EPTThis is an instance where the relevance of the tweet actually is obvious.
Edit: nevermind, I mixed up the two posts with twits in em by him
US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 182
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Artisreal
Germany9234 Posts
This is an instance where the relevance of the tweet actually is obvious. Edit: nevermind, I mixed up the two posts with twits in em by him | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 14 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote: Could we create a US politics in the news or something thread that would allow people to post news. I'm a fan of most of the posts that get banned or warned. While I'm not completely clear on the sites rules; it's probably the case that it could be done in the blogs section. Could have a blog titled "stealthblue's news feed" which does that that he just keeps adding to; or somesuch. Perhaps the mods could enlighten us on the permissibility of such? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 14 2018 04:29 ticklishmusic wrote: i've posted news before with a comment along the lines of "this is interesting" followed by a little commentary similar to how mohdoo posted that article. maybe using the word "spicy" is a little too gossipy/ meme-y, but imo his post was ok. Maybe you just got away with a shitpost, who knows? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
| ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On August 14 2018 04:46 Seeker wrote: It's been months and months since this new rule was enacted. How are people still not getting it? What is so damn difficult about providing a paragraph of information regarding the article that is void of your own opinion? Huh. I understood the phrase "explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious" to mean that we had to provide a paragraph that contained our personal opinions regarding the article. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On August 14 2018 04:52 Kyadytim wrote: Huh. I understood the phrase "explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious" to mean that we had to provide a paragraph that contained our personal opinions regarding the article. Okay. I can see how that could be confusing. Let me adjust that public mod note then. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7946 Posts
It stated a newsworthy story. It backed it up with a source. He stated his opinion. And as proof that his post was worthy of posting is exactly that people started discussing it afterwards. This rule needs to be rewritten to allow backing up with sources like this, while simultaneously describe more clearly exactly where the line goes, or else that thread is going to devolve further into the "he said she said" bullshit you see over on Facebook and Imgur. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On August 14 2018 05:40 Excludos wrote: So is the rule now that you just don't want any sources for anything that is stated? That is pretty much the exact opposite route you want to take when discussing politics, otherwise you're just free to make up whatever. I understand the idea of not posting random tweets with no further comments or attempts to start a discussion other than "look this is stupid", but that latest ban was pretty much the picture perfect post: It stated a newsworthy story. It backed it up with a source. He stated his opinion. And as proof that his post was worthy of posting is exactly that people started discussing it afterwards. This rule needs to be rewritten to allow backing up with sources like this, while simultaneously describe more clearly exactly where the line goes, or else that thread is going to devolve further into the "he said she said" bullshit you see over on Facebook and Imgur. I don't understand the question. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I think it relates to this oddity: person makes short pithy one line comment on current happening and cites source -> banned. person makes short pithy one line comment on current happening without citing a source -> no ban. so people can still make the same bad posts they use to make; as long as they don't cite the source/tweet they're responding to. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
its the difference between a footnote and body text | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On August 14 2018 07:06 zlefin wrote: I think it relates to this oddity: person makes short pithy one line comment on current happening and cites source -> banned. person makes short pithy one line comment on current happening without citing a source -> no ban. so people can still make the same bad posts they use to make; as long as they don't cite the source/tweet they're responding to. If you post about an article and then link it, then you need to follow the guidelines. Every other type of posting is handled on a case-by-case basis. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 14 2018 08:28 Seeker wrote: If you post about an article and then link it, then you need to follow the guidelines. Every other type of posting is handled on a case-by-case basis. aye; which mostly means you can talk about an article without linking it and get away with alot more. | ||
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On August 14 2018 08:52 zlefin wrote: aye; which mostly means you can talk about an article without linking it and get away with alot more. Eventually, the source will have to be provided though. Just talking about an article won't convince people you're discussing with that you're right, if they have no source to go off of. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
a paragraph of information regarding the article that is void of your own opinion 'cause it made no sense or because they took it like a need to: It stated a newsworthy story. It backed it up with a source. He stated his opinion. the quote from the cited article is already "a paragraph of information regarding the article that is void of your own opinion" so asking for another source to the cited source is redundant because as shitty/gossipy/fake the initial article was, one will always be able to find another source talking about the same fake news. a redundant fail-safe is what that was because another source would never give more credibility to the original one. also, this a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious explicitly says to me: give your own opinion about the article you quoted. | ||
| ||
