MH17 Thread

Original Message From Nyxisto:
So is the current policy for the airliner thread not to talk about the Russia/Ukraine conflict at all? That's like talking about the Gaza Strip without using the words Israel or Palestine.

Sure it's a loaded topic but the conflict is what it's all about.

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.

On July 18 2014 09:31 Sub40APM wrote:
You do realize that from the perspective of a Russian poster, Western sources are biased since Ukraine is currently a puppet state of the West? I am not saying I agree with that perspective, but your quest for neutrality is doomed, at least until Malaysian reporters get on the scene I guess.

On July 18 2014 09:36 nunez wrote:
tl moderation is embarassing tl with that modnote, and it (tl moderation) seems out of its element. reword it and choose a different approach for moderating sources, or even better yet, close the thread all together if you don't have the capacity to moderate properly on a case by case basis, or even better yet, release the steering wheel and let tl loose on itself.

on one hand separating the crash from the context renders the thread rather pointless. could make a tl-boohoo thread where people can collectively post spoilered boohoos whenever a tragedy occurs (boohoos about putin allowed as well).

on the other hand adding an appendix to the ukraine crisis thread is probably deemed pointless by tl moderation as well (i thought it was great fun, albeit the dyslectic dialectic etc was frustrating at times).

i wager it will take a long time before any solid info will appear, and in the meantime propaganda outlets all across russia and its puppet states (the rest of the world) will be pumping out hot air for pleb consumption.

both thumbs down.

On July 18 2014 09:44 zeo wrote:

I would like to ask what constitutes a neutral media source? It seems like a term that has many loopholes. People are going to start posting news sources that wasted very little time spinning this news to fit an agenda and say 'oh CNN, trusted news source, they even say so on the television'. Saying you can post Routers or another trusted source is fine but names should be put forth and in the end challanged wether they fit the non-biased criteria.

Banning all twitter quasi-news is a must though.

On July 18 2014 10:11 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
I was wondering where else you would discuss implications on the Ukraine crisis so i looked up the thread for it but apparently you closed that one too.

Maybe you should make clear in the MH17 thread that discussion about the Ukraine crisis is not welcome here in any form. Because that's what it is essentially.

In the current state the thread serves no purpose. I was in disbelief when you said that this thread was for people to state that they lost a friend/relative. An online forum is not the place for personal griefing or psychological care. I know from reputable news sites that they dont allow you to post personal information and involvements in tragedies because it's not the place to do this. You're supposed to contact the authorities and/or grief with people you know. Also people lie on the internet and are not a reputable source.

Also your definition of unbiased news coverage is ridiculous. Militarily all Nato members are puppet states of the USA. I think this incident, as sad as it is, is an interesting case study how propaganda works and how the different powers fight for the "right" interpretation of what happened. But yeah some topics seem to be too hot to handle for TL mods.

On July 18 2014 10:44 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Honestly that thread is not big enough to put such a comment on top. It comes off extremely douchey from teamliquid in a way that's very limiting. I'd much rather see people receive 2 day - one week bans if they post something outright stupid, or simply ban people from posting in that thread if they are absolutely stirring it in a wrong direction. The precaution in place really limits the thread in a negative way, to the point where I'd honestly rather go discuss is it anywhere else on the internet with a mature audience.

I strongly support the older TL stance where you get rid of the people on teamliquid that lack maturity, or show extreme opinions, are trolls, and whatever.

Instead, it feels like what TL does now (and LD/LH as well), is that instead of getting rid of toxic people, they try and make them coexist with the veterans of the site, and then any interesting discussion that is meaningful is not allowed. Because fuck, you know what makes good discussions? Controversial topics. If every thread gets this mod note, and educated people are not able to discuss freely, there is no points to have these threads. The only threads that exist are where everyone shares the same opinion about silly things.

I really wish that the "Media/News/Controversial topics" forum, was moderated like the strategy forum. When you are being useless, baiting people, and doing all those other unfriendly things that hurt the experience of others on the site and steer the thread in the wrong direction, simply ban them from those topics.

On July 18 2014 12:06 scott31337 wrote:
So is this article an acceptable source since it's on a Canadian news site? Or due to it's content its not? I don't want to get banned. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/17/malaysian-passenger-plane-was-shot-down-by-rebels-intercepted-phone-calls-prove-ukraines-president-says/

On July 19 2014 01:08 Jormundr wrote:
You can post news. Don't post about its 'reddit credibility' because that means absolutely nothing here. Definitely do not cite any sort of reddit comment. Redditors are not an authority on anything; they have no credibility. That link isn't solid, and doesn't really add anything to the thread. A london tabloid saying that "The SBU said..." doesn't give any more weight to what the SBU has claimed so far.

On July 19 2014 02:20 datscilly wrote:


While I agree that individual redditors are not proper sources, I disagree that Reddit itself has little credibility. In fact, many people have given up on reading the "major news outlets" and instead rely on various online sites for their sources of information.

Teamliquid is a place where people discuss and form their opinions as well. If there is a mod note that essentially says "free discussion is not allowed", is that doing a service or disservice to the community?

My point of mentioning reddit is, since the discussion is stifled here + Show Spoiler +, I wish to point them to a place where the discussion is not stifled. There is a lot of interesting information in that reddit thread which is missing from the teamliquid thread.

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.

On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote:


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.

On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:

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.

On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote:


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.

On July 19 2014 04:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
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.

On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:

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.

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=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:


What somebody hides, another one finds.

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 08:18 LegalLord wrote:
Tweets of firsthand accounts, maybe. Reporters echoing an unconfirmed second-hand story is no better than hearsay.

We will have a team liquid quality discussion here.

On July 19 2014 08:12 m4ini wrote:


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.



Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine.

On July 19 2014 15:26 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:

....
I said official statements. Not some scrub daily posts by russian ukraine media.

On July 19 2014 21:15 m4ini wrote:


Proper official statements get relayed by other medias too though. Like governmental statements etc.

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.

On July 19 2014 22:40 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:

Earlier it looked like you get ban if you do that. Im not still sure will you get banned for that or don't.



This says you will get banned/its not allowed.

On July 20 2014 00:32 Zealously wrote:


Correct.

On July 20 2014 01:10 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:

So rules that Plexa said earlier in this thread have changed. That's good change.

On July 20 2014 01:10 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:

So rules that Plexa said earlier in this thread have changed. That's good change.

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

On July 20 2014 06:27 Jormundr wrote:

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.

On July 20 2014 06:32 Orcasgt24 wrote:


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 06:45 Jormundr wrote:

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.

On July 20 2014 07:14 Orcasgt24 wrote:

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 06:32 Orcasgt24 wrote:


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 22:59 Evilmystic wrote:


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.

On July 21 2014 00:43 zeo wrote:

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?

On July 21 2014 03:10 Zealously wrote:


Actually, I've read something like 90+% of the thread.

On July 21 2014 04:52 Jormundr wrote:
Quit trying to debunk a dead horse?

On July 21 2014 04:58 Ghanburighan wrote:


If only it were dead... Yet, it keeps being discussed.- which tends to happen in a situation with scarce information.

On July 21 2014 01:30 ZeromuS wrote:


Patience, grasshopper.

On July 21 2014 17:53 zeo wrote:
Actually fuck it, I won't post in that thread again. Have fun with your circlejerk, actual discussion died in the General forum a long time ago.

On July 21 2014 17:57 zatic wrote:

Thanks a lot, this will make it really easier for everyone involved. Cheers.

Not to mention the appalling amounts of back-seat moderating.

I think the moderation rule regarding a "neutral" media source is itself biased and ridiculous. It also represents a self-centered view of the world in believing that the Western view must be necessarily right (not that I'm saying it is wrong in this case).

On July 23 2014 11:28 m4ini wrote:



If you're not saying the western view is wrong in this case, than i don't understand why you're here arguing. This rule applies to no other thread afaik, so in this case the rule makes for a better discussion.

On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote:
IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy.

Best Regards,
RG

On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:

People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting.

On July 29 2014 18:15 5unrise wrote:

I cannot take a forum moderator seriously, when he forbids posters from positing an opinion or evidence not endorsed by the media. Such a moderator is not fit to make any policy.

On July 29 2014 18:21 zatic wrote:

What is "the media"? After the terrible experience with the past Ukraine thread we banned propaganda from Ukrainian and Russian sources.

You don't have to take any of us seriously. However TL decides themselves who is fit to make policy, thanks.

On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote:

People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting.

On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

[...]
If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view.

On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:


If you truly didn't care about "neutrality" then you shouldn't had expressedly written "neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states)". If you had denied those as sources of information no one would care. But since you have written that any media source is neutral as long as they are not from those sources, then you are making a politcal statement that most members of TL probably do not beleive in. If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view.

On July 30 2014 02:00 Falling wrote:

I didn't say we didn't care about neutrality, we do care. I said people are mistaking our use of the word 'neutrality' as though it were some sort of existential quandry: 'what is truth?' That is far beyond the scope of our mod note, which was entirely practical, not philosophical. We found that the preponderance of decidedly un-neutral information came from Ukrainian and Russian sources in the Euromaidan thread. All we are doing is allowing other media sources, one-step removed from being emotionally and politically invested in the crisis, to report the facts and filter out the propaganda/ B.S.. That's as neutral as we can ask for in a situation like this.

On July 30 2014 05:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
No, peoplea ren't mistaking your use of "neutrality" as a philosophical question. They simply don't like the direct insinuation that other sources that aren't Russian or Ukraine are neutral. If you simply said that Russian or Ukrainian sources aren't allowed, it would be understoof. Because you added a personal world view on neutraility and what constitutes neutral media, that is the source of why people are so disturbed by it.

On July 31 2014 00:19 farvacola wrote:
Aww, some people don't like something the TL mods did or said? Poor them. They can read the Ten Commandments and get over it. Western media is less biased than Russian media. Quibbling over pedantics isn't going to change that.

On August 03 2014 10:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
lol, no one has even posted in the thread for 2 days at the time of your post. And nunez isn't shitposting in it every hour. Overstatement much?