EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 54
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8148 Posts
On April 13 2017 01:02 Liquid`Drone wrote: No, two different conversations definitely warrant two different posts. But if you remember something you wanted to add to the first post 5 minutes after pressing post, editing the first one is usually preferable. But an occasional double-post doesn't really matter, 6 in a row or whatever however is never warranted. Thanks, that's what I thought  | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
NOTE: Posts containing only Tweets or articles will be handled a bit more strictly. When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. it seems very routine that people post an article, or a tweet, with no additional info I saw a couple in the last two pages, and many more; and often it's relevance seems self-evident, even without any explanation as to its relevance ot the discussion. So I'd like if the actual rules regarding that part of the note were clarified, because its' clearly not about what it literally says. which makes it very unclear what the actual rule is. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On April 15 2017 09:59 zlefin wrote: I'd like more clarity on the mod note that says: NOTE: Posts containing only Tweets or articles will be handled a bit more strictly. When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. it seems very routine that people post an article, or a tweet, with no additional info I saw a couple in the last two pages, and many more; and often it's relevance seems self-evident, even without any explanation as to its relevance ot the discussion. So I'd like if the actual rules regarding that part of the note were clarified, because its' clearly not about what it literally says. which makes it very unclear what the actual rule is. Yeah, I've been confused by this too. A lot of people including CC like tonpost tweets or articles without explanation, but they're relevant and interesting articles so it seems fine. I actually prefer that to when they're posted with one-line partisan commentary. Example: Hypothetical User wrote: (Article about Trump saying/tweeting something that may or may not contradict something he previously tweeted.) Alternatively: Hypothetical User wrote: Lol, what an idiot. (Article about Trump saying/tweeting something that may or may not contradict something he previously tweeted.) The former feels fine to me, the latter feels far more likely to create a toxic discussion. A conservative poster who might have commented to explain why they think this statement doesn't actually contradict the ones before is more likely to feel attacked and respond sarcastically/snarkily/aggressively, and everything goes downhill from there. And there's any number of one-line commentaries Hypothetical User could have used with a similar effect: -"ugh..." -"Look what you've done America!" -"hahahahahahaha" -"How can anyone defend him at this point..." -"Are you fucking kidding me?" I'm not saying any or all of these would be bannable, but I do think that if you ask people to give a couple sentences of explanation for an article or tweet, this is the kind of thing they often come up with, and personally I'd rather they just post it without commentary in that case. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On April 13 2017 05:37 opisska wrote: He was probably high or something, there is not much reason to think about it too deeply. LOL  | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 23 2017 05:14 micronesia wrote: LegalLord, what point are you trying to make? This is supposed to be a discussion thread, not an inject sarcastic complaining one liners thread. He's no irregularity in even the past ten pages of the thread. E.g. On April 22 2017 10:58 Nyxisto wrote: Bernie will be approximately 120 years old when the next election happens, that doesn't seem like a good idea. On April 22 2017 06:50 Nevuk wrote: Frum is a smart man but he has political instincts on par with maybe a drunk and blind racoon. On April 22 2017 08:20 micronesia wrote: Can't the wall be paid for by de-funding the portions of the Coast Guard that patrol near the Mexico border and selling large quantities of ladders, shovels, and rope to Mexico? It's a thread of one-liners sarcastic, ironic, argumentative, etc. Everyone tires of reporting, just accept what it is and change warnings/tempbans to suit instead of singling out one guy among many. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28873 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24784 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
can we do something about the terrible quality posts that make tons of basic errors even after they've been repeatedly pointed out? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18387 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
In all seriousness it was kind of annoying and skip-worthy but whatever. Not every debate is interesting. I might just have to find a way to make abortion transition into electability for times like this. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
I think LL should have just tried to pose the question whether Hillary still needs women hygiene products. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On April 26 2017 06:07 LegalLord wrote: i thought the debate was thoroughly unsound and needed stricter moderation. In all seriousness it was kind of annoying and skip-worthy but whatever. Not every debate is interesting. I might just have to find a way to make abortion transition into electability for times like this. let me give it a try: the trump candidacy was carried to (one) term, none of the parents took responsibility/ offerred support except in the situations where the newborn puked on the people they didn't like | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 27 2017 00:13 ticklishmusic wrote: let me give it a try: the trump candidacy was carried to (one) term, none of the parents took responsibility/ offerred support except in the situations where the newborn puked on the people they didn't like Sounds like you're trying too hard. I was thinking something more simple: maybe we wouldn't have to worry about anti-abortionists if only our pro-abortion candidate had been more electable. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
| ||
