In what fucking universe did this post deserve a warning? People post youtube videos without any text all the fucking time in the thread. Not to mention people should have already seen this video by now.

This is low even for the double standards already rampant with the moderation in that thread. I'm sure spamming John Oliver and daily show videos is the pinnacle of posting.

what was the warning? you really shouldnt post naked youtube links without a description (whether that be whatever this is, john oliver or the daily show).

KwarK

United States44214 Posts

October 17 2016 18:59 GMT

#383

I didn't warn you but personally I'd have included a TLDW of what the scandal was meant to be, what was revealed, who did it, who reported on it etc. Youtube videos are poor sources by default.

oBlade

United States6356 Posts

October 17 2016 19:28 GMT

#384

That is a video that the GOP nominee posted to Facebook and it's also got articles on Breitbart.

We may think it's shit but I have to agree with zeo that I think the same about every video DPB posts of Seth Meyers or John Oliver "destroying" something. And StealthBlue and others often make posts out of single tweets (something I've started too). In my opinion some of them are pure garbage, like during the 2nd debate we got an unverified account citing an anonymous source that Mike Pence wanted to drop out. My instinct is a Youtube vid is better content than a tweet. The content might be suspect in this case, but the thread can handle interpreting it. It's not like it was a symposium on the Jews.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

October 17 2016 19:34 GMT

#385

I myself would prefer fewer "comedian DESTROYS position with unreasonable hyperbolic attack" and fewer long YouTube videos in general myself. They are just stuff I don't bother with because they aren't generally fair, interesting, insightful, or worth my time.

Twitter may have its place occasionally, and I see why people like it, but I would prefer we didn't rely on it as much as some do. The signal to noise ratio is not that high with random twits that people post.

xDaunt

United States17988 Posts

October 17 2016 19:50 GMT

#386

I'm all for banning all of the shitty tweets that get posted in the US Politics Thread. Most are baseless anyway. Very few deliver real content.

IgnE

United States7681 Posts

October 17 2016 21:20 GMT

#387

automatic ban for posting the same video within 1000 pages of each other

Acrofales

Spain18404 Posts

October 17 2016 21:25 GMT

#388

On October 18 2016 06:20 IgnE wrote:
automatic ban for posting the same video within 1000 pages of each other

John Oliver 3 times in 10 pages was a bit much of a good thing. Agreed.

mahrgell

Germany3943 Posts

October 20 2016 00:32 GMT

#389

On October 18 2016 06:20 IgnE wrote:
automatic ban for posting the same video within 1000 pages of each other

Lets warm it up again today, do we?
So we get an uncommented video post, which was reported (I tried to, but someone was faster), but not actioned.
And then 4 pages later, the same video is posted again, this time with the great insightful comment "ohyou.jpg" which should probably get 2 warnings, one for the videopost, one for meming.

I mean, why make up rules for the thread, when they are then interpreted as random? You want people to report that stuff? Then stop screwing their report stats. Or just say it is a redditesque FFA, everything allowed. Then people will adjust too.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

October 23 2016 22:01 GMT

#390

So there was some discussion over a pretty blatantly biased Salon piece posted in the thread today, and I wanted to bring up the topic of mediocre sources again. There are some obvious suspects - that is one that went overboard by almost unanimous consensus. But some are more difficult to evaluate.

Specifically, I wanted to once again reiterate my opposition to Twitter being used as if it is a real source. If someone important said something, that's fine because it's essentially a direct quote. Otherwise, twits don't really provide any valuable insight, and that just happens to be 90% of twits posted in the thread.

A similar issue is YouTube videos, including the John Oliver video posted like 25 times already. Those really aren't any good for any real discussion and shouldn't be used. I think there should be significantly fewer of them.

Falling

Canada11592 Posts

October 23 2016 22:22 GMT

#391

I didn't read it until reading your comment here (lots of text and didn't look interesting.) I don't think it's a source so much a hyper-partisan editorial. I would like there to be less of them, but should moderation really be stepping in to get rid of editorials? Certainly if they promulgate 9/11 conspiracies, but people dismissing it for the partisan editorial that it is, like many posters already did on the thread, I think is good.

Danglars

United States12133 Posts

October 23 2016 22:34 GMT

#392

If you want matching hyperpartisan articles, keep it up. Double if you allow them for both sides. It's either tolerated for both sides or not, which would include matching volumes of Breitbart, Infowars (one out of every hundred can be thought provoking), national review online, weekly standard, the federalist and dozens of other blogosphere sources. At the rate of thinkprogress, salon, huffpo, mediamatters.

Like it or not, red hammers set expectations, and if the biggest hyperpartisan drivel is tolerated, be prepared to embrace hyperpartisan opinion articles of the other kind. I'm talking warnings and bans for both sides or neither side, as we've already seen shitposting bring a double standard (discussed to death already).

Falling

Canada11592 Posts

October 23 2016 22:45 GMT

#393

What's with people's obsession with Infowars? Infowars will not happen.

Also- I'm pretty sure Breitbart is already tolerated- I've never swung a hammer because someone posted from Breitbart- their articles receive the same reception as that Salon article, so that doesn't seem much of a double standard to me from a moderation stand point. Upping the volume of articles sounds more like changing the nature of the thread- away from actual discussion and more a dumping ground for random articles from around the internet.

(There is a balance between posting new info that keeps conversations fresh and just flooding the thread for the sake of balance.)

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

October 24 2016 01:00 GMT

#394

What about Twitter and YouTube? Those get posted frequently but the quality control is lax, to put it nicely.

Falling

Canada11592 Posts

October 24 2016 01:05 GMT

#395

There is also a balance there as well- flood of videos and tweets vs nothing new to talk about- and right now there really isn't much in the way of quality of control. Hell, a guy posted that fake social experiment from youtube.

LegalLord

United States13779 Posts

October 24 2016 01:39 GMT

#396

Well I can't say that I think we've struck that balance yet. Talking about how John Oliver or Stefan Molyneux aren't news sources is technically "something to talk about," but not something that makes for good discussion.

zlefin

United States7689 Posts

October 24 2016 13:56 GMT

#397

There's two different, but related issues:
moderation actions based on sketchy articles, and community reception of sketchy articles.

there's also an issue with Kwark going kinda overboard ever since he stopped actively moderating the thread. need some other mods to get him to tone it down.

Dangermousecatdog

United Kingdom7084 Posts

October 24 2016 20:46 GMT

#398

Just autoban all youtube and tweets. You can talk about it, but you cannot just shitpost it. If you cared enough, you can post a link to it and describe your thoughts on it. Easy.

IgnE

United States7681 Posts

October 24 2016 22:49 GMT

#399

i say ban Barrin to make a non-partisan example of duplicate video posters

oBlade

United States6356 Posts

October 29 2016 02:46 GMT

#400

On October 29 2016 11:36 KwarK wrote:

Show nested quote +

So is every non Sterling currency when denominated in Sterling. What you're describing is called a drop in the pound. People know about this. You're not an idiot savant. Well, you're half of one I guess.