Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

To use your example: the moon landings were fake

In normal discussion if someone believes the moon landings were faked they obviously have to provide the theory (how it was faked) and evidence to support that. You'll notice that is very rarely done on conspiracy theory forums, if ever.

Instead they typically use a clever technique of luring other people into demonstrating to them how impossible it was to fake, then subjectively rejecting that as much as they want. They can keep dragging it down into further and further technical details until you have no answers. It's a clever trick to turn the burden of proof onto others. With no arbiter they can (and do) go round in circles forever. They will endlessly evade you asking for their theory, they will endless evade you asking for any evidence of the theory, and they will accuse you of badgering them with questions

There's nothing you can do about it and that's the reality for many conspiracies on the forum.

On any other forum, or in academia, or in every day life the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If I have a theory, it's up to me to demonstrate it. I don't have to "prove it", simply lay out the details and evidence and see what people think.

A template may go someway towards redressing the balance. I answered it earlier quite easily with a conspiracy I believe in. It would also allow everyone to get into the meat of the discussion.

The question I asked was how many courthouses were destroyed by BLM, I thought? And the answer would appear to be zero, although I know of three that were damaged. 25 deaths isn't even a blip in the number of deaths being caused DAILY in the US by reactionaries like you who have undermined/refused the COVID vaccine. We are losing about 2,000 people PER DAY to a virus with cheap, effective and available vaccines.

As an aside, I'm not sure at this point what you are trying to argue.

You are the one who brought consensus to this discussion.

I have repeatedly said in response to you, that it has nothing to do with it, it's why I asked you to explain why you are focusing on it.

My current thinking is this. There is a list of required information needed to be included in a CT OP. Information foundational to the theory and that will allow discussion to expand without the litany of who, what, why, how.

Standards for what should be required have already been proposed and a charter change discussion would either make that a yea or nay.

An OP either meets that standard as proposed in the template and prose discussion, or it doesn't.

If it doesn't a poster reading it clicks report and a mod takes a look and any necessary action.

Where is the consensus involved?

Why is expecting posters to act upon posts that don't meet a set of community guidelines, onerous for the poster but not a mod? The rest of the forums get along fine with such an expectation on their posters and in particular politics.

And again, where does consensus come into it?

that only applies to initial forum access. Requiring a mod to approve every new topic would kill the CT forum.

Another small potential suggestion/guideline: conspiracy posters should think about prefacing a conspiracy as their opinion rather than a fact, e.g. it's my opinion that X was a conspiracy.

Stating it as a fact has completely different connotations. "I think the moon landing was faked" is quite different from "the moon landings were faked".

The mods have little or no interest in the CT forum. They would never agree to it.

God's work?

I think you might be overstating things there and that type of attitude justifies the "abrasive" nature of many users posting style.

Questioning conspiracy theories isn't some sort of pseudo scientific jihad, engaging in a respectful manner (even with people you think are stupid) helps your own argument immensely.

That assertion would appear to be correct.

If normal boards.ie moderation was in action there (as alluded to earlier) it is possible some issues of personal interaction and respect may become of concern quite quickly.

I know from experience that utilizing a posting style that would be acceptable in the CT forum would tend to result in at the very least a friendly tap on the shoulder from a moderator in other forums.

Personally I would phrase 3 as "These are the supporting documents/arguments". I don't think it should be necessary for people to provide documentary evidence unless they are arguing for specific facts in support of the theory.

For example:

1. the US government faked the moon landings to one up russia. 2. because i don't think they had the technology required to do so. 3. I don't think it's possible to do X because Y.

I think that this proposal (while logically bad) isn't unreasonable. And asking for documentary evidence for why something is impossible isn't fair. And evidence that is needed would be asked for in the course of the discussion.

But if you were arguing:

1. the US government faked the moon landings to one up russia. 2. because the radiation was too high

Then I think you need to supply evidence for 2.

I think what is and is acceptable for the I don't know answer would depended heavily on the context of the rest of the conspiracy.

I think it would be ok to use sometimes for things like who exactly is behind it or their specific motivations. And things like this could be hashed out in the actual discussion.

The shorter the list of required points though, the less this would be an issue I think.