Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

You made a number of statements there, I'm not sure what the question at the end relates to.

Yup. Conspiracy theorists however like to blow up any and all abrasiveness regardless of how slight into "abuse" and "sneering" etc.

Being abrasive is not against the rules, and I feel no need to change my posting style to coddle some posters who have attacked me personally.

Now, you've dodged questions again.

I asked you if you believe that the conspiracy theorists on the forum would agree with your assessment that your template isn't too long.

I don't think they'd agree and this is evidenced by the fact none of them have even acknowledged the suggestion in the first place. And as you've said, they are being genuine, so it can't be that they just aren't willing to engage in real discussion.

Similarly I don't think they'd agree with your stance that theories that don't met the standard set out by your template should be banned.

I don't agree with it either. As I stated before, I think that completely unfounded and unevidenced theories would be perfectly fine as long as posters are honest about that. If they answer the template and aren't able to provide anything it asks, I don't see a problem with them still posting with that understanding and also understanding that this means a lot of people will rightly not accept the conspiracy theory as fact.

So are we back to the idea that conspiracy theories are all just madey uppy for fun?

It kinda seems like they flick back and forth between serious business and just for a goof when it suits.

Sometimes they're "speaking truth to power like Rosa Parks" as one theorist described them recently when defending them. Then when people say that they should be held to standards and treated seriously, suddenly they're being compared to cheap gags in a joke shop.

Lol. I[m pissing and moaning about personal attacks? Do you see what I mean about how anything I say is blown of of proportion?

And yes dude, you dodged the question.

I asked you a question you did not answer it when you replied. That's how dodging works.

The question I asked was:

Here is your post:

Where in those 3 sentences did you answer the question I asked?

Yes. That is a reply before the question I asked you. I asked the question after that post.

No where in that post is an answer to my question either.

Where did you answer my question?

The question again is: "Do you think that the majority of conspiracy theorists on the forum would be happy with it's length?"

It's like arguing with a child.

I have stated that the length of the template is reasonable. If people (on either side) aren't happy about it that's their problem.

I addressed this point on multiple occasions. If I didn't answer in the way YOU WANT me to that's too bad. I didn't not lie about addressing that issue, it was addressed repeatedly.

You are being belligerent and argumentative for no good reason.

Stop trying to take the moral high ground and please for the love of God at least attempt to develop some sort of humility.

I will agree with you on one thing, this exchange is very much emblematic of the problems with the CT forum. Your attitude is a major problem for that forum and this exchange displays that vividly.

In the end you don't feel any changes are required on the CT forum. Can we agree on that?

Good retort.

Another example of not actually refuting what is being said, and completely dodging the content of the post.

No wonder you want a safe space!

Simple. You aren't interested in honest discussion because you keep dodging points and questions.

And no man, those statements do not all mean the same thing.

I will happily demonstrate how you are seeking a safe place after you yourself stop dodging points and questions.

I think a template is a possible step in the right direction.

What shape it takes is up to discussion of it. Often times the poster can't explain what the conspiracy is, which naturally leads to more questions from other posters, it would definitely help with that.

It's not just King Mob, although you're finally admitting that you are doing what you are suspected of doing.

You can't expect to ignore entire points, pick and chose your own and not engage in honest discussion and then demand that everyone else answer your queries. Constant whack-a-mole tactics and moving the goalposts.

Only a few posts ago you were trying to move the goalposts by minimising the subject of changing the CT Forum charter......... the very subject of the OP 😂

Simple. Whether or not you care is different information than whether or not you believe they agree.

The question was not about whether you care. The question was about if they agree with your position.

I was asking because the probable answer is that most conspiracy theorists won't agree with your position that the list is fair. Thus, your suggestion would not promote discussion because it would stop those people from posting.

That would my thinking too.

It places an onus on the OP to elucidate their thinking and what evidence or inference they are seeking to rely on in their promulgating their particular theory.

It heads off(or at least would hopefully) the who, what, where, why and how questions and would shift the questions to the reliability of evidence and the veracity of it.

It's far simpler to debate the quality of evidence and inferences that can be drawn from it. It places an immediate burden of at least supporting the OPs position upon them and shifts the debate from the motivations and political leanings of a CT OP, to their actual evidence and support.

Addressed already.