|
On July 20 2014 01:10 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 00:32 Zealously wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It didn't. You asked if you can post the neutral source AND the original russian/ukrainian source (for more understanding etc), and that is still not allowed.
|
On July 20 2014 01:10 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 00:32 Zealously wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
No, you just don't have good reading comprehension. In your last post, plexa confirmed that you can't post ukrainian/russian source articles when they are mentioned in neutral media. AKA upholding the original and very simple rule of "Don't post russian/ukrainian media".
|
S if I am understanding the situation correctly, no Russian, Ukrainian, Ukrainian Separatist, American or EU source can be considered neutral? That doesn't leave anything to quote as a source of info.
Just close the thread IMO. Al-Jazeera is one of the only news sites we can use and they are less reliable than the onion
|
On July 20 2014 06:06 Orcasgt24 wrote:
S if I am understanding the situation correctly, no Russian, Ukrainian, Ukrainian Separatist, American or EU source can be considered neutral? That doesn't leave anything to quote as a source of info.
Just close the thread IMO. Al-Jazeera is one of the only news sites we can use and they are less reliable than the onion
Read the first post or the mod note, it's not that hard...
Things not to post due to mod note:
Things from Russia
Things from Ukraine
Things not to post in general on team liquid:
Reddit opinions
Random geocities blogs
Your grandma's twitter
|
On July 20 2014 06:27 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 06:06 Orcasgt24 wrote:
S if I am understanding the situation correctly, no Russian, Ukrainian, Ukrainian Separatist, American or EU source can be considered neutral? That doesn't leave anything to quote as a source of info.
Just close the thread IMO. Al-Jazeera is one of the only news sites we can use and they are less reliable than the onion Read the first post or the mod note, it's not that hard... Things not to post due to mod note: Things from Russia Things from Ukraine Things not to post in general on team liquid: Reddit opinions Random geocities blogs Your grandma's twitter
On July 18 2014 08:52 Plexa wrote:
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned.
This thread will be used for discussing the moderation policy. Do not use the original MH17 thread to discuss the policy, you will be banned.
The whole Ukraine issue is pro EU vs pro Russia. That eliminates EU sources as neutral. On the subject of Russia, no American source can be considered neutral because the attitude those two nations have towards each other is still very much cold war like.
I did read it the post. Maybe you should try and understand it?
|
On July 20 2014 06:32 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 06:27 Jormundr wrote:On July 20 2014 06:06 Orcasgt24 wrote:
S if I am understanding the situation correctly, no Russian, Ukrainian, Ukrainian Separatist, American or EU source can be considered neutral? That doesn't leave anything to quote as a source of info.
Just close the thread IMO. Al-Jazeera is one of the only news sites we can use and they are less reliable than the onion Read the first post or the mod note, it's not that hard... Things not to post due to mod note: Things from Russia Things from Ukraine Things not to post in general on team liquid: Reddit opinions Random geocities blogs Your grandma's twitter Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 08:52 Plexa wrote:
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned.
This thread will be used for discussing the moderation policy. Do not use the original MH17 thread to discuss the policy, you will be banned. The whole Ukraine issue is pro EU vs pro Russia. That eliminates EU sources as neutral. On the subject of Russia, no American source can be considered neutral because the attitude those two nations have towards each other is still very much cold war like. I did read it the post. Maybe you should try and understand it?
Read the line in between. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this post or the mod note as to what sources aren't allowed. You can try to be cute and do the incontrol sarcasm voice with "But there's no source that's truly neutral ermagerd!" but it doesn't make you look clever. The purpose of the mod note is not to have perfect neutral scientific sources, but to weed out the filth from the "throw shit 'til it sticks" propaganda strategies of the two countries. If you want that, ask for the Ukraine Crisis thread back. This thread, where TL members have lost friends is not the place for people to post speculations on how the crashed plane is a giant conspiracy by the russophobic western powers and there weren't actually any living people aboard the plane.
|
I that it is rather inflammatory that it was written that:
"Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted"
and the implication that any media whose country of origin is not ukrainian or russian is neutral. I think you will remove a lot of the discomfort simply by changing the phrase to:
"Opinions/facts/accusations arising from other media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted."
|
On July 20 2014 06:45 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 06:32 Orcasgt24 wrote:On July 20 2014 06:27 Jormundr wrote:On July 20 2014 06:06 Orcasgt24 wrote:
S if I am understanding the situation correctly, no Russian, Ukrainian, Ukrainian Separatist, American or EU source can be considered neutral? That doesn't leave anything to quote as a source of info.
Just close the thread IMO. Al-Jazeera is one of the only news sites we can use and they are less reliable than the onion Read the first post or the mod note, it's not that hard... Things not to post due to mod note: Things from Russia Things from Ukraine Things not to post in general on team liquid: Reddit opinions Random geocities blogs Your grandma's twitter On July 18 2014 08:52 Plexa wrote:
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned.
This thread will be used for discussing the moderation policy. Do not use the original MH17 thread to discuss the policy, you will be banned. The whole Ukraine issue is pro EU vs pro Russia. That eliminates EU sources as neutral. On the subject of Russia, no American source can be considered neutral because the attitude those two nations have towards each other is still very much cold war like. I did read it the post. Maybe you should try and understand it? Read the line in between. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this post or the mod note as to what sources aren't allowed. You can try to be cute and do the incontrol sarcasm voice with "But there's no source that's truly neutral ermagerd!" but it doesn't make you look clever. The purpose of the mod note is not to have perfect neutral scientific sources, but to weed out the filth from the "throw shit 'til it sticks" propaganda strategies of the two countries. If you want that, ask for the Ukraine Crisis thread back. This thread, where TL members have lost friends is not the place for people to post speculations on how the crashed plane is a giant conspiracy by the russophobic western powers and there weren't actually any living people aboard the plane.
That last line you wrote is the stupidest thing I have ever read. And I read alot of 9/11 conspiracy theories...
If you want to ban people for stupid conspiracy theories, go for it. Then go pad the ABL post count with people from the US politics thread. Banning any media source though severely restricts the flow of information. If and when they find that black box a ukrainian news outlet will report on it first. Are you going to ban the poster who posts that because his source is ukrainian?
|
On July 20 2014 07:14 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 06:45 Jormundr wrote:On July 20 2014 06:32 Orcasgt24 wrote:On July 20 2014 06:27 Jormundr wrote:On July 20 2014 06:06 Orcasgt24 wrote:
S if I am understanding the situation correctly, no Russian, Ukrainian, Ukrainian Separatist, American or EU source can be considered neutral? That doesn't leave anything to quote as a source of info.
Just close the thread IMO. Al-Jazeera is one of the only news sites we can use and they are less reliable than the onion Read the first post or the mod note, it's not that hard... Things not to post due to mod note: Things from Russia Things from Ukraine Things not to post in general on team liquid: Reddit opinions Random geocities blogs Your grandma's twitter On July 18 2014 08:52 Plexa wrote:
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned.
This thread will be used for discussing the moderation policy. Do not use the original MH17 thread to discuss the policy, you will be banned. The whole Ukraine issue is pro EU vs pro Russia. That eliminates EU sources as neutral. On the subject of Russia, no American source can be considered neutral because the attitude those two nations have towards each other is still very much cold war like. I did read it the post. Maybe you should try and understand it? Read the line in between. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this post or the mod note as to what sources aren't allowed. You can try to be cute and do the incontrol sarcasm voice with "But there's no source that's truly neutral ermagerd!" but it doesn't make you look clever. The purpose of the mod note is not to have perfect neutral scientific sources, but to weed out the filth from the "throw shit 'til it sticks" propaganda strategies of the two countries. If you want that, ask for the Ukraine Crisis thread back. This thread, where TL members have lost friends is not the place for people to post speculations on how the crashed plane is a giant conspiracy by the russophobic western powers and there weren't actually any living people aboard the plane. That last line you wrote is the stupidest thing I have ever read. And I read alot of 9/11 conspiracy theories... If you want to ban people for stupid conspiracy theories, go for it. Then go pad the ABL post count with people from the US politics thread. Banning any media source though severely restricts the flow of information. If and when they find that black box a ukrainian news outlet will report on it first. Are you going to ban the poster who posts that because his source is ukrainian?
Yes, they will ban that poster. The Russian/Ukrainian source ban helps the thread self moderate. This thread may have a slower flow of information as a result. That's the price for having this thread at all. It's either this or nothing, because TL staff doesn't have the time or energy to handle the amount of moderation required to keep a thread like that civil. As far as I know, tl mods receive no compensation for their efforts, and you're asking for them to take on a second job because you're too lazy to go to the Ukraine conflict on reddit.
|
Could we have a mod maybe reminding people in the thread what the thread is about? It's annoying to read the personal dickwaving of americans, and people biting to that bait. I'm using that thread as a more or less reliable source for me to inform myself about what is happening, this stuff (next to other things) sunk the ukraine-thread too.
|
On July 20 2014 06:32 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 06:27 Jormundr wrote:On July 20 2014 06:06 Orcasgt24 wrote:
S if I am understanding the situation correctly, no Russian, Ukrainian, Ukrainian Separatist, American or EU source can be considered neutral? That doesn't leave anything to quote as a source of info.
Just close the thread IMO. Al-Jazeera is one of the only news sites we can use and they are less reliable than the onion Read the first post or the mod note, it's not that hard... Things not to post due to mod note: Things from Russia Things from Ukraine Things not to post in general on team liquid: Reddit opinions Random geocities blogs Your grandma's twitter Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 08:52 Plexa wrote:
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned.
This thread will be used for discussing the moderation policy. Do not use the original MH17 thread to discuss the policy, you will be banned. The whole Ukraine issue is pro EU vs pro Russia. That eliminates EU sources as neutral. On the subject of Russia, no American source can be considered neutral because the attitude those two nations have towards each other is still very much cold war like. I did read it the post. Maybe you should try and understand it? Thats how the issue might be within Ukraine, but I think you have to clearly see that among the EU there is a wide variety of opinions. The Germans, the Italians, the Luxembourgians, the Cypriots, the Hungarians, are all opposed to further escalation/want to understand Russia/etc. In the now closed Ukraine thread pro-Russian voices were pretty evenly split between people with direct ties with Russia but also a significant proportion of German posters too.
|
I understand that the policy might be the only way to fairly police the thread, as it's a sensitive issue and I doubt TL has a lot of Russian speaking mods who can evaluate sources at a glance.
However, I think this whole issue needs to be treated more delicately than it has, particularly if it will be applied to other threads in the future.
Describing European and American media as neutral is simplistic. Yes, Western media is the least biased, most professional, and generally best in the world, but it still has biases, and should still be viewed critically.
Conversely, Russian/Ukrainian media, twitter, forum posts and the like are obviously at a infinitely lower standard, and I don't need to explain why. But they are still valuable, and are accepted uses of information for political analysts and consultants world wide. Intelligent people can still get a lot out of these sources, as long as they are aware of their biases. By completely taking them off the table, we are losing the chance for some of TL's brightest to really add something to the discussion.
On balance, this may be worth it. By sticking to more reliable sources, we stop idiots misusing unreliable ones, which as we've seen, was destroying the thread. But let's not use phrases like 'neutral news sources', and let's be aware that by locking out bad comments, we are also losing the potential for great ones.
|
So let me get this straight... Legallord was banned for personal theories... and yet there are countless opinion pieces posted on every page (including using blogs as sources). So its alright to link to clearly biased opinion pieces who state fog as fact yet giving your own opinion gets you banned?
And I believe there needs to be full clarification as to why JH was banned and what exactly he did wrong. So that people know what not to do in the future.
|
Clearer ban reasons are beneficial.
Perhaps opinion pieces should be restricted, separate from journalism.
I get the feeling there's no mods on at the moment, or at least none working the thread. Cuz a mod is really needed in there right now to calm things down.
I want mod power!
zeo - remember you do have a history of bias and troublemaking; so your comments in the thread tend to rile people up, especially when they contain questionable propositions. Sometimes, even when you're right, people take it badly because of the history of other things you've said. Same principle as in The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
|
On July 20 2014 22:59 Evilmystic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 22:09 Crushinator wrote:
Just ignore zeo, there is no point in arguing with him. I don't know why he is even still around, but it would be best not to engage him untill he inevitably goes. He's here because Russian government employs a lot of people to support its propaganda narrative in the Internet. Russian speaking sites are full of pro-government comments made by fake accounts and bots for a few years now, there are a lot of people writing pro-government "analytical" posts in their blogs that are in complete agreement with official propaganda regardless of how far from real factual evidence it is. In last few months this cancer has spread to international communities too. On popular news sites every article that somehow relates to Russian interests receives a lot of similar pro-russian comments.
Can someone please explain to me how this post is in any way acceptable? I thought it was a bannable offense to call someone a shill, no? Guess the double-standards bandwagon rolls on. Please personally insult anyone whose opinion about an event doesn't match yours.
Asking for sources = the devil. Unbelievable. And what the fuck has this post got to do with anything the thread is about?
|
Canada13421 Posts
On July 21 2014 00:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 22:59 Evilmystic wrote:On July 20 2014 22:09 Crushinator wrote:
Just ignore zeo, there is no point in arguing with him. I don't know why he is even still around, but it would be best not to engage him untill he inevitably goes. He's here because Russian government employs a lot of people to support its propaganda narrative in the Internet. Russian speaking sites are full of pro-government comments made by fake accounts and bots for a few years now, there are a lot of people writing pro-government "analytical" posts in their blogs that are in complete agreement with official propaganda regardless of how far from real factual evidence it is. In last few months this cancer has spread to international communities too. On popular news sites every article that somehow relates to Russian interests receives a lot of similar pro-russian comments. Can someone please explain to me how this post is in any way acceptable? I thought it was a bannable offense to call someone a shill, no? Guess the double-standards bandwagon rolls on. Please personally insult anyone whose opinion about an event doesn't match yours. Asking for sources = the devil. Unbelievable. And what the fuck has this post got to do with anything the thread is about?
Patience, grasshopper.
|
On July 21 2014 00:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2014 22:59 Evilmystic wrote:On July 20 2014 22:09 Crushinator wrote:
Just ignore zeo, there is no point in arguing with him. I don't know why he is even still around, but it would be best not to engage him untill he inevitably goes. He's here because Russian government employs a lot of people to support its propaganda narrative in the Internet. Russian speaking sites are full of pro-government comments made by fake accounts and bots for a few years now, there are a lot of people writing pro-government "analytical" posts in their blogs that are in complete agreement with official propaganda regardless of how far from real factual evidence it is. In last few months this cancer has spread to international communities too. On popular news sites every article that somehow relates to Russian interests receives a lot of similar pro-russian comments. Can someone please explain to me how this post is in any way acceptable? I thought it was a bannable offense to call someone a shill, no? Guess the double-standards bandwagon rolls on. Please personally insult anyone whose opinion about an event doesn't match yours. Asking for sources = the devil. Unbelievable. And what the fuck has this post got to do with anything the thread is about?
First, he was responding to other user. Second, what he was reffering to a rather known thing, source (one of many):
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/russias-online-comment-propaganda-army/280432
Lastly, hes from Russia which gives him +1 to credibility in such matter.
|
What appalling reasoning. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-snowden-doc-reveals-how-gchqnsa-use-internet-to-manipulate-deceive-destroy-reputations.shtml
There, we all know the US and Britain pay people to manipulate online discourse. According to your logic after every post in the thread I can say 'well golly, you sure are earning your 10 cents per shitpost on this forum' and that would be acceptable?
Who the hell cares where he is from? You have absolutely no idea who he is. And I'm sure he knows nothing about me. He clearly accused me of taking money because I asked people to back up claims they made in the thread.
Its insane and only serves as a personal attack. And your first point of him aswering another user, what the hell is that about? He was responding to a user that was personally attacking me, something moderation staff have been letting happen for years. Which is the reason why the Ukraine thread went to shit, you had people in the backround who contributed absolutly nothing to the thread chant 'ban him, ban him, why are people allowed to chalange our opinions? ban them' whenever the circlejerk got in danger.
|
there are like a myriad of lil' fuckers reporting posts. those should be banned first; policing the interwebs with their infected logic and moral standards, buying a + to gain more weight or credibility feeling oh so high and mighty when pushing the report button.
there's no way a mod reads all 50+ pages of crap. they looked through reports, maybe read some complains then boom, hit them with the hammer!.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 21 2014 02:56 xM(Z wrote:
there are like a myriad of lil' fuckers reporting posts. those should be banned first; policing the interwebs with their infected logic and moral standards, buying a + to gain more weight or credibility feeling oh so high and mighty when pushing the report button.
there's no way a mod reads all 50+ pages of crap. they looked through reports, maybe read some complains then boom, hit them with the hammer!.
Actually, I've read something like 90+% of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
