# Could we bring in a rule for n00bs with regard to conspiracy theory threads? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 20, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149 "2009-01-20T16:51:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bluecanary](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bluecanary/32/3614_2.png) [@bluecanary](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bluecanary)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/21 "2009-01-20T21:15:37Z")
Doesn’t _Daily Kos_ have a rule something along those lines? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Batman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/22d042/32.png) [@The\_Batman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Batman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/22 "2009-01-20T21:25:08Z")
I don’t like the idea of censoring them or ridiculing them. It makes the board seem intolerant. I don’t suscribe to their beliefs but a little bit of respect on our parts isn’t uncalled for. Sending them to the Pit, limiting people’s posts per day, or shutting down these types of threads isn’t necessary when all we can do is just not reply. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/23 "2009-01-20T22:34:53Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Cheesestak, Cheessteak, and Chesesteak were already taken ☹ The Cheesestak figured prominently in the _Land of the Lost._ ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/24 "2009-01-20T23:12:13Z")
> [@Tijuana\_Golds](#): > > I don’t like the idea of censoring them or ridiculing them. It makes the board seem intolerant. I don’t suscribe to their beliefs but a little bit of respect on our parts isn’t uncalled for. Sending them to the Pit, limiting people’s posts per day, or shutting down these types of threads isn’t necessary when all we can do is just not reply. My non-pitty feeling is the same, at least for the first two pages. There can be some legitimate discussion about the theory and usually a few good refutations. The problem is the threads tend to get bogged down, drag out for 5 or 10 pages, and result in the OP putting their proverbially fingers in their proverbial ears and going “Lalala, I can’t hear you,” to most responses, but refuting the weakest or most irrelevant posts. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/25 "2009-01-20T23:30:39Z")
> [@Algorithm](#): > > Mostly I post so that innocent bystanders (those reading but not participating) get a little reason and logic intermixed with the crazy. Similarly, I know a lot of people in real life who hear these theories, think, “Gosh, it sounds like they know what they’re talking about,” and accept them as true. They’re not stupid, and they’re not zealots, they just don’t always question the stuff they hear. I’ve had a lot of success in convincing these people that there’s no conspiracy involved in things like 9/11 and the Apollo landings, by using arguments I’ve seen here. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/26 "2009-01-20T23:52:28Z")
> [@HookerChemical](#): > > My non-pitty feeling is the same, at least for the first two pages. There can be some legitimate discussion about the theory and usually a few good refutations. The problem is the threads tend to get bogged down, drag out for 5 or 10 pages, and result in the OP putting their proverbially fingers in their proverbial ears and going “Lalala, I can’t hear you,” to most responses, but refuting the weakest or most irrelevant posts. How’s this, after the first four pages if it’s still the only thread they’ve posted in they get a “special” title, can still post but only them and other people that “earned” that title can see what they actually posted. Everyone else just sees the words “wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeee! _Raspberry_ Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!” in place of what they wrote? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Batman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/22d042/32.png) [@The\_Batman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Batman)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/27 "2009-01-20T23:57:56Z")
If folks don’t want to read their tripe, they don’t have to. No need for special titles or blocking out what they wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/28 "2009-01-20T23:59:18Z")
Given the financial state of the owner of the SDMB, why not just set up a fee schedule: Sane posts – free Nutbar posts – $10 per thread opener, and $2 per nutbar post thereafter ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/29 "2009-01-21T00:08:10Z")
> [@Tijuana\_Golds](#): > > If folks don’t want to read their tripe, they don’t have to. No need for special titles or blocking out what they wrote. Pretty sure **Jragon** wasn’t making an earnest suggestion, there. ---
**Author:** ![Just\_Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ad7895/32.png) [@Just\_Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just_Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/30 "2009-01-21T01:19:36Z")
I want to say that I appreciate the conspiracy loonies who wander in. Without them I wouldn’t know what idiots were saying about major events until it rose to a high profile. And while I can pick off some of their insanity on my own occasionally they talk about something I don’t know a lot about and so I appreciate the dopers who take them down. That said there is a rule I worked out for myself back when USENET was the only way to have mass discussions online is that when your point is made for reasonable people and you’re just going to repeat yourself and a person who is impervious to reason then it’s time to walk away. You won’t be convincing them and anyone capable of rational thought isn’t going to be taken in. There are more than a few people who post regularly in Great Debates who need to learn that it’s what you said that matters, not who says the last word. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/31 "2009-01-21T01:20:24Z")
> [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > I guess my presence in this thread is obligatory… Maybe it would help discourage the conspiracy wackos if we had other posters with usernames like Bilderberg, Rothschild, Mew World Order, Queen Elizabeth and Giant Shape-Shifting Lizard. That’d scare the crap out of 'em. On another board we had a nutbar spouting Big Pharma and Gummint conspiracy theories. I posted about a new technique wherein PCs were being loaded with software that permitted full body scans to be taken through a user’s CRT, triggered when the user showed up in an Internet forum and hit the “Submit” button. He stopped posting not long after that, not sure why. One odd thing - a big part of the lure of being a conspiracy freak is that you have Secrut Inside Knowledge that the vast herd of sheeple don’t know about. Why would you then try to enlighten the masses and kill the buzz? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/32 "2009-01-21T02:50:32Z")
> [@Hampshire](#): > > How about a rule that they need more than (1) cite for their information? > > Seems most of them wander in here mumbling “buh, buh, wha, what about this website/book?” For most of the really wacky ideas, one cite is one too many. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/33 "2009-01-21T03:11:18Z")
[http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=36&contentid=2202](http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=36&contentid=2202) You guys apparently have no idea how many theories there are out there. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/34 "2009-01-21T03:49:50Z")
For the record, I once had a cat who was affiliated with the Mew World Order. We kept _that_ bowl filled, you betcha. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/35 "2009-01-21T04:23:37Z")
They should just lock all new conspiracy threads with a link to the old ones. It’s not like any of these dumbfucks ever come up with new ideas or arguments. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/36 "2009-01-21T15:54:48Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > One odd thing - a big part of the lure of being a conspiracy freak is that you have Secrut Inside Knowledge that the vast herd of sheeple don’t know about. Why would you then try to enlighten the masses and kill the buzz? It’s apparently not sufficient to know that you are smarter than most others. It’s much more satisfying when _everyone else_ knows it, too. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/37 "2009-01-21T16:18:03Z")
I love conspiracy theories. It is fun to see where people are coming from. Sometimes they come from places you don’t even know exist. Sometimes they are right or have some truth in back of them.Ruby Ridge is an example of where the official view was discordant with many of the facts.We actually do have cover ups in America you know. Who defines a conspiracy ? The Mai Lai massacre was soundly rejected by most sources in the beginning. Our newspapers often have to be forced to do their jobs and actually investigate. Watergate was an example of that. So the Bilderbergs and flying saucer people should not be lumped with those who think our government serves the few nowadays. Some feel the government does not work for us. It works fine for the rich and powerful though. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/38 "2009-01-21T16:47:01Z")
You’re in catch-22 territory, though, gonzomax. The coverups we know about are because they were uncovered. In 7+ years, _ **not one compelling piece of evidence has been uncovered supporting a 9/11 conspiracy theory** _. Not one. And plenty of rich and powerful died on 9/11/01. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/39 "2009-01-21T17:05:46Z")
Is in not just 911. there are lots of conspiracies around. There is a pit thread on Cheney pretending to have an injury to avoid paying respect to Obama. That is certainly an unprovable waste of time. But people are happily posting away. What’s the harm? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149/40 "2009-01-21T17:11:41Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Is in not just 911. there are lots of conspiracies around. There is a pit thread on Cheney pretending to have an injury to avoid paying respect to Obama. That is certainly an unprovable waste of time. But people are happily posting away. What’s the harm? I think the difference is the scope (implications) of the “offence”. If Cheney was faking his injury, he’s a jerk. Rude. In the end, so what? But if the FBI shot Kennedy/CIA & Bush allowed 9/11 to proceed, then the implications (and criminality) are much much greater. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-bring-in-a-rule-for-n00bs-with-regard-to-conspiracy-theory-threads/482149.md?page=3)