EPTThe current rules are a much less extreme change (and frankly aren't very obtrusive).
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 106
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
micronesia
United States24782 Posts
The current rules are a much less extreme change (and frankly aren't very obtrusive). | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37097 Posts
On March 25 2018 02:03 zlefin wrote: you do realize that's contrary to the policy in some other threads though, right? Yes, but no other thread in the history of TL has ever caused the mods this much headache and stress like the US Politics Mega-thread has. And also, right now we are discussing the possibility of implementing these rules and guidelines for our other threads in General as well. All of it of course, will depend on how successful this new execution goes. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44194 Posts
On March 24 2018 15:58 GreenHorizons wrote: 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? Manafort? Stone? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 25 2018 03:40 Seeker wrote: Yes, but no other thread in the history of TL has ever caused the mods this much headache and stress like the US Politics Mega-thread has. And also, right now we are discussing the possibility of implementing these rules and guidelines for our threads in General as well. All of it of course, will depend on how successful this new execution goes. noted, just wanted to be sure you were aware on that and it's a conscious change. it's unfortunate it's such a headache for y'all, but I can't actually be that sympathetic about that given the history. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24142 Posts
What are their positions in Trump's government? On March 25 2018 00:56 Seeker wrote: We want people to post sources so that what they claim or post have credibility I just have to say we're all seeing the irony of this coming shortly after I was reprimanded for sussing out the credibility of a claim, right? EDIT: Did everyone (mods) but Kwark enable the 'ignore GH' script here? | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
It seems to me that extra leniency should be allowed a naked news or blog post. It leaves one free to interact with it or ignore it entirely. While Stealth's newsbot behavior has at times been annoying because of the sources, people react (or don't) by simply ignoring them. I don't see the problem with this. I'm fairly certain that everyone who has more than 5 posts in that thread has at some point posted an article without comment. I'm just curious, who thought this needed to be changed? | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 25 2018 07:08 Introvert wrote:I'm fairly certain that everyone who has more than 5 posts in that thread has at some point posted an article without comment. I'm just curious, who thought this needed to be changed? People who don't use the thread. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14159 Posts
On March 25 2018 07:47 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I've never posted an article without comment. In my opinion, posting an article without comment is just another form of shitposting. Seems harsh to just outright ban Doodsmack though. Was he previously warned for doing so? Yes and his ban message said that it was upgraded to a ban due to his previous history. Otherwise it would have been a warning. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14159 Posts
On March 25 2018 07:08 Introvert wrote: Posting of standalone news articles may be the least objectionable thing that regularly happens in these threads. For the most part posters make use of the URL feature to display where the quoted material comes from. If unadorned news posts are not allowed then the first pages of this new thread are already in need of clean up. It seems to me that extra leniency should be allowed a naked news or blog post. It leaves one free to interact with it or ignore it entirely. While Stealth's newsbot behavior has at times been annoying because of the sources, people react (or don't) by simply ignoring them. I don't see the problem with this. I'm fairly certain that everyone who has more than 5 posts in that thread has at some point posted an article without comment. I'm just curious, who thought this needed to be changed? I did. I posted about it repeatedly and no one responded. Not even to disagree with me. I've never posted an article without comment in the thread. I've been here from the start. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On March 25 2018 09:53 Sermokala wrote: I did. I posted about it repeatedly and no one responded. Not even to disagree with me. I've never posted an article without comment in the thread. I've been here from the start. Ok, well then I missed it too. Do you have a link where you have worked this out before? I don't understand the objection to comment-less posts. So far the answers given by the mods in this thread have been...underwhelming. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44194 Posts
On March 25 2018 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote: What are their positions in Trump's government? I just have to say we're all seeing the irony of this coming shortly after I was reprimanded for sussing out the credibility of a claim, right? EDIT: Did everyone (mods) but Kwark enable the 'ignore GH' script here? You just moved the goalposts from team to government. I forgot Page last time too. Page makes another one. It's probably also worth mentioning that while not a puppet, Flynn was a paid foreign agent. The claim that the Trump team was riddled with Russian puppets is factual at this point. The fact that the ones who have been identified were removed due to public outcry does not change that. You can't insist that it's not true that there were Russian puppets on the Trump team because all the Russian puppets (that we know about so far) have already been removed from the Trump team. That's just not how it works, you can't discount the ones who have already been found and removed. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24142 Posts
On March 25 2018 10:51 KwarK wrote: You just moved the goalposts from team to government. I forgot Page last time too. Page makes another one. It's probably also worth mentioning that while not a puppet, Flynn was a paid foreign agent. The claim that the Trump team was riddled with Russian puppets is factual at this point. The fact that the ones who have been identified were removed due to public outcry does not change that. You can't insist that it's not true that there were Russian puppets on the Trump team because all the Russian puppets (that we know about so far) have already been removed from the Trump team. That's just not how it works, you can't discount the ones who have already been found and removed. I think this is a weird interaction but we clarified he was talking about currently and my clarifying question included the qualification of being in government. Me and Wolf worked this out pretty easily, not sure how you guys think you're helping. Personally I prefer if the question was answered rather than the claim (that we established he retracted) be rehashed. EDIT: If we have to rehash it we should do it where it's supposed to happen, and you gotta make sure your mod buddies let me make my argument. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14159 Posts
On March 25 2018 10:02 Introvert wrote: Ok, well then I missed it too. Do you have a link where you have worked this out before? I don't understand the objection to comment-less posts. So far the answers given by the mods in this thread have been...underwhelming. Its not just what p6 has been posting. The articles tend to fill up the threads page with extremely small font text. That may not be a huge issue on a desktop but it is on a mobile platform. They're incredibly hard to even argue on as more often then not they come from a biased source or are misinterpreted by someone who didn't click through the article and is just responding on the posted text. Add in a point about the possible issues with taking content from another site and just reposting it. God forbid talking about twitter posts of obscure people making obscure comments. "oh you don't know this lesserknown person well let me lecture you on why the persons important" is just utter shit for discussion. Most of the time people just don't engage beacuse its not worth it. All this adds up to a lot of filler content that no one wants even in the garbage pile of the forum. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37097 Posts
On March 25 2018 10:18 Plansix wrote: I think the mods are clear that they want people to provide some reason why the article is worth discussing. I understand the reasoning, since its a TL discussion thread. Not an article dump thread or one where we let the professional reporters do the discussing for us. People don't need to match the length of the article, just make their opinion on why the article is worth discussing known. 100% correct. Thank you for posting this. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
I would think the "right" way to post an article would be something like this: -Choose an article that is either particularly important, or particularly interesting, or relevant to an ongoing discussion in the thread. -Pick two or three paragraphs to quote, generally the lede plus enough explanation to give a little context so we can get the gist from what you quoted. -If you think the gist can't be conveyed in two or three quoted paragraphs, write a few sentences summarizing what you think the article says and its significance. If you want, encourage people to go read the rest of the article for the whole story. -Include a link to the article, ideally putting the name (e.g. "Washington Post") of the source as the blue text instead of just "link" or "source" so people don't have to click through to figure out where the quote came from. I think the most common ways people fall short here are 1) picking an article which is neither important, nor interesting, nor relevant; 2) quoting way more of the article than necessary, taking up a lot of page space in the thread, or 3) posting extremely combative one-liners immediately before or after an article. Of these, 1) and 2) are nuisances at most. You can just scroll past the article as soon as it bores you. 3) is more of an issue (and Doodsmack's post was an example), partly because it often poisons the discussion of the article. An example from the old thread: On February 11 2018 00:15 PeTraSoHot wrote: Has anyone here ever considered that maybe people view other people as individuals with their own unique personalities and opinions, instead of viewing them as members of a certain race and gender? Radical idea, I know... Oh, and they've already run an experiment on this sexism BS you are all ranting about https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html Oops! What was unfortunate here was that the experiment cited here is actually quite interesting, and potentially could have generated interesting discussion. But since it was introduced by essentially saying "anyone who believes in racism or sexism is dumb, here's the proof," it mostly just generated animosity in the thread. I guess I don't think it would hurt anything if people always included a couple sentence summary with their articles, but I don't think it will solve anything either. If the rules surrounding it become vague enough that people get spooked and stop posting articles, though, I think that would be a significant loss. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
why would putting the same thing in a different font would validate a post?. for some weird articles that just make one go 'hmm ...' it could be good but overall, it looks like the intention is to foolproof a post; it's demeaning. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
| ||
