By the same token, “Q” stuff outside the thread was not allowed. Also part of the deal.
It was only supposed to be on the “Q” thread.
Unfortunately, that changed.
There were “Q” threads started by others.
Open derogatory references(Qtard anyone, among others?) are made outside the “Q” threads and it's being allowed today.
I've stopped hitting abuse on those posts\threads as action(deleting the post) was no longer being taken to stop it.
Is it frustrating to play by the rules when others don't with impunity ?
That would be my guess.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 12/27/2022 Vol.443, Q Day 1886, stylin19a wrote: It seems that the “Q” threads stayed in their lane.
they didn't take it outside of the thread. That was the deal.By the same token, “Q” stuff outside the thread was not allowed. Also part of the deal.
It was only supposed to be on the “Q” thread.
Unfortunately, that changed.There were “Q” threads started by others.
Open derogatory references(Qtard anyone, among others?) are made outside the “Q” threads and it's being allowed today.I've stopped hitting abuse on those posts\threads as action(deleting the post) was no longer being taken to stop it.
Is it frustrating to play by the rules when others don't with impunity ?
That would be my guess.In hindsight, those who were told not to post in the forum (pro Q content) were told to keep it on the Q thread. I don't know that this limit was intended to apply to those who post anti-Q content; because it would mean we alone could comment at all about Q and for others it would be a 100% forbidden topic (not on our Q thread, and not in the forum) and that wouldn't be fair to those who object to it.
I do remember the anti-Q threads - a troll always provided me with a 'courtesy ping' when he trash talked me and the Q threads I posted. I told him he could skip that 'courtesy'. So maybe all can post about Q but if it's pro or research then it's only on the Q thread and if it's anti-Q, it's prohibited from the Q thread but permitted on the forum. This would be dividing up the playground and minimizing conflict - they aren't supposed to show up and trash the Q threads and we aren't suppose to show up and trash the anti-Q threads.
I suspect volume of content plays a role - if I had asked the admins to delete insults (comments and name-specific keywords) to me on forum threads I post (not Q) there were times when I was posting alot (Covid) that they'd have to assign an Admin to follow me around just to keep up. Not feasible and, in the instance of keywords, not an efficient use of anyone's time. Just a guess....
Many of our harshest critics read our threads obsessively and are offended by remarks about them, even if made in general (no names). Some of those people are likely separate and distinct from the FReepers who used to overrun our Q threads in attempts to shut them down. So from the non-historical-Q-thread-troll forum perspective, it may look like we spontaneously criticize them for their world view for no reason. They don't know how hard it was for us in the early years, when 'raving' trolls intentionally made it hard to have a conversation on Q threads at all. But many of us remember.
Fog of (information) war and all. As groups, we may not understand each other all that well. I'm not referring to Q-specific trolls with that last comment; but there are others who contend with us because they genuinely don't understand, aren't aware of our FR history, and perceive us as flat-earthers. Maybe they hear people like General Flynn and look around at FR and are disappointed, and want to advocate for conservatives, FR etc. and think we're guillible 'noise'. Anything I could say to them, it would be my word against respected people like Flynn, or the head of Truth Social, Devin Nunes, who also said Q was fake.