|
On November 08 2016 09:48 tofucake wrote:
I meant this thread, but I meant more "X is derailing US Politics by arguing against point Y as if it were point Z", not "let's continue arguing over how we post in the feedback thread"
Essentially: stay on topic and debate points in the general thread, but do not argue about the poster or the points themselves
do you realize that leaves many fundamental problems unsolved and festering in a bad way, with no possible solution allowed?
your statements with X/Y/Z sounds like the definition of strawmanning, the entire argument was about who was strawmanning (which would be bad), and who wasn't (and hence not a violation).
at any rate, that seems somewhat clearer, though it took some time to figure out how to handle both "debate points in the thread" and "do not argue about the points themselves".
|
Hyrule19191 Posts
No, because a person can link to their post(s) with argument X and then the post(s) with their argument being construed as Y.
|
On November 08 2016 10:09 tofucake wrote:
No, because a person can link to their post(s) with argument X and then the post(s) with their argument being construed as Y.
you don't seem to be understanding the whole issues underlying all this, the point is that some things have multiple valid interpretations, and factoring in context only increases the number of reasonable interpretations.
what if a person claims their own argument is Y when they said X? what if others reasonably disagree with that.
it also seems to leave no good means of fixing things related to poe's law and the various other similar such issues as can occur.
a common complaint is with someone repeatedly arguing in bad faith using various means.
at any rate, I don't seem to be helping you understand the issue, and I can't think of another way to explain these things better yet, so if you concur that what I'm saying is not helping you understand the issues better, then we can stop this line of discussion.
|
Hyrule19191 Posts
Linking to the argument and then a response to it, it will be evident both how the argument was presented and how it was interpreted. From there, the decision can be made as to:
1. Argument X was interpreted as Y, which is reasonable
2. Argument X was interpreted as Y, but it is unreasonable
3. Argument X was interpreted as X, which makes sense
|
On November 08 2016 10:26 tofucake wrote:
Linking to the argument and then a response to it, it will be evident both how the argument was presented and how it was interpreted. From there, the decision can be made as to:
1. Argument X was interpreted as Y, which is reasonable
2. Argument X was interpreted as Y, but it is unreasonable
3. Argument X was interpreted as X, which makes sense
that's what the big posts by legal and kwiz were about in significant part, arguing over which of those 3 cases applied to various instances.
a lot of the dispute is over whether something should be classified as case 1 or case 2. what are posters supposed to do if there is substantial disagreement over whether something is 1 or 2?
now i'm confused and need to retrace our own line of discussion more thoroughly.
|
Hyrule19191 Posts
The person who feels their argument is being completely misconstrued posts here instead of getting into a fight with other posters in the General thread.
|
ok; it just seems like that's what kwiz and legal were doing with their big long posts, and their elaborations on them.
at least some of their posts here are definitely about that. so, what happens once those posts are put here? the mods make a determination on what goes into cases 1/2/3 of the cases you outlined earlier? does that take hours/days/a week or two?
|
So...
with the new moderation of the thread, whats the verdict on those uncommented twitter posts?
CC{SB} has a history of playing the newsbot of the thread, but somehow during this election he has turned to posting completely pointless tweets by random sources.
Even if we ignore his rather obvious agenda (which I consider very disturbing on someone trying to play that role, even when I'm on the same side as him), posts like http://www.liquiddota.com/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26165054 or http://www.liquiddota.com/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26164993 really don't add anything.
I mean, everyone (imho rightfully) complains when IPN and friends just drop random tweets and videos all the time... But it happens even from those "institutions" of the thread, so why blame them?
I wish this trash was gone. Go back to posting articles. Or if wanting to bring in tweets, they should serve a purpose.
This post also contains a tweet, also by a irrelevant source, and it also contains some trashy information (who cares about bars closing time). But still, the tweet adds information to the post and advances the discussion. I can't see that with 90% of the tweet posts from {CC}SB or IPN or similar. They just drop it like the USP thread was their facebook wall.
|
Hyrule19191 Posts
The first post is a list of poll closing times in response to discussion about when results can be expected, which makes sense.
The Trump voting tweet, in context of the normalcy of the thread, is not a good post. But the thread has shifted into more of a Live Report type thread for election day, and it's not out of place there.
Additionally, yours is the first comment about such posts, so it's not something I see as a problem just yet.
|
What?
This feedback thread here has seen a fair number of complaints about uncommented twitter/video posts with irrelevant sources. LegalLord alone probably has mentioned it a dozen times. And he wasn't alone.
|
Let's make it a baker's dozen  .
I remember the Ukraine thread and how many twits were posted there. They claimed to focus on live updates but looking back through them I can't say that I am sure that even half of those twits were factually correct. But man did people react to them and do so along the lines they were already inclined to support. I see the same thing here and my spider senses tell me that it's pretty likely that the accuracy level is comparable (we'll see for sure in a few months) and the way people respond to it is very comparable. I want to see less of those twits for the same reason we don't like Zerohedge or John Oliver. Those just lend themselves to an echo chamber and their accuracy is questionable even if all three of them are occasionally on point.
|
I've complained about the gratuitous Twitter linking as well. 95% of the tweets that are posted are utterly useless and often inaccurate anyway.
|
Hyrule19191 Posts
Well then, we'll do something about it.
|
On November 09 2016 03:01 tofucake wrote:
Well then, we'll do something about it.
Today is probably not the day to crack down on tweets, but I think at least a line or two for additional context would be legit.
|
its good to know that even with the stringent new posting standards there have been 500 posts within the last 24 hours. time to skip ahead i guess.
|
On November 09 2016 06:30 IgnE wrote:
its good to know that even with the stringent new posting standards there have been 500 posts within the last 24 hours. time to skip ahead i guess.
its election day.
There will be a LOT of posts today.
I fully expect to wake up tomorrow with over 1k new posts.
And no your not missing anything by skipping ahead.
|
you're always gonna miss something, but that's life 
|
If Trump wins Kwark owes Nettles an apology.
|
this is insane. lets come to this thread for manageable conversation. a refuge from the thousand new posts.
|
On November 08 2016 09:33 oBlade wrote:
I think I'll just be withdrawing for a long time as it doesn't look like most people, except some like Falling, appreciate what the thread is or get what the challenges are.
That would be a shame, but I can't fault your rationale. If the moderation actions in the thread AND moderator discussion in the feedback thread continue as is AND mod note at top of thread stays close to what it is now, what's the point?
On November 07 2016 03:32 oBlade wrote:If the goal here is to empty the thread of all the obnoxious regulars who actually use it before election day to make it look nice and presentable, or to pad mod statistics, this will work out fine. If otherwise, should have put a mod note on the thread 20 pages ago saying, if not "tofucake has had enough, he's coming in," some kind of warning to avoid low content posts or whatever you're after. Instead of modding from the shadows without giving people new guidance. There's not a person in the thread who doesn't want it to be better, but this is about cooperation. Also, the tough general mod who shits on everyone else, e.g. Kwark, it might have been cool years ago, but there's nobody who doesn't know how to post like that, it's old. Why go from 0% red on a page to 25% red on a page without keeping the actual users in the loop? People will either continue to come into the thread not seeing the warnings nor knowing what's going on, or they will see the warnings and still not know what's going on because "User was warned for this post" hardly communicates anything, especially to the posters who are liable to get warned.The way the thread is now, oneofthem isn't a a low content poster so much as a high volume. The thread itself is high traffic and he has a lot of short posts, but also a lot of long posts. And since we're on the brink of the election everyone has been waiting for it's weird to have new enforcement now, but if so you've got to at least tell people what's going on.Another example is we just had a conversation about people posting no-content tweets and unwatchably long YT vids. The answer? Everyone who commented on the telesur video got warned.  Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 02:37 KwarK wrote:On November 07 2016 00:22 Acrofales wrote:Why was biff warned for agreeing with the thorough debunking of nettles' latest infowars level of trash post, rather than nettles being warned for posting that shit in the first place? I refer to this: On November 06 2016 23:27 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2016 23:23 Plansix wrote:On November 06 2016 23:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Just so much amazing stuff coming out via wikileaks. Newest batch shows that Chelsea Clinton paid for her wedding with funds from the Clinton Foundation.. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046
From:doug@presidentclinton.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
CC: terry@tdmca.com, cheryl.mills@gmail.com
Date: 2012-01-04 21:45
Subject: Re:
I learned from the best
The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents....
I hope that you will speak to her and end this
Once we go down this road....
You couldn't even bother to copy and paste the while thing, could you? The email isn't about that. It is about the WSJ receiving what they believe to be false claims that the Clintons used the funds for the wedding. And they are discussing setting the record straight. The not smart part is referencing people talking about the investigation. From:doug@presidentclinton.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
CC: terry@tdmca.com, cheryl.mills@gmail.com
Date: 2012-01-04 21:45
Subject: Re:
I learned from the best
The investigation into her getting paid for campaigning, using foundation resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents....
I hope that you will speak to her and end this
Once we go down this road....
----- Original Message -----
From: John Podesta [mailto:john.podesta@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2012 05:00 PM
To: Doug Band
Cc: terry@tdmca.com <terry@tdmca.com>; cheryl.mills@gmail.com <cheryl.mills@gmail.com>
Subject: Re:
You are perfecting your skills for understatement.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Doug Band <doug@presidentclinton.com> wrote:
> I just received a call from a close friend of wjcs who said that cvc told one of the bush 43 kids that she is conducting an internal investigation of money within the foundation from cgi to the foundation
> The bush kid then told someone else who then told an operative within the republican party
>
> I have heard more and more chatter of cvc and bari talking about lots of what is going on internally to people
>
> Not sm art That's glorious User was warned for this post And not his later rip on telesur, which is worth the warning for ad hominem. I put Nettles on a timeout until election day for this. Judge me if you will. Nettles isn't over there digging through emails and trying to find ones to doctor them, making them evidence for his conspiracies, is he capable of that? Or is he just repeating the portrayal he literally found on Drudge Report: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-06/doug-band-accuses-chelsea-using-clinton-foundation-money-pay-her-weddingDoesn't seem right when someone is banned for posting something wrong, and Elroi is also warned when he rejected him. Add content to this instead. Thread narration posts are useless.Show nested quote +On November 07 2016 02:29 KwarK wrote: xDaunt wrote:
Clinton is bad because you don't get investigated by the FBI unless you did something really shady. kwizach wrote:
But Trump is also being investigated by the FBI. Did he do something really shady? xDaunt wrote:
No. Election in a nutshell.
Mod Note will clearly enforceable guidance on tweets / newsworthy sources. If you want two sentences of description of relevancy, then put that.
StealthBlue has a history of 10% very questionable opinion articles that are never warned, tweets from secondary non-journalist sources, which are never warned. We've already talked about Kwark's posting *ahem* style. So some mod notes or original thread edit that the Moderation Team is willing to abide by? And the rest of the users don't risk being peppered by warnings?
EDIT: Saw new mod note, which answers a good portion of what I was hoping for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
