Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

Your points are moot to someone (in this case me) who thinks the CT forum is a mess and it's closure wouldn't be a bad thing, but then you're not somebody who could accurately be characterised as a regular poster on that forum so such an outcome would naturally be inconsequential to you no doubt.

Ok. So you don't want to engage with the points then.

No one else seems to either for some reason...

No it isn't acceptable to call people "sheep" that is an unfair insult.

Your complaint is about posters whom you disagree with displaying a holier than thou attitude, and yet in just this thread alone, in your last few posts you’ve attempted to take a pop at the posters you see as regulars in the CT forum suggesting they’re as bad as each other, need to get outside, any rational or reasonable person shares your opinions (that last one is one I hear a lot, based entirely upon the posters ego).

I have to admit I was initially misled by what I thought was your complimenting King Mob on their due diligence in questioning theories to determine whether they have any merit. It turns out it was nothing more than a condescending pop, evidently so when you went back and edited the post to remove all doubt as to whether it was a compliment or a condescending pop at another poster.

I don’t know any of the regulars in the CT forum, CT’s aren’t something I have any interest in, but I took a quick look at it there and the standard of what constitutes a legitimate CT in some people’s eye is a chaotic stream of consciousness, sort of a “here’s a mad idea, discuss”, or the opening post ends with a question posed in bad faith, and when they are expected to substantiate their claims in some way, or to substantiate their belief of what is more often not a conspiracy theory but just a shìtty idea they hope gets legs… they either get defensive, or respond along the lines of “I can’t produce anything because they’re watching and could burn me house down”, “I don’t have ALL the answers”, when they were only asked to start with the small stuff… and that’s foregoing all the link dumps, video dumps, “Google it for yourself if you don’t believe me”, etc, etc.

The “I’m not denying the moon landing, buuuuut…”, is classic diversion and distraction tactics in any discussion when their bullshìt is pointed out to them, similar to the way in which you claimed it wasn’t the point when you accused another poster of being the first to introduce CT into a thread, and it was pointed out to you that they weren’t, “yeah but anyway, look over there!”, to your point about anyone but yourself having a persecution complex when, as one of my favourite quotes goes - you’re not even wrong.

On the point the OP raises, well I don’t agree that any old shyte should be permitted to be floated as though it has any legitimacy or qualifies as a conspiracy theory. Develop the theory offline before introducing it to a wider audience where if you expect the theory should be taken seriously, it should be supported by some form, ANY form of evidence, and there are a few examples of what constitutes evidence given in the charter, so it’s not as though anyone could claim to be unaware of what is required of the theory that would distinguish it from bullshìt.

What you’re asking for OP is the same idea as everyone having a great business plan which requires significant investment, and any questioning of the idea is being unreasonable - “believe without question” is essentially the standard you want to set in the forum. You’re not children for goodness sake, “the meanies don’t believe me” isn’t even a conspiracy theory in itself, it’s an attempt to manipulate an outcome in your favour, by engendering sympathy from people when there’s absolutely no reason to deserve it.

If every random thought that enters a person’s head has to be entertained as though it has any legitimacy, then a common barometer which is used across all forums - the signal to noise ratio, declines rapidly in CT, leading to what I read this morning in the forum. There wasn’t much in the way of legitimate conspiracy theories, a lot of it was just bullshìt, and not even high quality bullshìt, but the kind of low-grade stuff I expect of angst-riddled teenagers hanging out in their neighbours garage passing around a spliff sort of floating shìt out there.

Were it not for posters questioning these ideas, I imagine the standard of what constitutes a legitimate conspiracy theory would be far lower - the opposite of the kind of skepticism of a healthy mind, it would be the 5G sort of stuff, getting legs without being questioned, entertaining every paranoid thought that the opening poster can walk back on and claim is “just a thought experiment” when they get a bit of pushback. For the health of the forum, ESPECIALLY the CT forum, you should be delighted with the fact that there are people who are willing to endure an awful lot of bullshìt to encourage people to really question their ideas and beliefs and think a bit harder and flesh out their ideas before expressing them in public where they are subject to objective scrutiny!

You don't know any of the regulars on the CT forum? Yet you were able to outline that you have reasonably well informed notion of Kingmob and his posting style?

I'm not going to apologize for as you put it "having a pop" at people who have no issues whatsoever slinging mud at anyone they disagree with.

Tbf, there's very little in the way of reasoned debate when it comes to Trump.

I've no problem with anyone asking questions.

I have a problem with snarky condescending people who feel there's some sort of witch hunt going on against them(ironic in light of their opposition to all things conspiratorial).

As I mentioned previously, your seemingly in depth knowledge of Kingmob makes me wonder why you said you don't know any of the CT forum regulars, as it flies in the face of that statement.

My assertion that the CT forum is a mess and it's potential demise would tend to be a positive thing is just me outlining the thoughts I originally posted.

Show me proof that I have problems with people asking questions.

I'm not going to address the rest of that stream of consciousness until you do.

A useful thought going forward might be to have a standard template for the OP of each new thread to follow.

Outlining things such as;

• Subject (the conspiracy being discussed)
• Who the conspirators are (outline who "they" are)
• Why the conspirators decided to conspire on this particular subject.
• How the conspirators will ultimately benefit from the conspiracy.
• Outline how the conspirators failed to keep their plans secret (it's up for discussion here after all)
• Outline how the conspiracy will play out if it has not already done so.
• Give as much reasonable evidence as possible (in fact a scale of probability could be applied to each topic by mods related to how grounded or outlandish the topic at hand may be).
• Give a short list of both Pro's and Con's relating to the subject at hand (outlining what the theory should be taken seriously and also showing an understanding of why it might not be).

This type of structure may possibly be the key to a more reasonable form of discussion, particularly with conspiracy advocates having to show an understanding of why others may not take their claims seriously from the outset hopefully offsetting at least some of usual list of demands from some quarters.

The irony that a thread designed to give feedback about how threads in the conspiracy forum always descend into a 10 page spam-fest that nobody wants to read has also descended into a 10 page spam-fest that nobody wants to read.

Bring back the old forum charter. There was absolutely no good reason that it should have changed outside of one rogue mod who wanted to exert their hard-left agenda on everyone.