I would like to posit these 3 rules. I would like everyone to vote as though they were voting themselves on a proposition, for it is. Above 65% and this happens, so please use downvoting appropriately whether or not you like my post.

Key rule 1: We should play both the synthetic (constructive, linkage of two items into concepts and judgements) and skeptic (destructive, search for inconsistency) role in what we posit as truth here.

Key rule 2: We must be able to present an up-to-date, verified and sourced, connection of the concepts that we have constructed post-skepticism that we will consider our platform.

Key rule 3: At all times we must be willing to consider anything that is presented to refute our constructed concepts(key rule 2). That is to say, we must never make our positions dogma (belief based on faith and not reason/observation that others are forced to accept as true). We must be willing to admit that concepts in pizzagate may be false.

Furthermore, I am willing to dedicate my time into a proper, structured, and professional investigation that would propose evidence and take action if action is warranted. If you wish to participate in something actually structured to function and function well, I would ask you to write my email here:

[email protected]

I will be creating a document on google docs (KR2) where people may add any suggestions (that is to say that anyone has view and the ability to use the "suggestions" function on google documents) that are then approved/denied by a moderation staff composed only people I can trust from who reach out to me here (who are granted the editing ability). I will be constantly adding new members and if you have any way to verify who you are and what you've contributed to the discovery and critique of evidence you will be more likely to be added. If you frequently contribute in important and meaningful ways to the suggestions on this document you will more likely be added. I will be breaking up people into separate teams to individually investigate specific concepts: - A broad section will deal with presenting pieces of evidence (constructive) - A broad section will deal with critical fact-checking and general verification (destructive/skepticism) - A smaller section will be team leaders in charge of directing and exemplifying the prior two groups - A smaller section will need to all individually understand the unity of all the evidence presented in order to come up with general claims and concepts.This is the most time-consuming and specialized branch and I will have only the best people here.

If this holds substantial and irrefutable evidence past the point of my personal doubt, I am willing to come public with my identity and take action on the subject. If it is proved false, I will officially denounce this 'investigation' just as the witch trials should have been. If it is neither proved one way or another, we will but have to lie dormant as keepers of inconclusive knowledge. Action will be voted upon fairly.

I will say this, and you will not hear it from any of your typical desk-job corporate bosses. No stupid people allowed. That's it, you heard that right. In something so serious as this (where a large amount of innocents potentially are getting hurt) I do not want to have to deal with someone who will be but dead weight in what needs to be a very critical and serious project. If you have any concerns over your mental capabilities or if you did not understand what I have just written, do NOT contact me looking to be a position in this.

I'll come back with more details later (Friday-Saturday), I hope to hear from your emails and your votes.

Edit: I will also take the time to address privacy concerns later