|
Please kindly ask Ghanburighan to translate his twitter posts instead of just posting links to them.
|
On July 19 2014 04:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Please kindly ask Ghanburighan to translate his twitter posts instead of just posting links to them.
Twitter have translate button but I agree with you
|
On July 19 2014 04:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Please kindly ask Ghanburighan to translate his twitter posts instead of just posting links to them.
You'll note that the original post had a functional translation above the tweet. As it noted, all that the tweet said was that OSCE denies being shot at.
|
In light of the current progression of the MH17 thread, I'd like to request that you also limit any speculative and/or unconfirmed news, including hearsay and non-official Twitter reports.
The kind of speculation we get from such sources is quickly leading to the same kind of shitposting that made the Ukraine Crisis thread impossible to follow.
For example, look at this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/462231-malaysian-airliner-shot-down-over-eastern-ukraine?page=37
One tweet that was later rebuked by OSCE led to a page or two of low-quality posts.
|
On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:42 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
You should be allowed to post official statements or videos by rebels, ukraine or russia. I mean official. But ofc you should not be able to claim something with them. It is interesting to see/read what they say/show.
For example SBU video. You should be able to post it and discussion of it. Claiming things is totaly different. What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. " Wasn't us, was them.". Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing. edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that? The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement? It's just crap, sorry. Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. omg you still dont understand. If you are going down to that path how do you know who lies? Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? "Oh ye they are biased let's ban them totaly" That's like saying to accused murder that you can't defend yourself coz you are biased. And you make it sound like I read those coz I want to know full truth from them? "gtfo" You still fail to understand that somebody wants to see bigger picture than just what CNN, BBC, twitter or finnish media says. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. What somebody hides, another one finds.
Look, you can have your discussion on reddit. We will have a team liquid quality discussion here. The shit flinging match that comes from adding bad sources into the mix is neither interesting or informative to TL readers at this point, and it certainly is not welcomed by TL moderation staff who had to spend a lot of frustrating time and effort to keep the Ukraine Crisis thread the way it was. I would assume that as far as TL staff is concerned, they can have broad sweeping rules for source material that will keep shitposting to a minimum or they can have no thread at all, because without these guidelines they don't have the manpower to make sure that a Ukraine thread lives up to TL quality expectations.
|
On July 19 2014 07:21 LegalLord wrote:In light of the current progression of the MH17 thread, I'd like to request that you also limit any speculative and/or unconfirmed news, including hearsay and non-official Twitter reports. The kind of speculation we get from such sources is quickly leading to the same kind of shitposting that made the Ukraine Crisis thread impossible to follow. For example, look at this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/462231-malaysian-airliner-shot-down-over-eastern-ukraine?page=37One tweet that was later rebuked by OSCE led to a page or two of low-quality posts.
You shouldn't use a cannon to kill a mosquito. Twitter has a lot of information and other sources have a lot of disinformation, doesn't make sense to ban a source of media. Instead of seeing them as 'low quality posts' you should take that as a community learning process. The info was partly correct, I. E., there was a shooting, but the context required elucidation which later posts provided. That's how a lot of valuable learning happens.
|
On July 19 2014 07:44 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 07:21 LegalLord wrote:In light of the current progression of the MH17 thread, I'd like to request that you also limit any speculative and/or unconfirmed news, including hearsay and non-official Twitter reports. The kind of speculation we get from such sources is quickly leading to the same kind of shitposting that made the Ukraine Crisis thread impossible to follow. For example, look at this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/462231-malaysian-airliner-shot-down-over-eastern-ukraine?page=37One tweet that was later rebuked by OSCE led to a page or two of low-quality posts. You shouldn't use a cannon to kill a mosquito. Twitter has a lot of information and other sources have a lot of disinformation, doesn't make sense to ban a source of media. Instead of seeing them as 'low quality posts' you should take that as a community learning process. The info was partly correct, I. E., there was a shooting, but the context required elucidation which later posts provided. That's how a lot of valuable learning happens.
Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc.
If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well.
|
On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:42 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
You should be allowed to post official statements or videos by rebels, ukraine or russia. I mean official. But ofc you should not be able to claim something with them. It is interesting to see/read what they say/show.
For example SBU video. You should be able to post it and discussion of it. Claiming things is totaly different. What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. " Wasn't us, was them.". Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing. edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that? The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement? It's just crap, sorry. Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. What somebody hides, another one finds.
And yet you never know because "what another one finds" might be a lie, or forged to shift blame away. It's pointless. Your try to equal the newsposting of biased sources with a court is dumb too, since a defender is not supposed to be neutral (hint: medias are). And, in fact, they're also not allowed to lie or forge evidence. Not to mention, a person in front of court might very well be innocent. In this case, one of the three known parties is not. That's a given. So one of those three parties is 100% lying, and as long as you can't absolutely assure the people in this thread who is lying and who isn't, keep them all out, it only leads to weird nut-theories, conspiracies and almost admirable mental gymnastics to justify a bullshit post from a biased source.
I am (and the mods too, i guess) talk from experience there. We had a thread about ukraine where any source was welcome. RT was quoted dozens of times in regard of the ban of russian language that never happened, which RT didn't report. One of many examples. And every single time the thread took a nosedive because people started explaining again.
Not to mention that every fact that gets reported by ITAR TASS, RT, kievpost and whatnot will also be reported on other, less involved medias. They only filter the bullshit, but you will not miss any actual news.
Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc.
If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well.
Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine.
|
Tweets of firsthand accounts, maybe. Reporters echoing an unconfirmed second-hand story is no better than hearsay.
|
On July 19 2014 08:18 LegalLord wrote:
Tweets of firsthand accounts, maybe. Reporters echoing an unconfirmed second-hand story is no better than hearsay.
That's what i meant.
|
I wish to bring attention of the moderators to a warning for a post I received. The post did not indent to circumvent your order not to cite a Russian source or a Ukrainian source to back up my claims of responsibility for an action. I was posting a reference to a Russian source to illustrate further what the Russian news is saying about the crisis in the context of a conversation I was having with LegalLord, who believes the two Western articles from bloomberg news I posted earlier were cherry-picking meant to paint Russians in a bad light. I believe there is a qualitative difference of argument between posting sources that say "Russians did this, here is a video of it from Ukraine" and "Russia's most popular news channel's lead story on the crisis repeats several theories that many in the West would label as conspiracy theory'
|
Lol, the most hilarious part of this policy is that news from the US (and its puppet states in Europe) is about as bad if not sometimes worse than what comes from Ukraine or Russia. Considering the US has an extremely vested and biased interest in the affair, I think US sources should be banned too.
Although the US has its dick resting on half of Europe, however, I think those (western european) sources should be tolerated considering they can be at least somewhat fair, even despite the insane US influence. But hey, who am I to make fair decisions? Ah, carry on lads.
|
We will have a team liquid quality discussion here.
Apparently that means the discussion gets derailed for 3-4 pages about what is a legitimate source which is basically what was happening before the mod note went up anyway and now people are getting banned because they're posting the source material for news stories from "neutral" outlets. Because BBC story about Ukraine recordings? Okay. Posting those recordings along with that BBC story? Bant! How this accomplishes whatever ill-defined goals that mod note and its enforcement are intended to accomplish... *shrug* As if a New York Times or BBC story about those recordings is less likely to cause charges of propaganda and falsification and yelling about that than the actual recordings themselves.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=22626945
And look at that post, can't link directly to RT but is linking to a "neutral source" story regarding RT coverage okay? Would that be any different from just posting a bunch of RT stories?
How about a link to a video on the New York Times website of those recordings? Linking directly to them on Youtube, bant. What about linking to this? The fuck's the difference between linking to it on YT and linking to it on NYT?
http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003007434/intercepted-audio-of-ukraine-separatists.html
This shit's low-grade Kafkaesque, congrats.
|
Huzzah in general for more moderation in gen discussion. Even with the considerable imperfections in this particular implementation, still an improvement over what happens in general typically. Though I'd still prefer smarter moderation; I understand that's time consuming and they don't want to put in the time, or let others in to do it.
Side note: if you get rid of the bad posters and just have good intelligent, constructive discussion, it tends to be very boring and have few posts, as the matters are quickly settled. Most threads only get posts as a result of idiotic arguing.
|
On July 19 2014 08:12 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:42 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
You should be allowed to post official statements or videos by rebels, ukraine or russia. I mean official. But ofc you should not be able to claim something with them. It is interesting to see/read what they say/show.
For example SBU video. You should be able to post it and discussion of it. Claiming things is totaly different. What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. " Wasn't us, was them.". Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing. edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that? The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement? It's just crap, sorry. Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. What somebody hides, another one finds. And yet you never know because "what another one finds" might be a lie, or forged to shift blame away. It's pointless. Your try to equal the newsposting of biased sources with a court is dumb too, since a defender is not supposed to be neutral (hint: medias are). And, in fact, they're also not allowed to lie or forge evidence. Not to mention, a person in front of court might very well be innocent. In this case, one of the three known parties is not. That's a given. So one of those three parties is 100% lying, and as long as you can't absolutely assure the people in this thread who is lying and who isn't, keep them all out, it only leads to weird nut-theories, conspiracies and almost admirable mental gymnastics to justify a bullshit post from a biased source. I am (and the mods too, i guess) talk from experience there. We had a thread about ukraine where any source was welcome. RT was quoted dozens of times in regard of the ban of russian language that never happened, which RT didn't report. One of many examples. And every single time the thread took a nosedive because people started explaining again. Not to mention that every fact that gets reported by ITAR TASS, RT, kievpost and whatnot will also be reported on other, less involved medias. They only filter the bullshit, but you will not miss any actual news. Show nested quote +Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc.
If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well. Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine.
....
I said official statements. Not some scrub daily posts by russian ukraine media.
|
On July 19 2014 15:26 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 08:12 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:42 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
You should be allowed to post official statements or videos by rebels, ukraine or russia. I mean official. But ofc you should not be able to claim something with them. It is interesting to see/read what they say/show.
For example SBU video. You should be able to post it and discussion of it. Claiming things is totaly different. What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. " Wasn't us, was them.". Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing. edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that? The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement? It's just crap, sorry. Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. What somebody hides, another one finds. And yet you never know because "what another one finds" might be a lie, or forged to shift blame away. It's pointless. Your try to equal the newsposting of biased sources with a court is dumb too, since a defender is not supposed to be neutral (hint: medias are). And, in fact, they're also not allowed to lie or forge evidence. Not to mention, a person in front of court might very well be innocent. In this case, one of the three known parties is not. That's a given. So one of those three parties is 100% lying, and as long as you can't absolutely assure the people in this thread who is lying and who isn't, keep them all out, it only leads to weird nut-theories, conspiracies and almost admirable mental gymnastics to justify a bullshit post from a biased source. I am (and the mods too, i guess) talk from experience there. We had a thread about ukraine where any source was welcome. RT was quoted dozens of times in regard of the ban of russian language that never happened, which RT didn't report. One of many examples. And every single time the thread took a nosedive because people started explaining again. Not to mention that every fact that gets reported by ITAR TASS, RT, kievpost and whatnot will also be reported on other, less involved medias. They only filter the bullshit, but you will not miss any actual news. Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc.
If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well. Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine. .... I said official statements. Not some scrub daily posts by russian ukraine media.
Proper official statements get relayed by other medias too though. Like governmental statements etc.
|
On July 19 2014 21:15 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 15:26 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 08:12 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:42 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
You should be allowed to post official statements or videos by rebels, ukraine or russia. I mean official. But ofc you should not be able to claim something with them. It is interesting to see/read what they say/show.
For example SBU video. You should be able to post it and discussion of it. Claiming things is totaly different. What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. " Wasn't us, was them.". Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing. edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that? The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement? It's just crap, sorry. Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. What somebody hides, another one finds. And yet you never know because "what another one finds" might be a lie, or forged to shift blame away. It's pointless. Your try to equal the newsposting of biased sources with a court is dumb too, since a defender is not supposed to be neutral (hint: medias are). And, in fact, they're also not allowed to lie or forge evidence. Not to mention, a person in front of court might very well be innocent. In this case, one of the three known parties is not. That's a given. So one of those three parties is 100% lying, and as long as you can't absolutely assure the people in this thread who is lying and who isn't, keep them all out, it only leads to weird nut-theories, conspiracies and almost admirable mental gymnastics to justify a bullshit post from a biased source. I am (and the mods too, i guess) talk from experience there. We had a thread about ukraine where any source was welcome. RT was quoted dozens of times in regard of the ban of russian language that never happened, which RT didn't report. One of many examples. And every single time the thread took a nosedive because people started explaining again. Not to mention that every fact that gets reported by ITAR TASS, RT, kievpost and whatnot will also be reported on other, less involved medias. They only filter the bullshit, but you will not miss any actual news. Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc.
If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well. Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine. .... I said official statements. Not some scrub daily posts by russian ukraine media. Proper official statements get relayed by other medias too though. Like governmental statements etc.
Earlier it looked like you get ban if you do that. Im not still sure will you get banned for that or don't.
Policy is that if it isn't in a neutral media source then it's not valid. We can talk about the conflict from that lens only.
On July 18 2014 09:13 Cheerio wrote:
But if a neutral media source reposts it, then I can post it as well? Including in it's original and more informative form (if it was shortened)?
On July 18 2014 09:19 Plexa wrote:
No. Just the neutral source. This is so that both sides of the conflict can't point to the biases of a particular country. It may seem like a redundant step, but we see it as necessary.
This says you will get banned/its not allowed.
|
On July 19 2014 22:40 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 21:15 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 15:26 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 08:12 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:42 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
You should be allowed to post official statements or videos by rebels, ukraine or russia. I mean official. But ofc you should not be able to claim something with them. It is interesting to see/read what they say/show.
For example SBU video. You should be able to post it and discussion of it. Claiming things is totaly different. What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. " Wasn't us, was them.". Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing. edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that? The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement? It's just crap, sorry. Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. What somebody hides, another one finds. And yet you never know because "what another one finds" might be a lie, or forged to shift blame away. It's pointless. Your try to equal the newsposting of biased sources with a court is dumb too, since a defender is not supposed to be neutral (hint: medias are). And, in fact, they're also not allowed to lie or forge evidence. Not to mention, a person in front of court might very well be innocent. In this case, one of the three known parties is not. That's a given. So one of those three parties is 100% lying, and as long as you can't absolutely assure the people in this thread who is lying and who isn't, keep them all out, it only leads to weird nut-theories, conspiracies and almost admirable mental gymnastics to justify a bullshit post from a biased source. I am (and the mods too, i guess) talk from experience there. We had a thread about ukraine where any source was welcome. RT was quoted dozens of times in regard of the ban of russian language that never happened, which RT didn't report. One of many examples. And every single time the thread took a nosedive because people started explaining again. Not to mention that every fact that gets reported by ITAR TASS, RT, kievpost and whatnot will also be reported on other, less involved medias. They only filter the bullshit, but you will not miss any actual news. Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc.
If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well. Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine. .... I said official statements. Not some scrub daily posts by russian ukraine media. Proper official statements get relayed by other medias too though. Like governmental statements etc. Earlier it looked like you get ban if you do that. Im not still sure will you get banned for that or don't. Show nested quote +
Policy is that if it isn't in a neutral media source then it's not valid. We can talk about the conflict from that lens only.
Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 09:13 Cheerio wrote:
But if a neutral media source reposts it, then I can post it as well? Including in it's original and more informative form (if it was shortened)? Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 09:19 Plexa wrote:
No. Just the neutral source. This is so that both sides of the conflict can't point to the biases of a particular country. It may seem like a redundant step, but we see it as necessary. This says you will get banned/its not allowed.
As far as i understand it, you can quote the neutral source relaying it, but not the ukrainian/russian one.
Like: russiangovernment.com airs an official statement, telegraph.co.uk relays it. You're allowed to post the telegraph. At least that's how i understand it, might be wrong. An admin/mod should clear it up in this case.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 19 2014 23:53 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 22:40 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 21:15 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 15:26 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 08:12 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:42 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
You should be allowed to post official statements or videos by rebels, ukraine or russia. I mean official. But ofc you should not be able to claim something with them. It is interesting to see/read what they say/show.
For example SBU video. You should be able to post it and discussion of it. Claiming things is totaly different. What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. " Wasn't us, was them.". Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing. edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that? The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement? It's just crap, sorry. Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. What somebody hides, another one finds. And yet you never know because "what another one finds" might be a lie, or forged to shift blame away. It's pointless. Your try to equal the newsposting of biased sources with a court is dumb too, since a defender is not supposed to be neutral (hint: medias are). And, in fact, they're also not allowed to lie or forge evidence. Not to mention, a person in front of court might very well be innocent. In this case, one of the three known parties is not. That's a given. So one of those three parties is 100% lying, and as long as you can't absolutely assure the people in this thread who is lying and who isn't, keep them all out, it only leads to weird nut-theories, conspiracies and almost admirable mental gymnastics to justify a bullshit post from a biased source. I am (and the mods too, i guess) talk from experience there. We had a thread about ukraine where any source was welcome. RT was quoted dozens of times in regard of the ban of russian language that never happened, which RT didn't report. One of many examples. And every single time the thread took a nosedive because people started explaining again. Not to mention that every fact that gets reported by ITAR TASS, RT, kievpost and whatnot will also be reported on other, less involved medias. They only filter the bullshit, but you will not miss any actual news. Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc.
If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well. Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine. .... I said official statements. Not some scrub daily posts by russian ukraine media. Proper official statements get relayed by other medias too though. Like governmental statements etc. Earlier it looked like you get ban if you do that. Im not still sure will you get banned for that or don't.
Policy is that if it isn't in a neutral media source then it's not valid. We can talk about the conflict from that lens only.
On July 18 2014 09:13 Cheerio wrote:
But if a neutral media source reposts it, then I can post it as well? Including in it's original and more informative form (if it was shortened)? On July 18 2014 09:19 Plexa wrote:
No. Just the neutral source. This is so that both sides of the conflict can't point to the biases of a particular country. It may seem like a redundant step, but we see it as necessary. This says you will get banned/its not allowed. As far as i understand it, you can quote the neutral source relaying it, but not the ukrainian/russian one. Like: russiangovernment.com airs an official statement, telegraph.co.uk relays it. You're allowed to post the telegraph. At least that's how i understand it, might be wrong. An admin/mod should clear it up in this case.
Correct.
|
On July 20 2014 00:32 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2014 23:53 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 22:40 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 21:15 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 15:26 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 08:12 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote:On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. "Wasn't us, was them.".
Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing.
edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that?
The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement?
It's just crap, sorry. Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. What somebody hides, another one finds. And yet you never know because "what another one finds" might be a lie, or forged to shift blame away. It's pointless. Your try to equal the newsposting of biased sources with a court is dumb too, since a defender is not supposed to be neutral (hint: medias are). And, in fact, they're also not allowed to lie or forge evidence. Not to mention, a person in front of court might very well be innocent. In this case, one of the three known parties is not. That's a given. So one of those three parties is 100% lying, and as long as you can't absolutely assure the people in this thread who is lying and who isn't, keep them all out, it only leads to weird nut-theories, conspiracies and almost admirable mental gymnastics to justify a bullshit post from a biased source. I am (and the mods too, i guess) talk from experience there. We had a thread about ukraine where any source was welcome. RT was quoted dozens of times in regard of the ban of russian language that never happened, which RT didn't report. One of many examples. And every single time the thread took a nosedive because people started explaining again. Not to mention that every fact that gets reported by ITAR TASS, RT, kievpost and whatnot will also be reported on other, less involved medias. They only filter the bullshit, but you will not miss any actual news. Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc.
If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well. Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine. .... I said official statements. Not some scrub daily posts by russian ukraine media. Proper official statements get relayed by other medias too though. Like governmental statements etc. Earlier it looked like you get ban if you do that. Im not still sure will you get banned for that or don't.
Policy is that if it isn't in a neutral media source then it's not valid. We can talk about the conflict from that lens only.
On July 18 2014 09:13 Cheerio wrote:
But if a neutral media source reposts it, then I can post it as well? Including in it's original and more informative form (if it was shortened)? On July 18 2014 09:19 Plexa wrote:
No. Just the neutral source. This is so that both sides of the conflict can't point to the biases of a particular country. It may seem like a redundant step, but we see it as necessary. This says you will get banned/its not allowed. As far as i understand it, you can quote the neutral source relaying it, but not the ukrainian/russian one. Like: russiangovernment.com airs an official statement, telegraph.co.uk relays it. You're allowed to post the telegraph. At least that's how i understand it, might be wrong. An admin/mod should clear it up in this case. Correct.
So rules that Plexa said earlier in this thread have changed. That's good change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
