shut out all reasonable dissenting opinion! Quell intelligent discussion!

Also, you constantly demand for the government to be more open, and yet you close off your own subreddit?! The hypocrisy is strong with you.

[–]911truth101 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

This is a great idea. Exactly what is needed.

[–]SinRepentRepeat 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Posts supporting the official version, including links to sites purporting to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement (depending on context), are considered off-topic here.

So literally anything that questions or refutes your claims are considered off topic and grounds for deleting?

[–]Bill_Murray2014 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント

Few questions.

"Posts supporting the official version, including links to sites purporting to "debunk" the 911 Truth Movement (depending on context), are considered off-topic here."

1. How about if the rebuttal is from a credible and verifiable academic source?

2. What about if the source, no matter where it's from, proves beyond all doubt entirely that a given peace of information which is circulating the forum is wrong?

3. What happens if it is absolutely crucial information that you must know, hypothetically speaking of course?

4. What about posts that don't support the official version of events, but don't necessarily support the truth movements version of events either? So long as the information is not sourced from a 9/11 Truth debunking website?

The above proposed rules will put an end to the recent brigading, assuming that the mods will be active enough.

However, due to the new proposed rules and mantra of /r/911truth, the insults will now increase, the alternative accounts will increase, not from people like me. But from your neighbors over at /r/conspiratard/ for sure. Why? Well, IMO, the changes you want to enact will turn this forum into a closed community, it will make it even more enticing for the sub to be invaded by piss takers, trolls and the like.

There are over 30,000 subscribers at /r/conspiratard/, boy when they get wind of this. I fear that the changes you are proposing may provided them with ammunition.

On a more personal positive note, I feel that the above changes may have the effect in forcing me to be more thorough when I engage people on here. Even if the changes are almost akin to censorship, which is surprising considering the forum we're in.

[–]SovereignMan[S,M] 4 ポイント5 ポイント

What if... what if... what if... You could list thousands of 'what if's.

Anything not clearly covered by the sub's description and rules will be dealt with on a case by case basis and at moderator discretion.

[–]lxpnh98 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Welcome to 911truth! The purpose of this subreddit is to present and discuss evidence showing that US Government's version of the events of 9/11 cannot possibly be true. Posts supporting the official version, including links to sites purporting to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement (depending on context), are considered off-topic here.

Rules:

Stay on topic. Off topic comments are subject to removal.

Well, don't you want people to try and debunk you? You may be sure that 9/11 was an inside job, but they aren't, and if you remove posts because they try to challenge your belief, they'll never find this subreddit interesting and you'll never convince them that 9/11 was an inside job.

Considering what is said in the introduction, this particular rule just sounds like censorship to me.

[–]SoManyEducatedIdiots 1 ポイント2 ポイント

The 911 truth movement does its own debunking. The members of the movement constantly seek out new information on their own. They are more concerned with determining what's factually true regarding the events of 911 than anyone else (hence the name 911Truth). They don't need shills & duhbunkers infesting their sub for any reason, especially when the primary reason is posting cleverly worded disinformation.

[–]lxpnh98 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

cleverly worded disinformation

Well, that's your opinion. Why don't you let them post it (assuming they are not trolling, if they are, it's fine to remove the post), and debunk them yourself? The more people that know the truth, including former shills and deniers, the better.

If it's called 9/11 truth, I think it would be better if there were dissenting opinions, so that together, we can find the truth and help others find it as well. There's no good reason to do censorship. If you do that, you're being just as bad as the government you're trying to expose.

Yes, there will be people who are just wrong and everyone but themselves knows it, but not letting them speak is bad. You want a free marketplace of ideas, not an echo chamber.

[–]SoManyEducatedIdiots 0 ポイント1 ポイント

"dissent"
"echo chamber"
Same two bullshit buzzwords being injected in the exact same sneaky manner by at least five different shills & duhbunkers over the past 48 hours.
Seriously, gtfo you sneaky little shit.

[–]lxpnh98 -1 ポイント0 ポイント

That's the TRUTH.

Now on a serious note, is "shill" just a word you guys use to describe people who disagree with you, or do you actually believe we're hired by the government to lie and spread misinformation?