Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

It means that the poster has a hypothesis and not a theory.

No supporting evidence, circumstantial or even inferential? Then the poster doesn't have a theory.

I'm surprised given the length of time that nature and quality of evidence has been discussed on here that there is any doubt what I mean regarding that.

Now how that is adopted into a charter? Is a matter that is open to discussion and I'm sure a broad range of opinion. That particular aspect of the discussion would be subject to consensus. But as been posted by others in the thread, perhaps it belongs in the realm of speculation rather than theory.

In my opinion a CT post needs to include the What, What is the conspiracy, why does the OP deem it plausible and what in particular has them convinced of its veracity.

The why, with better evidence to support a conspiracy than "the money" or "Jews".

The how, take 9/11 as an example and the theory that building 7 was pre-wired with silent explosives. How were they placed? Has any other instance of silent explosive been documented? What supports the CTrs position?

In particular the Cui Bono of a conspiracy is IMO important, it's by no means vital to discussion but the very nature of a conspiracy means that someone or some group ultimately benefits. What is that aspect?

And any other relevant info that the OP has relied upon in their belief that it's a theory worth exploring. What evidence other than feeling, emotion or sterotype do they rely on to convince someone else their position is plausible let alone actual.

An OP doesn't need all the info, and it may well be that CTr posts some info in the aim of "developing" their hypotheses.

But a theory must have the ingredients, their must be a degree of evident collusion, coincidence and benefit to someone for a conspiracy to be viable.

The onus needs to be on the poster presenting a CT to make at the very least a cogent case as to why it may be. That can be done with an "I don't Know" at a few points, but certainly not by throwing out a claim with a string of them followed by "but aliens".

You may refute the idea but the "abrasive" posting style that is so popular in the CT forum was addressed by Beasty earlier today on this thread as being less than optimal.

Stating that arguing against conspiracy theories online is "God's work" does tend to result in the rest of what you're saying being taken with a grain of salt.

I'd agree that bainie's statement seems a bit absolute there.

I personally think that there would be some wiggle room for "I don't know" answers, but I don't think there would be a one sized fits all answer to that.

Would agree with Syd and you that statement Syd queried was a bit absolutist.

I'd hope it's addressed in a post above tho 😉

I still think that an out there conspiracy theory with a lot of "I don't knows" can still make for an interesting discussion as long as the template makes it clear from the start that certain parts of the theory are incomplete and that this incompleteness is a good reason not to believe the theory.

From there a discussion can be had with say hypotheticals or diving into why those gaps make people doubt the conspiracy theory.

I disagree there. From some perspectives it could be see as conspiracy theories being sent into a black hole where only a few come out because the mod is disallowing certain things.

With the other way, it seems a bit more open and transparent to me. And it wouldn't really cause bad blood with the two camps, as anyone posting agrees that the thread should be there, and anyone who doesn't agree shouldn't be posting in it.

But either way people will give **** to the mods, so there really isn't any avoiding that

Told ya! 😂😂

It's a conspiracy of "The Ticks" tho I think mine still has bars on?

I disagree there. From some perspectives it could be see as conspiracy theories being sent into a black hole where only a few come out because the mod is disallowing certain things.

That'd be my concern too. It gives CTr's a cloak of oppression and the man shutting them down, and it makes the mod a target for a lot of help desk and DR posts.

Yep, took me 14yrs to get my 1st boards ban so this thread has been good for something I suppose 😂 all sorted now tho.

That's going to happen one way or another. It's going to happen about this thread.

I'm sure we'll be accused of trying to shut down the conspiracy theories forum again inside of a week. A month tops.

So a few questions asking to explain is communist?

No. It is asking a question because the person being responded to has been extremely vague. If people provide information it tends to stop questions. I learned that over years of dealing with auditors. If you want to know about incessant questioning get yourself an audit. What goes on here is mild questioning to try and extract information. The problem is they people who are spouting BS then cry wolf because they can’t explain their BS.

Oh I'm so sorry. It's self evident arguing against conspiracy theorists is "God's work", where are arguing against conspiracy theories is just a hobby activity.

For someone who mentions things such as, and I quote; "lazy spelling, poor grammar, terrible understanding of basic concepts, refusal to admit they're wrong, a penchant for logical fallacies, outright lying, throwing insults etc"... And then goes on to end their post by saying that I failed to withdraw my accusation of you being disrespectful, surely with your superior comprehension it would come as no surprise to you that I never accused you of being disrespectful at any point.

It would seem that you have been hoisted upon your own petard my learned friend.

Who "made a balls of understanding" what was written by who exactly?

Its the obvious solution to the "problem" if you see it as a problem.

It seems that solution however then causes a problem due to the "details and evidence" part, which it seems some conspiracists are against for some reason.