Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

Sounds reasonable and workable, but I am not convinced that it will have a net positive effect.

I still think that most conspiracy theorists would be put off by having to do something like this to start off with. Most won't be able to address most of the questions anyway given how current conspiracy theories don't supply answers to them.

And given that none of the people who are complaining and want the forum changed or shut down have even responded to the idea, I think that's an indication of that.

More than likely such a rule will be called "stifling their free speech" and it will be used as an excuse not to engage with anything on the forum.

I think if anything a much more viable solution would just be for stricter moderation with an emphasis on encouraging people not to just ignore questions and responses.

Giving the template a test run (in a hurry here so will be brief)

• Subject (the conspiracy being discussed) - Skripal poisoning
• Who the conspirators are (outline who "they" are) - Putin, FSB, Chepiga and Mishkin
• Why the conspirators decided to conspire on this particular subject. - To poison/kill Sergei Skripal an ex spy who was continuing to pass on info to adversaries of Russia
• How the conspirators will ultimately benefit from the conspiracy. - Maiming/killing the ex-spy sent an obvious message around the world that "traitors" would not be tolerated, they could be hit anywhere and to deter any other would-be leakers
• Outline how the conspirators failed to keep their plans secret (it's up for discussion here after all) - They were caught on CCTV, travelled under fake names, real identities were discovered, the agent used was exotic and almost unique to Russia, the agent was traced to where these men stayed
• Outline how the conspiracy will play out if it has not already done so. - It played out
• 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). - CCTV, route the men took, their stay in UK, double confirmation of nerve agent, investigators uncovering their identities as GRU agents, contradicting TV interview endorsed by Putin
• 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). - Should be taken seriously, high probability of being true, no other theory exists, Russia has been implicated in these types of attacks before

That didn't take much time, points 5 and 7 are quite similar, could probably be merged a bit

I can try it later to see if it's possible to "troll" it.

To me this kinda post doesn't seem like it would promote much discussion. It doesn't feel like it leaves any openings for people to respond to it and seems more like a summary of a broad topic rather than a specific point.

Maybe a better way to do it would be something like this:

here i think the premable narrows down the topic to a specific subject and I specifically ask for responses to open up discussions.

I think a post like this would absolutely lead to better discussions.

But on the other hand I felt like sticking to a specific list limited what I could write and express and has a lot of redundancies.

One thought that occurs is rather than a list of points to fill out in order, there could be a rule or even just a note in the charter that states something like "When introducting a conspiracy theory topic, you should explain X, Y and Z. If you don't have answers to those, that's ok. Just say so to make things clear."

Then as long as the post actually contains these things in some way and at some point, it's good to go.

The X, Y and Z could be like "Who's behind it" "what's the goal of the conspiracy" or "how does this fit into a conspiracy theory version of events."

I think this kinda format would be more flexible, easier and asking much less up front.

• I don't think the template is too long. It covers the basics and as adults we should all be able to work within a simple standard without it being too taxing.
• If somebody isn't able to fill in the fields, then we don't end up with half baked theories clogging up the forum. Surely this is a positive.
• Natural discussion as you call it is not working in the CT forum. I can go into detail if you really wish but suffice to say the majority of threads are rehashing old personal beefs which makes the forum a closed shop and not to mention a mess.
• Conspiracy theorists don't want to answer certain questions? Nobody can force anyone to answer anything. The logic behind the template is to give at least some structure beyond "I think this is a thing therefore it is".
• If the template is enforced it is enforced. To say it doesn't have to be used in every thread is nonsensical. You can't ignore standards in real life. For instance you can't go off and build a house without adhering to standards, there's a reason they exist.
• As to whether a conspiracy theory is valid or not. All we can do is attempt to ascertain that through first the template and second discussion.

I feel like all these points have been addressed previously. You saying I need to answer them in this fashion feels a little odd if I'm honest.

And as for needing to chase me down? This isn't a workplace, I'm not being paid to be here and I certainly don't answer to you.

I find it strange that you feel so strongly about holding conspiracy theorists to a higher standard but when a simple system is proposed to do just that you contort yourself so wildly to find reasons why it shouldn't be implemented.

The template I proposed is only one aspect of the changes I feel are required. Your attitude above in demanding things in such a forceful manner is a case in point of your need to examine your shall we say bedside manner. Rule number one on boards; don't be a dick.

Ah!

"What about BLM?"

I should have known!

Yes.

I think that if someone is putting forward a "theory" on the forum, they should be required to answer questions if questions are put to them.

The idea that CTers should be able to say anything they want on any subject without being questioned is laughable.

Also odd that the poster who mentioned BLM dismissed the threat of QAnon, O'Doherty etc as "loons" and "There are bigger threats"

But put forward an argument against BLM, without applying the same logic.

The irony of that poster then claiming others have a "narrative" is, i'm sure, completely lost on them.

But hey, if they get a forum where nobody can question them, then this won't be a problem, right?

That's been covered already.

You're right. I don't think that the length is too long for people wanting to put effort into a discussion and I personally would have no issue answering those points. But I think that the majority of conspiracy theorist wouldn't agree though. This is evidenced by how none of the people complaining have addressed your suggestion at all.

Do you think that the majority of conspiracy theorists on the forum would be happy with it's length?

The rest of your points seem to be suggesting that if a conspiracy theorist isn't able to answer the points in the template, then the theory would be viewed as invalid and the thread wouldn't be allowed to be posted, correct?

As for other topics, there's a lot that can be posted on the conspiracy forum that don't require this template as the specifics of a conspiracy theory aren't being discussed. For example, the thread about the conspiracy theory podcast. There could be other such examples, but I can't think of any off hand.

I'm not contorting. I'm simply raising realistic issues that I see. I've made some suggestions myself.

And honestly man, the constant jabs and insults, only to jump to the high ground the moment anyone dares to be anything other that perfectly polite is getting a bit old and it's undermining your position.

That's been covered already.

No one has even answered the simple question “what are the benefits of reverting to the 2015 charter?”

Change needs to be sold to people and identifying the benefits is a major part of selling change.

The discussion is that something needs to be done about the CT forum. The charter issue is one aspect of what the thread has become.