EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 35
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17819 Posts
On December 01 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote: I, more than almost anyone else, know how to skim that edge between being an annoying jerk and being banworthy. If only it were quite that easy to differentiate what's kind of controversial from what's banworthy. i find that when you've provided logical reasoning combined with facts the person you disagree with begins calling you "annoying". these people are what i like to call "wrong". | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
I can't tell; I mean, my impression is he may genuinely believe what he's saying, despite how thoroughly the things have been addressed; this one in particular: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=6363#127242 how does one discuss with something so far from, well, reality, and when the points have already been addressed in far more detail in numerous places which he seems to be completely ignoring. on another note; there really needs to be a better system in place to deal with problem posters who have protected status. cuz there's been issues for some time now with such people causing problem that do not get addressed, resulting in a decrease in overall thread quality that is very palpable, and very hurtful since the problem people seem immune to action. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
to me; the problem was from his chain of posts, he repeatedly asserted things which were factually untrue, and which had been addressed/dealt with extensively in the thread (so he should've known about, from here, or from general knowledge elsewhere, where they had also been covered). Now there might be things related to what he said which could be reasonably considered true, but the things he actually said, a bunch of them were simply false. nor did he have much explanation to justify a basis for his false claims which would be addressed. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Frankly, while I can see some of why people might object to RisK posts like that, I also see a notable lack of uniformity in how much unjustified assertion people get to make based on how popular their opinion is. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
whether they actually would be better is another story. I wonder if there were a thread vote/discussion to decide who the best people are for making such claims who would be chosen. The issue is not unjustified assertion per se, but unjustified assertions that are demonstrably false and have been demonstrated so in thread at length and in detail; also there's a difference between assertion of fact and assertion of opinion. There are some issues with opinion popularity vs uniformity of action. and if you have a proposed fix for that, I'd be happy to look at it. part of it is of course because some things are in fact wrong; so separating out the portion that may arise out of bias, and that which is entirely justified, will be quite difficult. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 05 2016 03:26 xDaunt wrote: So what was wrong with RiK's post? I gather it was borderline but he has a poor moderation history. I does pair with the the original finding: being snide and taking a sneering position is sometimes allowed to pass, but also being wrong in the opinion of the observing mod is enough to put you over into being actioned. I won't be the one to hunt through to find the ten borderline cases or demolish my already poor reporting stats to highlight all the questionables to the moderation team. I won't comment at length on this issue for that reason. | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19257 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 05 2016 21:25 tofucake wrote: In US Pol thread, spouting false statements as "facts" is against the thread rules and is actionable. On December 04 2016 23:58 RealityIsKing wrote: Nope, the entire Trump hate is purely conjured up because people's ideology that they want Hillary in because she is a women and started calling Trump racists when he said he doesn't want illegal immigrants which is xenophobic at best. Then people just utilizes confusing languages with emotional fallacies that have no facts attached to them to paint Trump in a certain tone resulting in naive people buying the narratives. Let's face it, the identify politics have to stop from the leftists in order for people to take them seriously again because at this point, the journalists at CNN, MSNBC, etc. should be ashamed of themselves as their biases were off the chart during the campaign. User was temp banned for this post. If you're referring to this post, like I was, you're way off base. It doesn't break new ground with allegations other posters have been making for months. It uses the same common political statements others do without difficulty ("purely conjured up"). If you're talking about a sampling of four of his posts I might see your point. But the actual banned-for one is a perfect example of a wrong moderation direction. + Show Spoiler + On November 29 2016 01:28 Nyxisto wrote: There is "read between the lines" and then there is "invent a completely new text because the actual text is actually just indefensible drivel" NPR is definitely and objectively a better source of information than infowars or breitbart which are essentially the American version of the Pravda, and it's also pretty far ahead of CNN. What you're selling as charity is more or less a desperate attempt to counter the problem of "liberals having all the facts" as even Newt Grinrich confirmed. The whole Trump campaign relied on undermining simple, plain truths by turning reality upside down, and now they have to continue doing it. Conservatives would argue at least three of his points are counterfactual, but of course he shouldn't be banned, since moderators aren't unbiased judges of facts in contention. But if the future direction is that path of what liberals say is objective lies, ban away both! I defy you to find spouting false statements as facts in the thread guidelines. It's not there because politics blurs the lines (particularly if you call cited post on facts. Attitude and posting style yes, factually fine/disputable. The very finding on the grounds of facts would be proof positive it's a meaningless rule unable to be enforced impartially). Showing not telling & listening is routinely abused, but if you're upping that standard strictly, it could be impartially applied. Again, my report button would be forfeit calling to attention to post tiptoeing the line from a left/European left perspective, so I have no recourse for proving over time to new mods the slant. EDIT2: Saw post below. Ok. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19257 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 05 2016 07:42 Slaughter wrote: Basically you are saying Trump was a very shitty candidate and should have lost. Gotcha. This is very clearly a disingenuous shitpost that is going to do nothing but bait a bad response from me. I thought that we had an understanding that I would put my vigilante-style responses aside if this type of stuff was actioned. Am I mistaken? | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19257 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 06 2016 02:50 tofucake wrote: Report that stuff. I can't spend all of my time moderating that thread, and I have other responsibilities too. I did. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19257 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 06 2016 02:56 tofucake wrote: It would appear some mods are being more lenient than others. Thank you for the follow up. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 06 2016 02:56 tofucake wrote: It would appear some mods are being more lenient than others. So what we have is luck of the draw on getting a lenient mod to respond to the report. So somebody like RiK gets actioned, but his leftist twin gets passed. At least we have tacit admission that the double standard exists, though it isn't applied universally unfairly (obviously). ((Actually the real thrust is: Will the un-offending mod come into this website feedback thread and give his/her feedback to the clearly uncertain positions posters are put in reporting posts that should be actioned but are shown leniency, or fall in the pattern of leniency shown and get actioned (Slaughter & RiK being the most recent examples). Shitposters "getting away with it" encourages shitposting. Unactioned reported shitposts discourages reporting. Unequal application of thread rules undermines the rules.)) | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
| ||
