I've helped manage other 'controversial' subs, and this is essentially how 'shill' take-overs occur. Long story short, often 'shill takeover' is less 'paid shills' (though they are in the mix), but essentially a question of mod power vs reddit / social power. 9000sins is essentially saying reddit power has become derailed and mod power needs more authority.

So what happens in 'shill' take over (the long of it), is that 'bad information' starts to corrupt or degrade a sub. 9000sins is almost certainly referencing pizzagate, but let's discuss 'memes'. Memes start making front page, degrading sub, along with shit comments.

This forces mods to make a decision : 'allow it' or 'don't'. Though Conspiracy ruled allow it, many people choose the 'don't allow it', model. Now once you choose 'don't allow it', the question because who decides what is or isn't allowed? Then this becomes a game of votes, seniority, and fear mongering (this is a big thing with mods lol... or 'rulers' - the idea of 'peasant uprisings', and so on).

Does any mod feel more info should be allowed? They are part of the Peasant Rebellion! Ban / Strip them immediately! Are votes not going your way? Invite more mods to swing the vote, and echo chamber! Do I have top authority? Rule in a chaotic fashion, and 'revamp' the sub! and so on...

I'm not saying 9000sins was shilling or anything like that, but that his actions could have lead a path toward what users call Shillary but really is more a kin to 'a series of bad decisions', which is partly caused through paid bots or shills, but is primarily caused via the hierarchical mod structure, reddit's support of bot / gov disruption, and current mindset of 'war of mod vs users, users vs shills, mods vs shills', instead of say... a better model or platform.

I support a very, very low removal policy, and I would have likely agreed with the Conspiracy mod team at large. The reason being NOT because I don't feel 'branding' or whatever is important, but because I don't believe (especially in a sub like this), I could trust myself, or anyone else, to know remove content in a proper manner. There is simply too much to look through, and the ultimate criteria for removal would come down to 'I am familiar with this, or I am not familiar with this', and having mods remove everything they are unfamiliar with ends up being a LOT of shit, and discourages aggressive info hunting.

I've seen a few subs get totally destroyed (participation wise) through even low amounts of user post removal + high bans. However, some mods would argue that low participation is a good thing, so long as the quality of the sub is preserved, but personally I'd say there is too much opportunity for personal bias when one (or very few) decide what is this 'quality' you are 'preserving', and for whom?

I guess the reverse metaphor is the neighborhood bar overrun with outsiders. Do you ban them and say 'jock / hippie speech' is no longer permitted, or do you adjust in some other way? Many do the former, which creates us vs them discussions ad nauseum.