[Discussion] Ban QAnon-related content?

[The Archregimancy]

Our formal statement on the issue:

We will not be banning discussion of QAnon from the forums. We do not ban white supremacists from the forums, we do not ban North Korea advocates from the forums, we do not ban Islamists from the forums. People advocating these perspectives often run afoul of the rules since it's difficult to advocate them without breaking the rules, but they are not inherently banned.

We reserve the right to add specific QAnon sites to our prohibited links list on an ad hoc basis, but otherwise any QAnon advocacy posts reported in Moderation will simply be judged on the basis of the existing rules. If you do report them, please base your report accordingly.

[The New California Republic]

Cheers Arch & other Mods.

[Echellia]

Thank you, mods!

[Fedel]

A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.

[Parxland]

TMW people are congratulated for using common sense, I lose faith in humanity.

Thank you for deciding NOT to fuck up, i guess.

[The Archregimancy]

Thank you for deciding NOT to fuck up, i guess.

It's worth noting that this didn't really have much to do with us 'not fucking up'.

An individual raised concerns over an issue that has some prominence in a country where an election is currently taking place. Because it was topical, I noted that - without prejudging the issue - an internal conversation within the moderation team would ensue. Some people decided to get a bit worked up about it rather than waiting for the results of that internal conversation. The internal conversation decided that existing rules would apply.

I mean, it's not really earth-shattering stuff, is it?

[Albrenia]

TMW people are congratulated for using common sense, I lose faith in humanity.

Thank you for deciding NOT to fuck up, i guess.

Oddly antagonising response to getting the result you wanted.

[Fedel]

TMW people are congratulated for using common sense, I lose faith in humanity.

Thank you for deciding NOT to fuck up, i guess.

Oddly antagonising response to getting the result you wanted.

If somebody picks a person from a crowd and holds a gun to their head before lowering it and saying "Lol, jk." Should they be thanked?

[The New California Republic]

Oddly antagonising response to getting the result you wanted.

If somebody picks a person from a crowd and holds a gun to their head before lowering it and saying "Lol, jk." Should they be thanked?

...what?

[Fedel]

If somebody picks a person from a crowd and holds a gun to their head before lowering it and saying "Lol, jk." Should they be thanked?

...what?

...what?

[Nevertopia]

We should let QAnon conspiracy theorists have their own thread then shadowban them. That way they can keep screaming into the void and we can keep ignoring them.

[The New California Republic]

If somebody picks a person from a crowd and holds a gun to their head before lowering it and saying "Lol, jk." Should they be thanked?

...what?

...what?

You could actually clarify what you meant, instead of parroting what I just said.

[Fulgornia]

Our formal statement on the issue:

We will not be banning discussion of QAnon from the forums. We do not ban white supremacists from the forums, we do not ban North Korea advocates from the forums, we do not ban Islamists from the forums. People advocating these perspectives often run afoul of the rules since it's difficult to advocate them without breaking the rules, but they are not inherently banned.

We reserve the right to add specific QAnon sites to our prohibited links list on an ad hoc basis, but otherwise any QAnon advocacy posts reported in Moderation will simply be judged on the basis of the existing rules. If you do report them, please base your report accordingly.

So basically QAnon is banned because QAnon will eventually QAnon.

[Albrenia]

Oddly antagonising response to getting the result you wanted.

If somebody picks a person from a crowd and holds a gun to their head before lowering it and saying "Lol, jk." Should they be thanked?

The admins never 'held a gun' at anyone. It's more a case of someone pointing out someone looking a bit sus, the admins going 'nah, they're fine' and then everything going back to normal.

Methinks you might need to lay off the persecution complex a bit.

[Fedel]

...what?

You could actually clarify what you meant, instead of parroting what I just said.

Think what I said was pretty clear.

[The New California Republic]

You could actually clarify what you meant, instead of parroting what I just said.

Think what I said was pretty clear.

No. Clarify, please.

[Fedel]

If somebody picks a person from a crowd and holds a gun to their head before lowering it and saying "Lol, jk." Should they be thanked?

Methinks you might need to lay off the persecution complex a bit.

Good thing the thoughts you've expressed thus far are irrelevant to me.

[Fedel]

Think what I said was pretty clear.

No. Clarify, please.

Yes. No thanks.

[The New California Republic]

No. Clarify, please.

Yes. No thanks.

If you want to be awkward by not clarifying what you meant then that's your prerogative then.

[Fedel]

Yes. No thanks.

If you want to be awkward by not clarifying what you meant then that's your prerogative then.

That's nice.

[Albrenia]

Methinks you might need to lay off the persecution complex a bit.

Good thing the thoughts you've expressed thus far are irrelevant to me.

Ok? What's even the point of saying that then?

I literally argued that QAnon should not be inherently banned, and just pointed out that you complained about getting the result you wanted.

Anyway, this thread looks pretty much done.

[The Archregimancy]

Fedel and The New California Republic, I'm not sure that this mutual sniping between the two of you is entirely helpful.

I would prefer not to have to lock the thread because it's turned into mutual raspberry-blowing spam.

[Nevertopia]

QAnon was a mistake.

[The New California Republic]

Fedel and The New California Republic, I'm not sure that this mutual sniping between the two of you is entirely helpful.

I would prefer not to have to lock the thread because it's turned into mutual raspberry-blowing spam.

It's fine Arch it's finished, I just wanted some clarification on what he meant but that wasn't to be.

[Fedel]

Good thing the thoughts you've expressed thus far are irrelevant to me.

Ok? What's even the point of saying that then?

When somebody believes their opinion means more than it does, it's helpful to society at large to disabuse them of that notion.

Fedel and The New California Republic, I'm not sure that this mutual sniping between the two of you is entirely helpful.

I would prefer not to have to lock the thread because it's turned into mutual raspberry-blowing spam.

I think it's just about wrapped up at this point.