|
On March 24 2018 02:38 farvacola wrote:
Not only was it being a "shitty post" not a part of the ban reason, the one liner you clearly take issue with provides ample, if not inflammatorily framed context aimed at pointing out a possible reason for Trump's decision to not pursue Turks who committted violent offenses here in the US.
Sometimes, the inflammatory aspect detracts so deliberately from providing context as to just make the whole thing a scoffing gesture and not an informative piece for discussion. "How much did the Sauds pay Hillary, again?" with a link to some new Clinton Foundation activity is the same type of deal. If mods are serious about context, that's very obviously something else.
|
Again, had the ban reason specifically said that doodsmack's one liner was the basis, all of this proxy language for "I was offended by doodsmack saying a mean, conjectural thing about Trump and I approve of this ban" would be unnecessary and I'd concede. As it stands, however, the mods appear to be banning the naked posting of news articles and I take issue with whether that's necessary in terms of keeping the thread clean.
|
i actually agree with *that* ban (maybe a warning instead) in place of a general warning against calling people out for being wrong. his earlier warning i disagree with, this one not so much. i would like to think we can call people out for being wrong when they are. after all, it’s literally something we need to do for the president on an actual daily basis.
|
On March 24 2018 02:53 farvacola wrote:
Again, had the ban reason specifically said that doodsmack's one liner was the basis, all of this proxy language for "I was offended by doodsmack saying a mean, conjectural thing about Trump and I approve of this ban" would be unnecessary and I'd concede. As it stands, however, the mods appear to be banning the naked posting of news articles and I take issue with whether that's necessary in terms of keeping the thread clean.
I don't really think you need to microexamine the ban reason to conclude this is exactly the least productive way to produce commentary and justify a news posting. You can introduce the thought that Trump was corruptly motivated to pardon the Turkey guards without stupidly making the whole thing only a point of ridicule. That is, if you want discussion to follow and not just piling-on of people that also think it's the only takeaway. As it stands, the mods have standards for commentary on a news article.
And good on them for maintaining a semblance of standard.
On March 24 2018 02:55 brian wrote:
i actually agree with *that* ban (maybe a warning instead) in place of a general warning against calling people out for being wrong. his earlier warning i disagree with, this one not so much. i would like to think we can call people out for being wrong when they are. after all, it’s literally something we need to do for the president on an actual daily basis.
It was only his past warnings that made it not a warn, as mentioned in the ban reason.
|
On March 24 2018 02:45 farvacola wrote:
Well I'm glad you've enunciated your basis for taking issue with the post given that spurious introductions to articles from abjectly shitty conservative websites would be actionable in precisely the same sense. And no, it's not clear that's what the actioning mod thought given the reason stated.
Your defense of the post is specious in the extreme. The post clearly violated forum guidelines, which makes it a shitty post by definition (is not the purpose of the guidelines to stop shitty posts?). When I pointed out as such, you then respond by saying that doodsmack's one-liner description provides "ample context" for why the article was posted. When I point out the that this "ample context" amounts to little more than baseless and conclusory defamation, you say "it's not clear that's what the actioning mod thought given the reason stated." You've jumped the shark.
|
Twist and turn as you must, I'm still requesting mod clarification as to whether all news media posts, tweets and articles alike, need to be accompanied by something other than a source link
|
I mean fundamentally, the question is whether he would have been similarly actioned with the caption "I think Trump did this for corrupt reasons, considering his business interests in Turkey." If no, then what's actually being policed is his tone. If yes, then either he's being actioned because the mod thinks he's wrong in drawing that connection, or he's being actioned because the one sentence is insufficient context.
Certainly seems worth knowing which it is.
|
On March 24 2018 03:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 02:53 farvacola wrote:
Again, had the ban reason specifically said that doodsmack's one liner was the basis, all of this proxy language for "I was offended by doodsmack saying a mean, conjectural thing about Trump and I approve of this ban" would be unnecessary and I'd concede. As it stands, however, the mods appear to be banning the naked posting of news articles and I take issue with whether that's necessary in terms of keeping the thread clean. I don't really think you need to microexamine the ban reason to conclude this is exactly the least productive way to produce commentary and justify a news posting. You can introduce the thought that Trump was corruptly motivated to pardon the Turkey guards without stupidly making the whole thing only a point of ridicule. That is, if you want discussion to follow and not just piling-on of people that also think it's the only takeaway. As it stands, the mods have standards for commentary on a news article. And good on them for maintaining a semblance of standard. Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 02:55 brian wrote:
i actually agree with *that* ban (maybe a warning instead) in place of a general warning against calling people out for being wrong. his earlier warning i disagree with, this one not so much. i would like to think we can call people out for being wrong when they are. after all, it’s literally something we need to do for the president on an actual daily basis. It was only his past warnings that made it not a warn, as mentioned in the ban reason.
yes that was exactly my point. i’m not against the ban in spirit, im all for upholding that particular rule.
i’m against his prior warning, and consequently his ban in practice, but at the end of the day that’s pretty insignificant. but i was against his prior warning in spirit strong enough such that i thought it was worth mentioning.
and because he had been calling you or XD out in particular i want to add that i’m only against that warning in the strictest sense of *why*, not because i think either of you were necessarily wrong in that instance. what i mean to say is i’m against the reasoning that nobody can call someone out for being wrong, whether it’s me or ‘you.’. so i guess it’s the ‘whether or not they’re wrong’ bit that seems silly. long walk for that short drink.
|
it's been a long time common problem with moderation, which they've always failed to address despite my requests: adequately explaining and denoting the reasons for them. it'd be good if they tried harder to do it properly. in addition to a variety of other procedural details essential to a well-functioning judicial system (even one sfor such a small scale as a forum). so I support the motion/request for more clarification and detail.
and ah yes, on the general topic of moderation, I claim vindication and "I told you so" credit: higher moderation standards for the thread were needed.
|
On March 24 2018 03:08 farvacola wrote:
Twist and turn as you must, I'm still requesting mod clarification as to whether all news media posts, tweets and articles alike, need to be accompanied by something other than a source link
I actually think this is a good question. Would Dood's post have been acceptable sans the ridiculous one-liner?
But if you read the first 7 or so pages (maybe more, I didn't look beyond that) the mods weren't taking action against standalone news posts. So I think that's fine. You can have no commentary, or "reasonable" (i.e. not inflammatory) commentary, but "bad" commentary will get you actioned. Given the new, more subjective standard of moderation, I think that's defensible.
|
United States24578 Posts
On March 24 2018 02:28 farvacola wrote:
I agree with Sent's post and think this policy of actioning people who are posting articles instead of tweets ought be reeled in. Besides, prior criticisms levied towards the unadorned posting of news revolved entirely around tweets and other snippets of info the authority of which are not apparent on their face. I for one enjoy and rely on many of the news stories posted to the US politics thread, presence of commentary notwithstanding.
Although the tweet without discussion problem has been worse, the regular pasting of news articles without discussion is also a problem and should not have been permitted in a discussion thread. As part of making a new thread, we are keeping an eye out for people who post articles without introducing them and explaining why they are being posted. Several warnings have already been made to that effect.
|
On March 24 2018 08:29 micronesia wrote:
Once again, you all need to stop making posts about each other and stick to the discussion of US Politics itself. Asking for a clarification is fine, but analyzing each other never accomplishes anything. GH, looking back at your past dozen posts, most of them are asking people to explain themselves so you can better understand their position and if you really need to question them that badly then perhaps take it to PM (only if the other person is willing) because it's not helping to discuss the issues at hand.
Uh, what are the issues at hand?
For me the issue at hand was a significant shift in the rhetoric coming out of liberals/Democrats regarding the Trump/Russia collusion. The same Trump/Russia thing that's been the primary focus of this thread (when I'm not pushing for another topic) for the last year.
Specifically Wolf made the claim that "Trump has Russian puppets on his team". What you're complaining about was me flushing out that wasn't true.
The hell are we here for if we can't suss out whether claims made by posters are accurate or not?
|
On March 24 2018 10:38 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2018 02:28 farvacola wrote:
I agree with Sent's post and think this policy of actioning people who are posting articles instead of tweets ought be reeled in. Besides, prior criticisms levied towards the unadorned posting of news revolved entirely around tweets and other snippets of info the authority of which are not apparent on their face. I for one enjoy and rely on many of the news stories posted to the US politics thread, presence of commentary notwithstanding. Although the tweet without discussion problem has been worse, the regular pasting of news articles without discussion is also a problem and should not have been permitted in a discussion thread. As part of making a new thread, we are keeping an eye out for people who post articles without introducing them and explaining why they are being posted. Several warnings have already been made to that effect.
Who exactly decided that "the regular posting of news articles without a discussion is also a problem?" Though people have complained about particularly biased news sources being posted without a defense of the underlying authority, many threads throughout the website allow for the posting of articles without much, if any, introduction, particularly when they constitute breaking or newly released news of particular importance (see the Iraq thread, the Nasa thread, and the European politics thread).
Further, why is the "US Politics Megathread" labeled explicitly as a discussion thread? Many posters throughout the years of it being around have lauded it as a means of aggregating news and coming upon newly released information; the many lurkers who stop in to read, but not post also complicate that designation. Additionally, I think the idea that the unadorned posting of an article does not inspire discussion deserves reconsideration in light of the dozens upon dozens of pages of general topic threads that show discussions being generated in precisely that way.
|
United States24578 Posts
1) The mods. I agree similar behavior to what we are discussing is seen in some other threads, and that's a separate discussion what is or is not acceptable in those threads.
2) Whoever is posting a news article should take a moment to make sure they know what they are actually posting, and summarize or discuss for at least a couple of sentences. It's true that pasting an article with zero introduction has the potential to generate discussion, but that by itself doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
|
So the mods, many of which do not even utilize the threads for their substantive purposes, have collectively decided that the posting of unadorned articles is somehow bad and are unable to explicate on why that's the case? Not only does that seem unnecessarily arbitrary, particularly by comparison with the different problems implicated by tweets specifically, but it is also at direct odds with the international nature of this site and the extent to which it serves as a platform for the cross-exposure of international communities that otherwise have little opportunity to read on what's happening in places throughout the world. I myself have talked with European posters who literally read the US politics thread purely for the posting of news articles that they have difficulty finding, and personally, many of the unadorned articles posted to the European and UK threads have enriched my understanding of what's going on in other parts of the world and need little introduction aside from, "Here's what's happening in this corner of the world." In addition, this requirement that some kind of small introduction be given is going to both discourage the easy sharing of news while encouraging the muddying of the rule via iterative differences in what individuals consider an appropriate introduction.
|
United States24578 Posts
farvacola I don't anticipate people will stop posting articles. The only barrier of entry being enforced is that people introduce the article somehow so you don't have to read the article to even know what it is, and there is a starting point for discussion based on how it was introduced. You have not made the case that this enforcement will significantly affect the ability of thread readers to get what they want out of articles.
|
I mean, I can look back and point out the numerous instances in which a naked article has generated useful discussion, but that's already plain to see based on looking at the last dozen pages or so of the general forum's news threads. I suppose the proof will be in the pudding moving forward, but to the extent that the prior version of the US Politics thread ended up with some of the most views of any thread on the site, the case for a preservation of some of the status quo makes itself. I also think there are significant problems implicated by this desire to summarize news items into consumable bites that oftentimes leave a lot to be desired in terms of accurately capturing what the larger item discusses. The internet is already full to the brim with single lines or paragraphs standing in for what should be pages.
Anyways, thank you for the responses 
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
We want people to post sources so that what they claim or post have credibility, but we also want people to explain their sources with some detail so that it is obvious that they know what the source is even talking about.
Not everyone does this, but some people in the past have just put up a source with a comment that goes along with it, and then expect everyone else to read the source without even giving some kind of summary about it. We don't want users on our site doing this.
|
On March 25 2018 00:56 Seeker wrote:
We want people to post sources so that what they claim or post have credibility, but we also want people to explain their sources with some detail so that it is obvious that they know what the source is even talking about.
Not everyone does this, but some people in the past have just put up a source with a comment that goes along with it, and then expect everyone else to read the source without even giving some kind of summary about it. We don't want users on our site doing this.
you do realize that's contrary to the policy in some other threads though, right?
|
I don’t post in the politics thread, but I regularly read it and I’d like to echo what farva’s said. The news articles are one of the main reasons I continue to read the thread as they’re a great way to get news from a variety of sources and viewpoints. Ideally the new standard won’t change that, but it seems like we’re at risk of losing a valuable part of the thread to fix a minor/nonexistant problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
