EPTUkrainian Crisis thread
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
 As you've mentioned, its tricky, because there's a mix of news, "news", reports from the ground, and the situation is rapidly changing. Its also an emotional issue with multiple perspectives, so its tricky. We're working on coming up with a solution that will both make the thread readable and keep it relevant. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
KadaverBB
Germany25657 Posts
We get it, the thread is problematic right now. Stahp  | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On May 22 2014 03:45 Cheerio wrote: I guess I would require others to be moderated by the same strict standards I was. As said, we are actively looking for a way to steer the thread back on track. I don't think blanket banning everyone is the right solution, and I would also disagree that you've been moderated very harshly. You've received two warnings for fairly obvious offenses - the kind of offense we have been fairly good at moderating consistently throughout the thread - and no bans. Not particularly harsh, in my opinion. I understand that you think the thread is problematic at the moment, but the way you've gone about addressing the issue yourself has, again in my opinion, not improved things at all, in fact only serving to further complicate things for the moderation team. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
About the fairness issue. Page 548, three posts at the bottom of the page On May 19 2014 06:54 likeasu wrote: Aligarh Poroshinko will be new president of Ukraine. Ordinary ukrainians form west of country are fucked by economic situation, people from east are fucked and killed by their own ukrainian army, people from Odessa are fucked and burned by "praviy sektor"............... On May 19 2014 06:56 PaleMan wrote: ...and Cheerio still thinks Maidan is a huge win :facepalm.jpg: On May 19 2014 07:01 likeasu wrote: thanks God I`m not on of these maidanian jumping guys who think thay have americans friends... All of those were reported, not a single warning. Those posts are both low content and aimed at sparking aggression in the thread. And those are just an example, there are many more. At least my post was aimed at improving the quality of posting. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
As for your three quoted posts, I would have warned two out of those three, but you also need to realize the issue of reporting those you are arguing against in the midst of a heated discussion. You reported almost twenty posts (many by the same users) in the Ukraine Crisis thread in rapid succession, which can (and likely) does create a new set of concerns for moderation that we have to deal with. Naturally, some bad posts are going to slip through in a thread closing in on 600 pages of heated discussion, but sending a PM to a moderator if you have an issue with a poster can have the same effect, if not more, than simply reporting every one of that user's recent posts. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 22 2014 05:05 Zealously wrote: Other moderators may have differing views on this matter, but I'm not particularly keen on lenience because someone has made contributions to the thread earlier. If you make a post, good or bad, you should expect to be held accountable for what it is you post, on a post-by-post basis. I agree that your contributions to the thread have been among the best of all the regular posters', but to me that doesn't mean you get a free pass to making bad posts. ok. I guess I am entitled to my own view as well. And I do not wish to add content anymore if it is not being appreciated. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
I agree that moderation in the thread has been a problem, I'm not disputing that. But I am disputing you in saying that we've been picking and choosing among users and only moderating some while consciously giving unfair amounts of lenience to others. That really is not the case, though it might be natural for you to feel that way if you feel like we've been unfairly harsh on you. Your continuous attempts to add meaningful content is greatly appreciated among those who use the thread as a source of information, including myself, but you should never assume that you're above the rules because you add something of value to the discussion. That opens the way for the very kind of inconsistent moderation you're talking about here. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 22 2014 05:41 Zealously wrote: Surely you realize that out of, say, 6-700 reported posts in the thread, one or another will be non-actioned for any number of reasons. There is also the fact that warnings and bans aren't the only two ways of moderation - I've sent a fair share of PMs to several users in the thread when I've deemed a warning unnecessarily harsh, or when some manner of misunderstanding may have resulted in a post in contrast with the standards we've set for the thread. That you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening, but you seem fairly stuck on the fact that you were warned while others weren't, disregarding other factors. You are making it look even worse, so where was my PM? On May 22 2014 05:41 Zealously wrote: I agree that moderation in the thread has been a problem, I'm not disputing that. But I am disputing you in saying that we've been picking and choosing among users and only moderating some while consciously giving unfair amounts of lenience to others. That really is not the case, though it might be natural for you to feel that way if you feel like we've been unfairly harsh on you. Your continuous attempts to add meaningful content is greatly appreciated among those who use the thread as a source of information, including myself, but you should never assume that you're above the rules because you add something of value to the discussion. That opens the way for the very kind of inconsistent moderation you're talking about here. I'm not asking for special treatment. In fact I already got it, the moderation placed me way below average. That's what I'm angry about. And "above the rules" sounds funny, considering your posts don't have a report button. | ||
zatic
Zurich15327 Posts
This will change in the future. Cheerio: You were not treated unfairly. You were in a personal fight with another poster that had nothing to do with the thread. Both of you got a warning. Fair and square. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 22 2014 06:11 zatic wrote: In the past few weeks there has been almost no moderation in the thread because it was near impossible. The thread was a complete mess. This will change in the future. Cheerio: You were not treated unfairly. You were in a personal fight with another poster that had nothing to do with the thread. Both of you got a warning. Fair and square. From my perspective that wasn't a personal fight. I was trying to urge him to use capitals, which he was totally ignoring for like months, including in the names of TLer's nicknames and names of countries. You even yourself confirmed that is against the rules, and still clearly noone from the moderation spoke to him about it. Also when the level of moderation becomes stiffer, I guess a warning is due. edit: also note you didn't warn me for a personal fight or something along those lines, you warned me for low content posting. Please put some effort into your posts. One word replies and other low content posts are not appreciated here. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On May 22 2014 06:01 Cheerio wrote: You are making it look even worse, so where was my PM? I'm not asking for special treatment. In fact I already got it, the moderation placed me way below average. That's what I'm angry about. And "above the rules" sounds funny, considering your posts don't have a report button. You're either not properly reading or not understanding what I'm saying. You were warned, yes, and by me at that, because I felt that the post in question was clearly warnable. When a post is not clearly warnable but nonetheless problematic for the thread, a PM might be a more suitable solution. You never received a PM because your posts were either clear-cut warnable, or obviously not. A PM is a middle ground that is sometimes beneficial to take. I also do not quite understand why you feel like you've been treated extremely harshly in the thread in question. I understand that you disagree with your warnings, but several users have been banned once or multiple times for repeated offenses, and you have not. I don't know what average you're talking about, but our opinions quite clearly differ on the severity of the mod action taken against you. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
As for the thread, it's quite bad currently, but not hopeless as it was before ETT blanket-banned spammers. The week afterwards was quieter but also more constructive. This suggests that it's not really about individuals, but rather about the general attitude towards what the thread is about and what is acceptable. I've personally PM'd mods about Paleman deserving a permaban for prior posts but in the week after ETT's incursion Paleman actually made, what I see as, positive contributions to the thread. So, if I may nudge you towards a solution, I'd say clearer but stricter rules would help. I post there a lot, and I would not mind much stricter rules due to the sensitivity of the subject matter. Previously I've backtracked from suggesting it due to the ridiculous load on moderator time that this would (at least initially) impose. And I'd rather ignore the random ad hominem attacks than have that thread closed entirely. | ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
"I was treated" unfairly doesn't help at all. On the subject of users like nunez or users that are too aggressive or insulting: that sort of posting is mostly borderline offenses (some will get actioned, some not), but once we find the best solution, it will most likely involve harsher moderation and posting standards, of which many in the thread will not pass. Suggest solutions, then see how things improve. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Suggest solutions stop posting in that thread like i did zealously wrote: what zealously wrote two quibbles one very minor and one only slightly less minor this there are so many posts we can't get it all is used so often i.e. almost every time. if the same problems keep arising which obviously they are then devote more resources to it please. yeah it's just the internet and all that but you want it to be a nice place or at least semi-nice obviously it isn't perceived that way and talking about being stricter doesn't seem to do much because even if it is stricter for a while i guarantee within a month or two there's another 2-3 threads in website feedback about the same thing over and over. now that isn't much of a criticism it's really a small thing. now to bring in something lichter wrote to set up quibble 2 "I was treated" unfairly doesn't help at all. neither do most of the responses, quibble number two being "you don't understand" or some other kind of lecture that doesn't invite the person complaining to understand and move on in a way that satisfies anyone really, instead it almost follows a formula: 1. you don't understand 2. we're discussing it 3. your feelings are wrong 4. so deal with it 5. person on receiving end is rarely satisfied, and, some time passes, same shit happens again how about instead of that when you have a conversation like that between zealously and cheerio zealously says "we're not here to shit on you or anyone for being bad then have to lecture down the law if people complain about it we just don't want people to be bad so don't be bad." i feel like i am being kinda very inarticulate here as to what i think would be better from the staff but instead of an atmosphere of fostering any kind of personal relationship it's too impersonal imo. again okay it's the internet moderators on an internet forum shouldn't have to form relationships with posters the way andy griffith did with the fine fictional residents of mayberry or anything like that but i do think that taking a more inclusive and mutually cooperative approach over time might yield good results. or i might be completely wrong its the internet what i'm saying might work in the real world but on the internet maybe (maybe even probably) not i duno  | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
The source of Cheerio's complaint is the lack or leniency of moderation for some and a perceived harshness towards him. The mods already swore to improve in cleaning up the thread and just put up a new mod note for people to read. Dunno what you can ask for more than that. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
The thread was closed for the day, which I think is a good idea, but today might be a bad day for it. There's a major offensive today by the Ukrainian forces and casualties are higher than ever before. Also, there's an emergency UNSC meeting today. Perhaps you can close it for a few hours only, or make a few exemplary posts yourself to cover these news items and to show the way. I have a few questions as to the interpretation of the rules (I realize most of it will come about on a case-by-case basis). Basically, what constitutes a news source? Some of the more prolific news sources are InterpreterMag, r/UkraineConflict, @StateOfUkraine, stopfake.org, etc which aren't traditional news sources (r/UkraineConflict is technically a reddit thread). They post mostly interpreted live events coverage with vetting against false news. Also, do direct statements (these days mostly tweets, but also draft articles etc.) from journalists count as news? Most newspapers have stopped the practice of writing up day-by-day status quo articles and instead have set up agglomeration sites such as these: Example. The consequence of this is that you can't really post news articles as they no longer get written up unless it's something big (even UNSC meetings don't get their own articles anymore, just blurbs), and tweets, and other informal messages through such agglomeration sites are what interested parties follow. Is it ok to post these tweets (for example the tweets reporting UNSC statements line by line, tweets/audio clips by govt. officials, but anything really) as long as the context makes it clear why that's important? Anyway, I guess I'll see myself. In my personal opinion, the stricter this is, the better, as having to explain why a source is important and trustworthy might make a lot of sense in the context of all the propaganda that's out there. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15327 Posts
But like you said this it's case by case basis and you can never go wrong with adding additional content to a link/tweet. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 22 2014 10:18 lichter wrote: "I was treated" unfairly doesn't help at all. ... Suggest solutions, then see how things improve Isn't it what I did in the opening post? Before moderators brought up the matter of my warning themselves, I didn't say a word about it's fairness. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
i HATE uppercase mixed with lowercase letters willy-nilly in one word. uuurrrgh, uneccessary and ugly. twin warnings on you and me (my response was an unecessary joke, but i couldn't resist, too ticklish) were totally fine. i demand you officially retract your comment about me spreading hate-speech, so slanderous! if it's not done before the thread is re-opened i will be forced to take tl-eagle action against you. ... as long as the moderation is even-handed i'm not gonna complain. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15327 Posts
This is about the Ukraine thread. You can take your discussions about spelling to PMs - where it should have been in the first place. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
And talking after the fact, how was I supposed to reason with this? i HATE uppercase mixed with lowercase letters willy-nilly in one word. uuurrrgh, uneccessary and ugly. | ||
|
KadaverBB
Germany25657 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34491 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 23 2014 05:34 Firebolt145 wrote: If you have a personal problem with someone (which this is) then it should be kept personal between the two of you. The public does not need to know about it, nor does the thread need to be derailed by it. So as long as everyone shuts up about the problems in communication in the thread, you and everyone else will be happy. Point taken. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
On May 23 2014 06:22 Cheerio wrote: So as long as everyone shuts up about the problems in communication in the thread, you and everyone else will be happy. Point taken. No dude. Okay I'll try to make this clear. The thread is about the situation of ukraine. The thread is not about your feeling "insulted" or the use of capitals or a fight between you and any other user. Please understand the following: -- The thread was at a point of terrible where the mods didn't know what to do and had given up moderating it because it was just too much to handle for them. Yeah it sucks that the thread devolved into garbage, but it got so bad the mods didnt know how to deal with it. They decided to enforce only the most simple of rules. The one thing TL has ALWAYS done is warn people who begin to have a personal "discussion" or fight or whatever you want to call it in a thread. Regardless of the thing that started it, one user can ask another to stop, and one or two back and forths usually ignored. If it goes on for more than one or two posts the users get warned. Unfortunately this occured while a lot of other shit was happening and the mods decided to enforce the easy moderation decision and not the ones that would involve a big effort - going back and moderating hundreds of pages of stuff. The decision made by zatic was the following after discussion with other TL staff: Close thread, make stricter rules, give the thread a cooling off period and then reopen it. This is exactly what happened. Unfortunately every post that hasnt been banned or warned prior to the closing and reopening is essentially given clemency. The time investment to go back and moderate from scratch the rest of the thread prior to the new rules is too much effort/impossible considering that everyone is a volunteer. The banlings don't get paid, they need to do their jobs in their own time. The staff dont get paid, we do stuff on our own time. The lesser of two evils has been decided upon. Heavy handed moderation starting now. You got in trouble for a warnable offence and you were warned. Other people didn't get in trouble because the decision to warn them was not as easy - the entire thread was a shit post haven but your fight was an issue for more than just being a shit post, it was something that is consistently moderated across TL and breaks more rules than simply being a shitpost. I hope this can make it clear. Shit sucks, you got warned (not a major offence on tl dont worry about it), move on. Does it suck? Yeah. Is it fair? Yes. Is it fair others didn't get warned? No. Does that have bearing on your specific situation in vacuum? No. Just because other people dont get in trouble doesnt mean you receive a "get out of moderation action free" card. | ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36375 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
 | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15327 Posts
On May 24 2014 03:10 Cheerio wrote: The thing is, if this is such a minor deal, why do I have like every moderator out there give me a speech? Especially considering how busy you are. And you are going in circles. Because you are not letting it go. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 24 2014 03:13 zlefin wrote: If you needed more moderators you coulda asked me, I'd a done it for free Traitor, don't join them, they are evil ^^ | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
So do you spend so much time on every disagreeing poster? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On May 24 2014 03:35 Cheerio wrote: So do you spend so much time on every disagreeing poster? Honestly, would either possible answer to this question satisfy you? You're the thread started, and even more, you started a thread in feedback, presumably because you wanted the mods to weigh in, right? I feel like they've given plenty of info and adequately explained their positions and their own limitations in terms of manpower and time to deal with the thread, and came up with a good solution. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 24 2014 03:42 Blazinghand wrote: Honestly, would either possible answer to this question satisfy you? You are right, it would not. If he says yes, that would be not true, and also mean extremely poor time management. If he says no, that would mean that this case is special after all, and this is somehow a big deal. | ||
|
Archas
United States6531 Posts
On May 24 2014 03:56 Cheerio wrote: You are right, it would not. If he says yes, that would be not true, and also mean extremely poor time management. If he says no, that would mean that this case is special after all, and this is somehow a big deal. Okay, look. As someone who has not participated in the Ukraine thread at all, this is how I see the series of events unfolding: You were warned for a post in a chaotic thread. Said thread has been incredibly difficult to moderate for some time, but your argument with another poster about a completely irrelevant topic was deemed a warnable offense, especially since you were told to take it to PMs. You make a thread here trying to absolve yourself of all guilt, and painting everyone else as bad posters instead of you. You think this is a true statement, because you reported like 20 posts out of what I can only assume is spite, because you see their posts as similarly grievous offenses. When mods respond to you in this thread, you play the victim and talk in circles, practically oozing passive-aggression with every post you make. Responding to mods with "Sorry for ruining your perfect world" after being given a perfectly reasonable request to take a childish argument to PMs, and oversimplifying a clarification to the point of ridiculousness to make yourself look like a cool guy and a savvy poster, are just two other affronts you've committed. In short, you're being absurdly arrogant. Your passive-aggressive whining and bitching is absolutely intolerable, and your inability to relax and let a warning go (which is like a slap on the wrist on TL and nothing more, who cares lol) only compounds just how much of a child you're being. So here's my advice. Take a deep breath, jack off, do some squats, take a hot shower... do SOMETHING to work off all that pent-up frustration you're having from your delusional world where everyone is out to make your day miserable... and let it go. And don't post in the Ukraine thread until you've done that. You'll feel better. Trust me. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 24 2014 04:46 Archas wrote: In short, you're being absurdly arrogant. Your passive-aggressive whining and bitching is absolutely intolerable, and your inability to relax and let a warning go (which is like a slap on the wrist on TL and nothing more, who cares lol) only compounds just how much of a child you're being. so if this case has been so absurdly easy, why did they waste so much time on me? | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On May 24 2014 05:08 Cheerio wrote: so if this case has been so absurdly easy, why did they waste so much time on me? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I know it's often better in refereeing to just make the call with no explanation; but I think here explanations attached to the warnings would be beneficial to the thread improvement process. | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37023 Posts
On May 24 2014 05:08 Cheerio wrote: so if this case has been so absurdly easy, why did they waste so much time on me? Would you rather the mods all ignore you? Then what? You'll start another thread saying TL mods don't care and aren't doing their jobs? | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On May 24 2014 06:18 Seeker wrote: Would you rather the mods all ignore you? Then what? You'll start another thread saying TL mods don't care and aren't doing their jobs? Why don't you try that and we find out? And once again. I wasn't the one who brought the issue of my warning up. Suddenly every moderator out there needs to tell me how fair was my warning... That's not me who is not leaving it behind, that's the whole lot of you. | ||
|
brian
United States9618 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/junta Is this acceptable? In case anyone was wondering, that's a pretty big insult, hence why nunez has continued to use the terms "junta" and "fascist junta" throughout the thread, despite the fact that the Ukrainian government is not comprised of self-imposed ultra authoritarian army commanders. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
from your link: a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially: a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power. from other def:a small group ruling a country, especially immediately after a coup d'état and before a legally constituted government has been instituted. dictionary.reference.com'junta' is apt, as the interrim govt is illegitimate and came to power through a coup, overthrowing the elected president. according to tl search i haven't used the term 'fascist junta', and used the phrase 'junta' on page 463 and 6 later posts. your indictment is inaccurate and inappropriate. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
The problem is that a 'junta' in its modern use refers to a group of individuals who took over power by force. Oxford English dictionary: This same meaning is present in the quoted definitions as well, albeit they are less clear. But what people talk about when they refer to juntas is generally something like a military coup d'etat. This is factually incorrect when used for the government in Ukraine (this has been discussed in detail in the media and reported several times in the thread, so I'll just post a brief summary). EuroMaidan never forced Yanukovich out of power, he left voluntarily. What happened next is that the elected parliament elected a transitional President (note that a president cannot be a group and juntas are by definition groups). Such transitional governments are common. We don't call Monti's Italian transitional government a junta, nor any other transitional executive formed by an elected government to manage the country until the next elections, so we shouldn't be calling Ukraine's government a junta either. This is because it is construed as suggesting that the previous government, in this case Yanukovich, was overthrown by force, which is misleading at best. Furthermore, there isn't a respected political scientist or journalist out there who is referring to the government in Ukraine as a junta. That's only done by Kremlin-controlled Russian media which has demonstrated its willingness to make up anything they want to discredit Ukraine on multiple occasions. Both the detailed sequence of events in Kyiv when Yanukovich left, and the connotations of the term have been discussed in detail in the thread, yet Nunez continues to use the term despite the ample evidence for its inappropriateness according to facts and with full knowledge of the fact that other people find it offensive. This has led to endless circular arguments in the thread, which devalue the entire conversation. *** P.S. While Nunez has not perhaps used the words 'fascist' and 'junta' in conjunction, a TL search demonstrated that he has argued that the same government that he calls a junta is fascist. Example: + Show Spoiler + On March 17 2014 21:37 nunez wrote: 'how would they have voted?' - i'd expect it to be massively pro-russia considering that report and the circumstances leading up to the referendum. i don't think the 15% who identified with ukrania then would vote in favor of what they surely consider an illegetimate govt with fascists in its ranks that overthrew the president they voted for, i'd prolly think around -23% of them would. Example 2 + Show Spoiler + On May 06 2014 14:15 nunez wrote: @hunts i think the extent of my allegations (at least on average) is that the us govt are overtly and probably covertly backing the coup or what-have-you for less than admirable reasons. my gripes with american go's like usaid and ned are not baseless, but speculative. my primary concern from the start of the thread has been with the ultranationalist and fascist elements of the maidan movement not being properly dealt with as well as foreign meddling. neither will do the ukrainians any good, and will make the probability of success of any democratic movement slimmer. the govt in kiev is the unholy child of these two factors, at least that seems to be the perception in eastern and southern ukraine. i don't think they should be trying to establish their legitimacy through violent means as they are now. it ain't gonna work, and the continued attempt is going to deepen the divide between west and east. the us absorbs most of my ire, but the us concerns me more than russia, since i am a western homosexual fascist after all. your pro-russian labelling is off base. @judi brennan paying a 'secret visit' to the kiev govt is indicative that the cia has something to do with the ukrainian govt, at the very least. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On May 26 2014 08:48 nunez wrote: welcome back. from your link: from other def: dictionary.reference.com 'junta' is apt, as the interrim govt is illegitimate and came to power through a coup, overthrowing the elected president. according to tl search i haven't used the term 'fascist junta', and used the phrase 'junta' on page 463 and 6 later posts. your indictment is inaccurate and inappropriate. My apologies, zeo is the one who coined fascist junta. In stark contrast you just say that Ukraine is a Junta which was instated by frighteningly fascist elements. What I don't understand is why you're using a word that is normally only used for its connotation of a coordinated military takeover of government institutions to be replaced by the invading leaders. In spite of your wide knowledge of alternate uses of the word junta, you don't seem to apply the word to the pro-russian separatists who occupy government buildings by force and prevent democratic elections. It's almost as if you're selectively applying this word because of its negative connotation. Otherwise your extremely broad definition could be expanded to include the Donetsk Junta, the Russian Junta, the American Junta and even the TL moderation Junta. Under such broad definitions as you have proposed I don't really believe that the word has any use aside from degrading the civility of the thread. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
yanu has described it as a violent coup and msm (f.ex guardian) describes him as an 'ousted' president. oust (oust) dictionarytr.v. oust·ed, oust·ing, ousts 1. To eject from a position or place; force out: "the American Revolution, which ousted the English" (Virginia S. Eifert). 2. To take the place of, especially by force; supplant. See Synonyms at eject. a quote from guardian, some militia announced late 21st feb after the deal twixt yanu and opposition was reached: “If it is not announced by 10 tomorrow that Yanukovich is gone, we’re going to attack with weapons,” he said. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/2/22/1393067564422/db262022-5733-4861-9763-dd6207b79cba-460x276.jpeg) guardian pic from outside the rada the day of the ousting, party of regions (yanu's party) politician getting beat up i'd say that ghans suggestion that yanu left voluntarily and that the interrim govt didn't come to power through force is preposterous, but trying to goad tl moderation into censoring him would be wrong. i'm not gonna cry if jorm chooses to describe the leaders of 'novorossiya' as a 'junta' either, as it would likely be an apt descriptor, just like it is in the case of the interrim govt. you will forgive me for not losing any sleep over your accusations of degrading the civility in the thread, mr. pollster. ;> | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
The incident Nunez is alluding to in a heavily misrepresented manner is probably the following: The atmosphere remained tense late Friday in Independence Square. When one of the opposition leaders, former boxing champion Vitali Klitschko, told the crowds this was the best deal they could get, one of the protesters grabbed the microphone and demanded that Yanukovych resign or face the wrath of the people. “We will go with weapons,” said the protester, who leads one of the more militant groups in the square. “I swear it.” Source. As you can see, this was not a statement by some militia, nor the leaders of the EuroMaidan movement but just some lone nutcase. As many others he was disappointed in the fact that the negotiations on Feb. 21st had not resulted in Yanukovych's ouster as he could remain president until the next elections. People called for a stronger deal, but the EuroMaidan leaders accepted the deal as it was and allowed Yanokovych to stay on. As for the picture, it could be one of thousands of photos, many of them photoshopped. Without a source I have no way of providing the appropriate context. But considering that there had been no possible violence against Rada members before the Feb. 21 deal, I cannot imagine how Yanukovych could have known it was going to happen in the future. Also, while Rada members are relatively regular people, Yanukovych has its own armed guard and a guy with a baseball bat would not accomplish anything. And it's not censorship to moderate someone who is willfully misrepresenting the state of affairs and using language that's aggressively loaded. There's a point to which you can have reasonable doubt that the poster is merely confused or has made a mistake, but not if the language persists as misleading for months. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
and naw... according to one of your fav spindoctors: Commander of a #EuroMaidan self-defense 'sotnya' from stage gives #Yanukovych ultimatum: resign by 10am, or we fight w/ weapons. *applause* aka a militia commander.— Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) February 21, 2014 the fascist militias (right sector, trident, una-unso etc) in the vanguard of the maidan protests did not pop up on the 22 of feb, the police left their stations in kiev on the 21st of feb as well, maidan had full control of the rada. at this point it seems like we've veered over into off-topic discussion, though. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On May 26 2014 23:33 nunez wrote: sourced from 21st, 22nd feb as it happened pages of guardian, same with the pic. as for the 'ousted president', just google it. it's used in a lot of msm rags, guardian among others. and naw... according to one of your fav spindoctors: aka a militia commander. the fascist militias (right sector, trident, una-unso etc) in the vanguard of the maidan protests did not pop up on the 22 of feb, the police left their stations in kiev on the 21st of feb as well, maidan had full control of the rada. at this point it seems like we've veered over into off-topic discussion, though. So you are now telling us that instead of the government being seized by force, you have sources which suggest that a small group of rebels (up to 144) threatened to force the leader of a nation out of office (Couldn't you find a group in any nation which threatened this in any given year?) but ultimately proved to be nothing but empty air. When and where did the organized military takeover of the Ukraine Parliament occur? So far all you have is that the leader of 144,000 troops fled from a force of up to 144 people. I'm not an army general, but that doesn't sound like a sufficient threat to make a leader of an entire country feel threatened. I would hazard a guess that Obama and Putin get worse threats on a daily basis. So no, your assertion that the Ukrainian Prime Minister was 'forced' out (despite the fact that he was never under duress) is as tenuous as your broad definition of junta. So far your use of the word junta to indicate your disbelief in the legitimacy of the interim ukrainian government is tantamount to calling a woman a cunt to indicate that she is female. This, along with your selective use of the word to describe a group you don't support (where you have to spend a few paragraphs to explain how it technically applies) while demonstrating your reluctance to use the word to describe the groups you support (which is a clear cut example of the main denotation of the word by your own admission) would suggest that you are using the word as an insult. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
junta dictionarya small group ruling a country, especially immediately after a coup d'état and before a legally constituted government has been instituted. coup d'etat dictionarya sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force. force dictionaryunlawful violence threatened or committed against persons or property. where is the clause that necessitates a organized military take-over for 'junta' to be used? was the ousting illegitimate? yep, hence coup is an apt descriptor. was the interrim govt legally constituted? no, hence junta is an apt descriptor. was the ousting done by force? yep, and the above holds regardless. i am decidedly (i have decided this) on the ball with the use of the word 'junta', maybe if i'd been saying 'fascist junta' throughout the thread you'd have 4/41 of a case, but i haven't, so you don't. as it stands i'm on trial for not practicing doublespeak. soon two tl moderators will knock on my door, take me out into a field and stab me to death. as i bleed out i'll cry crocodile tears over your indiscriminate use of the phrase 'commie separatists', returning the favor. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On May 27 2014 02:32 nunez wrote: the number 144 is a figment of your imagination, just like my usage of 'fascist junta', or my reluctance to use the word junta against groups you have decided that i support (through an illegitimate poll no doubt), or me using a 'broad definition' of a junta, when i'm using the defintion quoted from a dictionary on this very page, just ~4 posts up (for the record the most narrow definition one the page). lets revisit, we are playing wordgames after all... dictionarydictionarydictionary where is the clause that necessitates a organized military take-over for 'junta' to be used? was the ousting illegitimate? yep, hence coup is an apt descriptor. was the interrim govt legally constituted? no, hence junta is an apt descriptor. was the ousting done by force? yep, and the above holds regardless. i am decidedly (i have decided this) on the ball with the use of the word 'junta', maybe if i'd been saying 'fascist junta' throughout the thread you'd have 4/41 of a case, but i haven't, so you don't. as it stands i'm on trial for not practicing doublespeak. soon two tl moderators will knock on my door, take me out into a field and stab me to death. as i bleed out i'll cry crocodile tears over your indiscriminate use of the phrase 'commie separatists', returning the favor. I think the last posts give an apt overview of Nunez's behaviour. As was the case in the previous thread, he will just keep repeating the same no matter what anybody replies. If he has decided that Yanukovych was ousted, that what happened in Kyiv was a coup d'etat, and that power was seized by some outside group, despite all evidence, lack of support from journalists (hey, for him they're spin doctors anyway) and diplomats alike, and it being public knowledge that Yanukovych fled the country in the early hours of February the 21st, then there is no power in the universe that can enter his mind and change it. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
yanu left late 21st of feb as reported in guardian via us state department, f.ex: A US state department official said president Vladimir Yanukovych left Kiev late Friday after a day of whirlwind political activity. Yanukovych began the day by signing a deal with opposition leaders in which he vowed not to declare a state of emergency, and acceded to demands for a new coalition government and early presidential elections. The text of the deal is here. ... One official said the state department believes that Yanukovych has left the Ukrainian capital of Kiev for the city of Kharkiv, in the east, “to shore up support there” – but that he has not fled the country. since you're resorting to ad-homs, i believe this discussion has indeed run its course. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Did you post that text because I referred to the night of February the 21st as its early hours? Sorry for the confusion, but I meant some time in the night after the 21st of February peace agreement. And it's not an ad hominem to discuss your posting, if that's the topic here. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
do you have any source that he fled the country before being ousted (~2 pm 22nd of feb yanu described it as a coup) that goes beyond a rumor? i already sourced him being reported to leave for khrakov (reported by us state officials). both of this from guardian as it happened articles. the url is a google search of 'yanu ousted', type it in yourself and weep. ousted president is a common description. the topic is not my general posting. it's the the usage of the word 'junta' to describe the interrim govt. you should be trying to establish that the interrim govt was legitimate, that the ousting was legitimate, and that this is the only 'factual' interpretation of events (good luck with this). instead you produce a hatchet job of my general posting... heh. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On May 27 2014 04:22 nunez wrote: no, that would be the early hours of feb the 22st... do you have any source that he fled the country before being ousted (~2 pm 22nd of feb yanu described it as a coup) that goes beyond a rumor? i already sourced him being reported to leave for khrakov (reported by us state officials). both of this from guardian as it happened articles. the url is a google search of 'yanu ousted', type it in yourself and weep. ousted president is a common description. the topic is not my general posting. it's the the usage of the word 'junta' to describe the interrim govt. you should be trying to establish that the interrim govt was legitimate, that the ousting was legitimate, and that this is the only 'factual' interpretation of events (good luck with this). instead you produce a hatchet job of my general posting... heh. Here you go, February 21st February 22nd February 23rd You can read the news as it happened. Yanukovych made a deal in which he agreed to change the constitution and to have early elections. People wanted his resignation as well. During the night between the 21st and 22nd he fled, breaking his end of the deal as he wouldn't sign the Rada documents needed for constitutional change and elections. On the 23rd the Rada elected an interim president to replace him. I never understood why the word 'oust' is important here, it's used for all kinds of things: being fired, being impeached (most relevant here), being thrown out of the country. So it doesn't imply that there was a coup d'etat, and it doesn't justify your claims that the legitimate government in Kyiv is a junta. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On May 27 2014 04:53 Zealously wrote: There are still some issues remaining with posting in the Ukraine Crisis thread in question that we hope we'll be able to eventually solve with the more consistent moderation we've taken to since the new policy, but you've gone pretty far off the rails here. You're free to discuss this further in PMs, but what you two are doing now is more of a slapfight than a discussion, and this thread gains little from it. Ok, will cease and desist this unpleasantness. Honestly, this is a pretty good example of what has gone wrong with the discussion in the Ukraine thread itself. Without a common framework the exchanges don't work. Even stricter moderation of the framework (forcing people to be nice) is how I see the thread surviving. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On May 27 2014 17:47 PaleMan wrote: As I thought Ukraine doesn't want to pay for gas which is already shipped (not 1st time thoug) Source Since Ghan thinks he is thread captain or something I will post ONLY Itar-Tass sources even if there is others for same news, Itar-tass was founded in 1902 while biased, west-worshipping Kyev-Post (which Ghan likes so much) in 1995 by american citizen Jed Sunden. Now it is owned by british citizen Mohammad Zahoor. Nuff said. How is that allowed and acceptable while this is worthy of warning? On May 27 2014 18:25 Ghanburighan wrote: DPR separatists burned down the local hockey club. Local news does not take kindly to it "this is how the separatists `love' our home Donetsk'. The longer article isn't out yet. User was warned for this post It seems to me that in the first post someone deliberately went after ghan on a couple occasions (and Paleman has a history of getting temp banned for things like this in the same thread if I remember correctly) while in the second quoted post there was a link to a local news source that was translated. Or is it too early in the morning and I am missing something? | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
he's using biased sources himself (kyivpost, ukrainereporter, conflictreporter, nytimes, euromaidanpr), that at times account for little more than propaganda outlets for various illegitimate govt officials. this time he's telling ppl to refrain from using itar-tass after linking 4 isntances of 'false news' posted on a 3 month old, kiev based 'antipropaganda' blog, but he's been doing it throughout the thread (even pando and mark ames, who r so cool). we already have rules of conduct specifying we should provide context for our contribs, the mods can deal with extreme cases, and the readers can decide for themselves. ... one-liner tweets with one picture or movie from biased sources like ukrainereporter, conflictreporter and euromaidanpr, that is not posted in relation to a story and are speculating on what is happening in the picture or movie, is just noise for the thread. three examples, all from ghan: comment when his source ukrainereporter showed what 'may be proof' that the lifenews journos, that the osce asked to be released, and that now were released, were 'helping separatists shoot at ukrainian troops': This is especially despicable as journalists need to be seen as independent bystanders for their own protection. This endangers the lives of thousands of journalists around the world. Which probably suits the Kremlin just perfect. this story was obvious bs, yet it seems like the majority of the posters in the thread actually believed in it. the video had nothing in it that could be construed as proof.comment to a one-liner tweet with a picture, that says 'what is happened is still unclear', ghan provides the speculation himself and presents it as showing 'definite fighting'... Please use reputable sources only. ITAR-TASS either willfully or by mispractice gets its facts wrong. For example, there was definite fighting at or near the railway station. there's nothing in the tweet or pic 'definitely' indicating that there was fighting near the railway station.comment to another recent unconfirmed ukrainereporter oneliner tweet with a pic and no story Breaking news, a great many casualties on the Pro-Russia side (this time Chechens) again, it's not breaking news, it's a dubious one-liner tweet from a biased source accompanied with a picture.and i have no clue why carlbildt's tweets are worthy of constant reposting in our thread. i think what the stealthblue bot is doing in syrian thread, posting tweets or youtube vids where it is clear what is happening (a big bomb is going off) is good shit, though. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
how is this not breaking the new rules? | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
the last 3 pages is more proof of that in addition to my prev post in this thread. edit: very well. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15327 Posts
Cheerio, which rules specifically do you see broken? | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On June 13 2014 03:21 zatic wrote: If you two want to discuss this use PMs please. Cheerio, which rules specifically do you see broken? 1) calling names 2) absolutely no content added 3) promotes aggression On June 13 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: So you know exactly what's going on in ukraine, well enough to state that anyone who disagrees with something is an idiot? Interesting... Not exactly the rules, but my understanding. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15327 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
don't see the value of reposting those tweets in thread, would have been permed posting like that on tl. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On June 13 2014 03:45 nunez wrote: the fake picture cheerio posted was also tweeted by ukraine reporter btw. don't see the value of reposting those tweets in thread, would have been permed posting like that on tl. and how is that relevant to the issue we are discussing? | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15327 Posts
The Ukraine thread generates more than half of my mod work, and that of other mods, and seeing the atrocious quality in there, I am frankly not seeing what all the work is good for. I'll give it a little more time since I don't like to action anything while annoyed, but if this continues we'll have to close the thread for good. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
BeaTeR
Kazakhstan4130 Posts
do you want only you and Ghan in that thread? Cause you both provide only onesided information. Someone should balance things out you know... | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
KadaverBB
Germany25657 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On June 13 2014 04:59 KadaverBB wrote: Yes, lets just ban all the people arguing against you and call it a win? I dislike this depiction of events. The thread used to have a large number of people from a large number of backgrounds with healthy discussion between them. As is usual for a place as large as Russia, there were varied points of view coming from within Russia as well, and we had good constructive exchanges with many Russian posters (oo_Wonderful_oo and the fastest poster since The Bot come to mind). It's also not the case that there's some alliance between Cheerio and me, or some anti-Russia front. Under the current situation where information is scarce, and disinformation is plentiful, there are reasonable disagreements between all people about what counts as reliable information, and also which conclusions can be drawn. + Show Spoiler + See my recent exchange with M4ini What Cheerio is drawing attention to is basically de facto the case. I wouldn't like to clump Paleman, Nunez and Zeo because I think they have different patterns though. The clearest case is Paleman who spends more time being warned or banned than actually using TL. While he improved for a while just a short time ago, previously his pattern of posting has been to be banned, return straight to the thread and get banned for the same thing again. He is currently temp banned again for basically just never changing his posting. What's common between the three is the refusal to see that there's desinformation being spread around, and that most Russian news sources are no longer doing journalism. If this point is contentious in the eyes of the moderating staff, I can explain it in detail, but I honestly think there are no serious analysts out there who would defend sites like RT, Lifenews or Itar-Tass. Just for the record, I also think that ATO spokesmen and other Ukrainian govt. sources cannot be used as sources anymore, independent journalists consistently and directly contradict their claims (such as `300 terrorists are being killed per day'). On the other hand, the new moderation policy for the thread does not directly stop posts from Itar-Tass, RT.com, EuromaidanPR, etc., which is correct to the extent that they are good sources for certain things (Itar-Tass usually represents the Russian MFA view in fuller detail than other sources). But this leads to these three posters in particular to post news items from those sources claiming them to be accurate reporting, which leads to arguments, and with good cause. For example, the recent White Phosphorus article they ran has been confirmed by no independent journalists and is only being ran on Lifenews, Itar-Tass and RT.com. Yet, some of the footage being used to verify the claim was shown to be from 2004 and from Iraq. The other footage has not been debunked yet, but it should illustrate how misleading it would be to accept what Russian govt. controlled news sources are publishing. Now, it would be ok to not have policy on what is a reliable source if two conditions were met: a) all posters would critically appraise sources after discussion on them in the thread, b) the discussions were civil. But if we look at Paleman, for example, he has taken on the position that only Itar-Tass articles should be posted + Show Spoiler [post in question] + On May 27 2014 17:47 PaleMan wrote: As I thought Ukraine doesn't want to pay for gas which is already shipped (not 1st time thoug) Source Since Ghan thinks he is thread captain or something I will post ONLY Itar-Tass sources even if there is others for same news, Itar-tass was founded in 1902 while biased, west-worshipping Kyev-Post (which Ghan likes so much) in 1995 by american citizen Jed Sunden. Now it is owned by british citizen Mohammad Zahoor. Nuff said. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On June 13 2014 04:59 KadaverBB wrote: Yes, lets just ban all the people arguing against you and call it a win? Have you even read the last couple of pages there? Because I haven't seen any arguing. Today the thread returned to the old ways, but even by the older rules some posts should have been at least warned, but they weren't. So the question is do you let the thread decay further or do you stop it right there. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On June 13 2014 05:58 Cheerio wrote: Have you even read the last couple of pages there? Because I haven't seen any arguing. Today the thread returned to the old ways, but even by the older rules some posts should have been at least warned, but they weren't. So the question is do you let the thread decay further or do you stop it right there. The problem is that the Ukraine Crisis is an important issue. There is no "right" way to do this - we can and do try to moderate the thread to the best of all of our abilities, but it is difficult as all hell when people take subtle jabs at one another constantly and resort to reporting people they disagree with when others do not take their bait (backseat moderation and continuous offhand remarks about the quality of moderation with no constructive feedback does not help the issue). Closing the thread is just as bad, if not worse, a solution as staggering our way through a sea of reports none of us can handle perfectly or even make sense of most of the time, but if you have an easy solution to the problem I'm all ears. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On June 13 2014 06:18 Zealously wrote: The problem is that the Ukraine Crisis is an important issue. There is no "right" way to do this - we can and do try to moderate the thread to the best of all of our abilities, but it is difficult as all hell when people take subtle jabs at one another constantly and resort to reporting people they disagree with when others do not take their bait (backseat moderation and continuous offhand remarks about the quality of moderation with no constructive feedback does not help the issue). Closing the thread is just as bad, if not worse, a solution as staggering our way through a sea of reports none of us can handle perfectly or even make sense of most of the time, but if you have an easy solution to the problem I'm all ears. Show me a single subtle jab made not by nunez, Paleman, or zeo after the new rules. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On June 13 2014 06:37 Cheerio wrote: Show me a single subtle jab made not by nunez, Paleman, or zeo after the new rules. I got warned for lashing out at Nunez. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
P.S. gave me an idea. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
no doubt that russian, ukrainian and even western newspapers are pushing biased coverage, false news, and echo govt sanctioned conspiracies (kyivpost, nytimes, dailybeast, rt, lifenews), and liquidians will scrutinize the articles they produce with caution. but can't be compared with the constant stream of disinfo garbage from twitter feeds and propaganda sites (ukraine reporter, conflict reporter, euromaidanpr, stopfake etc) which you insist on reposting in the thread. you're the only one still making that mistake, which is why my post appears to be biased. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On June 13 2014 06:56 nunez wrote: @ghan no doubt that russian, ukrainian and even western newspapers are pushing biased coverage, false news, and echo govt sanctioned conspiracies (kyivpost, nytimes, dailybeast, rt, lifenews), and liquidians will scrutinize the articles they produce with caution. but can't be compared with the constant stream of disinfo garbage from twitter feeds and propaganda sites (ukraine reporter, conflict reporter, euromaidanpr, stopfake etc) which you insist on reposting in the thread. you're the only one still making that mistake, which is why my post appears to be biased. I think this post serves as an excellent illustration of why the discussion doesn't get off the ground. The bolder parts are basically a personal attack saying I post `disinfo garbage' without any evidence. Why make it a personal and nasty like that? Also, there's this strange sense that twitter is bad, yet almost all major parties are making public statements on twitter these days, this includes journalists and heads of states. If we look at the list, we have a weird mix of things. While I agree that euromaidanpr had become a propaganda site, ukraine reporter is an excellent source. They post breaking content and generally qualify it accurately. For example, regarding the tanks entering Ukraine, they were adamant about the reports being iffy. As it happens, tanks did enter Ukraine from Russia today, they just happened to be different tanks than originally thought. Here's one of their latest posts on the topic: As you can see, they are very critical of their sources and happy to debunk their own posts when new information arises. Conflictreporter is a German news source specializing in Middle East coverage. I honestly don't know why anyone would consider them a propaganda source or for who. Stop Fake is a new fact-checking cite recently endorsed by the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard. They are excellent at calling out fake news. For example they reported on the White Phophoros story by a Russian news agency using 2004 footage. And they have called a lot of the hoaxes out there. I don't think you can argue that they somehow spread propaganda if we can all see that the footage is CNN footage from Iraq. So to call the cite a propaganda site is dis disingenious at best. But the best test for a cite to check whether it's propaganda or not is to find them breaking official government lines. Ukraine continues to assert that it didn't bomb the local separatist HQ in Luhansk, well Stop Fake debunks all such claims. They posted a whole lot of analysis and they reach the same conclusion as Interpretermag, OSCE and we in the thread. It was most likely a govt. plane bombing the HQ. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
using stopfake as a source is comparable with using this thread as a source, after you filter out everyone who disagrees with the side you wanna front. it's a facebook group for calling bs on russian media (99% of the time) and that piece is hardly an endorsement... it doesn't matter if ukrainereporter puts out an 'i'm sorry, i'm full of shit' every once in a while after he/she flings it. if he/she were continuosly posting bs like that on tl, he/she'd be permed. he/she produces no content, constantly spreads disinfo and propaganda, we have 0 accountability or any way of knowing what interests that twitter act represents (allthough it's painfully obvious what it's purpose is), yet you think he/she is an excellent source. and you are quite literally the only one who insists on reposting worthless disinfo tweets in thread that wouldn't make the cut if you had posted it directly yourself, it's garbage, why bother. you even repost it before real reporting is done on whatever it is they're trying to spin, and needlessly shit up the thread, like this debacle is a good example of. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On June 13 2014 07:35 nunez wrote: rofl ye, just check conflictreporter twitter feed and you will know that russia has been invading ukraine for about 4 months. using stopfake as a source is comparable with using this thread as a source, after you filter out everyone who disagrees with the side you wanna front. it's a facebook group for calling bs on russian media (99% of the time) and that piece is hardly an endorsement... it doesn't matter if ukrainereporter puts out an 'i'm sorry, we're full of shit' every once in a while after they fling it. if they were continuosly posting bs like that on tl, they'd be permed. and you are quite literally the only one who insists on reposting garbage disinfo tweets (ukraine reporter in particular). Well it's not their fault those are lying so much. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
My basic criteria boil down to: 1. Does my post add anything to the conversation? 2. Am I saying something that any regular reader of the thread could assume I would say? 3. Is my post intentional flame bait? If my post fails these, I generally go back to lurking. Granted, I sometimes let my ego get the better of me (MY FEELINGS MUST BE KNOWN!!!!!). Nunez has the same problem but is always willing to return to the old wild-west posting quality of the Ukraine Crisis thread. He needs to avoid getting personally attached or stop posting, because as it is he has a very bad habit of lowering the level of discussion in the thread to suit the level of argument he perceives from others, instead of raising it to outperform them. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
Still no warning so I guess it is fine with the new rules. My question is could some moderator clarify when a statement like that is ok and when not because I would really like to use that argument myself. | ||
|
KadaverBB
Germany25657 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On June 16 2014 04:17 KadaverBB wrote: He was already warned for a seperate post, there was no sense in dishing out 2 warnings in the span of 5 minutes. Are you kidding me? If somebody violates the rules a few times in a short period that is a reason for more severity, not less, because it eliminates the chances that it happened by accident. "Violate a rule once and you can do it again for free in 5 minutes." Seriously what the hell? | ||
|
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34491 Posts
On June 16 2014 06:22 Cheerio wrote: Are you kidding me? If somebody violates the rules a few times in a short period that is a reason for more severity, not less, because it eliminates the chances that it happened by accident. "Violate a rule once and you can do it again for free in 5 minutes." Seriously what the hell? He was warned for the second of two warn-worthy posts, so yes it covers both of them. It wasn't a case of warn -> post terribly again 5 minutes later, which would indeed result in more action. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
Ok, think of the precedent you are making for those who don't read this thread: a guy basically calls his opponents idiots (something not only me pointed out) and walks away with it. And this is happening in the thread with stricter moderation rules than on the rest of the forum. You are undermining your own efforts. | ||
|
KadaverBB
Germany25657 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On June 16 2014 07:19 KadaverBB wrote: He got a warning, how did he walk away with it? For the other post | ||
|
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34491 Posts
On June 16 2014 06:44 Firebolt145 wrote: He was warned for the second of two warn-worthy posts, so yes it covers both of them. | ||
|
AlternativeEgo
Sweden17309 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
On June 16 2014 07:38 AlternativeEgo wrote: Just action all posts worthy of actioning if you are to sport a zero tolerance policy. Sure it takes a few extra clicks but it could save you from a few more. Also because it should be actioned. And maybe you should not let netizens continue to post in a thread if they have been banned in it six times already. That could also save a few clicks. It is completely redundant to action two posts from the same poster within a matter of seconds. If it is truly an issue, then the severity goes up (warn -->> temp or temp -->> longer temp.) It is completely within keeping of TL moderation to action one post of a few posts (but using all posts to judge severity), and giving the poster time to smarten up or else escalating. Two warns in a row does nothing, and escalating without giving a chance to amend is no good either. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On June 16 2014 19:24 nunez wrote: good night ukraine crisis thread, you were good to us. Not really | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
zatic
Zurich15327 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 17 2014 23:37 heliusx wrote: I've read every page of that thread and I didn't see much more than endless wrist slapping on the same users. Why not just ban them from posting there? I'm not trying to disparage what you guys do for free but I feel like current event threads like this are the best part of general. I like reading opinions from around the world. Yeah I kind of felt the same way. For what it's worth, my opinion is that the warnings were worthless. I would be in favor of much looser moderation standards (Let the banhammer fall!). Starting out with min 1 week bans should do the trick for the thread if you hand them out like candy. Since the thread has basically become the veiled insult/hidden jab thread, I would go with the "If in doubt, ban the lout" principle, even though I've been trying to report people who fall for flamebait and thus derail the discussion. The ukraine thread does seem ridiculously lenient. I would also say that posting stuff like Euromaidenpr, StateofUkraine, Itar-Tass, and russia today without proper 'this is likely bullshit' and 'this is exactly the part of the article which informs the discussion" disclaimers should be against the rules. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On June 17 2014 23:37 heliusx wrote: I've read every page of that thread and I didn't see much more than endless wrist slapping on the same users. Why not just ban them from posting there? I'm not trying to disparage what you guys do for free but I feel like current event threads like this are the best part of general. I like reading opinions from around the world. The problem is that in almost every case it isn't as simple as "just banning them from posting". In most cases, the people with the strongest opinions are also those most involved and most knowledgable on the subject. Take Cheerio for example; he has had several run-ins with moderation and has made a heap of questionable posts, but you'd be hard pressed to find users that have contributed more to the thread than he has. So what's the solution? Just banning him would indeed improve the thread in some ways, but it would also lose one of its (sometimes) best contributors. If we were to ban all of the people with strong opinions on the subject, chances are that the thread would have died down on its own because those users were the ones taking the time to investigate and keep up with the situation. On June 18 2014 00:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Goodbye Ukraine Crisis thread, formerly known as the Euromaiden thread, I will miss you. It was good and interesting thread for infomation when it started, but lack of moderation, (I saw blantant lies like someone claiming a video was faked when it wasn't)and that in the end it just seemed like none of the moderators wanted to moderate, since after saying you will moderate more harshly, you ended up making an example of one person, and sadly didn't extend that harshness to any other poster, with the effect that it ended up being less tolerance than a normal thread. Are you arguing that we were less harsh after the updated policy? I agree that quality of moderation waned the days before the thread was locked, but I protest against the notion that we made an example of a single user and nothing else. Please provide context and I'll see if I can address your concerns - I'm sure that if you feel like something was not properly moderated, there is a reason behind it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 13 2014 06:18 Zealously wrote: The problem is that the Ukraine Crisis is an important issue. There is no "right" way to do this - we can and do try to moderate the thread to the best of all of our abilities, but it is difficult as all hell when people take subtle jabs at one another constantly and resort to reporting people they disagree with when others do not take their bait (backseat moderation and continuous offhand remarks about the quality of moderation with no constructive feedback does not help the issue). Closing the thread is just as bad, if not worse, a solution as staggering our way through a sea of reports none of us can handle perfectly or even make sense of most of the time, but if you have an easy solution to the problem I'm all ears. I'd be willing to handle all the moderation myself. That's easy (for you at least). also, in response to the post directly above; it seemed you were doing strong for a few days, then got lax again; at least that's my impression/recollection. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
Just go through the thread and see how many times you see 'well I'm objective' only for their following post to be the most one-sided devoid of reality country-bashing shitposting you can see on this site. And hey, just because I say I'm objective gives me the right to lynch anyone that doesn't agree with my twisted world view. Please mods, go through my report history and see how many times I have reported anyone in the Euromaidan thread, or how many posts I have made in the thread or anywhere else on TL asking for someone to get banned. I stand by my beliefs that everyone has a right to their own opinion and should have the right to express their opinion on this site if its expressed in an articulated and sane way. There are literally a dozen people who never meaningfully contributed to the Euromaidan thread ether through discussion/analysis or posting news. All these posters did was comment on how someone should be banned because they have an opinion different to their own, and in general shit up the thread. Surprise surprise they also post here because all they care about is backseat moderating and crusading against people they deem to have not fallen in line. | ||
|
zatic
Zurich15327 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On June 18 2014 02:16 Zealously wrote: Are you arguing that we were less harsh after the updated policy? I agree that quality of moderation waned the days before the thread was locked, but I protest against the notion that we made an example of a single user and nothing else. Please provide context and I'll see if I can address your concerns - I'm sure that if you feel like something was not properly moderated, there is a reason behind it. Well, you tempbanned Cheerio extremely quickly after the new rules, but after that action it was lax afterwards. Anyhow, isn't backseat moderating normally a warning or bannable action? You guys didn't really bother to enforce that ideal either, with the overal effect that it really felt like the thread had more tolerance than a normal thread even after the additonal thread rules.. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Well, if they don't wanna do the moderation effort the thread would take so be it; time is limited after all, and that thread woulda used a lot of it. Too bad they didn't want to try other things though. I find your complaint funny zeo; though with plenty of good points. It's not surprising there's a rise in backseat moderation when there isn't enough regular moderation. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 19 2014 09:21 Cheerio wrote: What killed the thread was that moderation failed at adhering to the spirit of law. When moderators feel like they need to go at great lengths to defend the "trolls" there is the problem right there. That would include you derailing the thread for taking minor flamebait way too seriously. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
At any rate; it doesn't change the validity of his point; even if he himself may well get in trouble for it. I still wish they'd used alternate options to keep the thread open and moderated. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On June 19 2014 10:09 zlefin wrote: perhaps not allowing people to flamebait in the first place would be beneficial? At any rate; it doesn't change the validity of his point; even if he himself may well get in trouble for it. I still wish they'd used alternate options to keep the thread open and moderated. that would be hard to accomplish. But when some people are flamebating excessively, sometimes in every single post, perhaps a thread would be better off without them. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
On June 20 2014 03:13 Cheerio wrote: that would be hard to accomplish. But when some people are flamebating excessively, sometimes in every single post, perhaps a thread would be better off without them. You're doing the whole 'ban everyone who doesn't agree with me because I say I'm right and they are wrong' thing again. | ||
|
brian
United States9618 Posts
| ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 20 2014 17:47 zeo wrote: You're doing the whole 'ban everyone who doesn't agree with me because I say I'm right and they are wrong' thing again. No, he's just overreacting. Most of the assholes (looking at you and your 'embasies' comments) just need 1 week temps every time they start thinking it's the subtle jab thread. Likewise, every time cheerio & co bite on petty flamebait bullshit, they should get 1 week bans. That way either everyone learns how to not be a smarmy cunt. None of this weak warning sauce that nobody worries about. #HoldtheHeathenHammerHigh | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6284 Posts
Let me explain something to you, in the real world there is no wrong side, there is no right side, something that is good for one person is bad for the other ect. You get the point. No one has any right to claim (at least in regards to the situation in Ukraine) their point of view is absolutely right, though everyone should have the right to voice their opinion. The point of a discussion thread is not to cry 'he is raping me with his independent thoughts that conflict with what CNN told me' every page. All people should feel safe to share with everyone their point of view in regards to the situation and thats just not happening, its like any post thats not Russia bashing is deemed unacceptable by the majority and people who while being supremely biased themselves have the audacity to claim they are unbiased. There is no talk in that thread because you have people who have claimed a monopoly over what is right and lynch anyone that doesn't agree with them. I post about things happening on the Russian side because nobody is posting about them, ether don't allow both sides to have a say or go hive-mind. Don't call it a discussion thread and don't claim to be unbiased, because you are not. The backseat moderators are in 80% of the cases the ones shitting up the thread with their crying and moaning about how shitty the thread is, which in turn gets more people to bitch and moan. | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On June 20 2014 23:20 zeo wrote: Are you calling me an asshole? Because someone chose to latch onto a figure of speech to change the subject? Let me explain something to you, in the real world there is no wrong side, there is no right side, something that is good for one person is bad for the other ect. You get the point. No one has any right to claim (at least in regards to the situation in Ukraine) their point of view is absolutely right, though everyone should have the right to voice their opinion. The point of a discussion thread is not to cry 'he is raping me with his independent thoughts that conflict with what CNN told me' every page. All people should feel safe to share with everyone their point of view in regards to the situation and thats just not happening, its like any post thats not Russia bashing is deemed unacceptable by the majority and people who while being supremely biased themselves have the audacity to claim they are unbiased. There is no talk in that thread because you have people who have claimed a monopoly over what is right and lynch anyone that doesn't agree with them. I post about things happening on the Russian side because nobody is posting about them, ether don't allow both sides to have a say or go hive-mind. Don't call it a discussion thread and don't claim to be unbiased, because you are not. The backseat moderators are in 80% of the cases the ones shitting up the thread with their crying and moaning about how shitty the thread is. Oh quit whining to me. Your persecution complex doesn't give you the inalienable authority to shit up the thread. When you post something factually inaccurate, and someone points it out you should edit it. I don't give two shits about the Russian bullshit or the Ukrainian bullshit when they don't add to the thread. Your opinion is not valuable because of the mere fact that it exists. If it does not add to the thread it should be cut out like the cancer it is. This is not the letting off steam thread, and posting your feelings rather than your arguments should get you banned. If your argument is to post things which are easily proven false BY YOUR OWN SOURCE then you should also get a ban. This doesn't even begin to get into the moderation nightmare of having to deal with reports of questionable sources. HINT: If your source sounds like + Show Spoiler + This leaves room for discussion, because otherwise you have morons taking both as the god given truth, and yall just throw shit at each other hoping some of it will stick. | ||
|
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
| ||
|
KadaverBB
Germany25657 Posts
| ||
| ||
