Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Posting and discussing sources: a D&D feedback thread
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Cefte posted:

The only expectation I have of a posted source is that it's readable - people who post tweets which are then immediately deleted, leaving nothing but the gripping commentary of 'wow' by the poster should be permabanned.

People post 'bad' sources because 'bad' sources are a core part of our current political landscape, and even a clearly false statement in a propaganda mouthpiece is worth raising as evidence of a school of thought.

If they're relying on a 'bad' source on a point of fact, you can refute them with multiple 'good' sources. If you can't, then you're faced with a matter of opinion, and it's an awful, horrible, loving horrendous idea to suggest that moderators or IKs should be deciding that particular named sources are banned from threads - if someone keeps spamming Seth Abramson, there's an ignore function.

None of the above applies to a literal stranger off twitter (apart from the readability issue) - I think Vox's suggestion for requiring contextualisation is bang on the money for that one.

Part of the problem that caused all this to happen is that people were posting misleading bullshit and presenting it as real because they didn't bother to check the article or whatever, leaving to a pretty constant headache of people posting bullshit tweets designed to stir up outrage and then people having to go into the article to point out that the headline/tweeter is lying about what the article says and in the mean time there's several pages of people tantruming over what had been posting and also nobody saw the correction so it gets brought up later as being true. So I'd rather not go with 'post all the bullshit propaganda you like! Everyone else has to work ten times harder to refute you!' nonsense.

* # ¿ Jan 31, 2021 11:07
  • Quote
Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 17:25
  • Quote
Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

Freakazoid_ posted:

This is an inherently unfeasible means of debate. How is one supposed to just know a source is bad, if the argument in the article makes sense to them? It's a matter of perspective and without the perspective of others, they will never know how to discern what a bad source is.

The problem has less been that the articles are bad sources, and more that the people posting them are just taking twitter randos at their word as to what an article says. So the idea that you need multiple sources to debunk someone's idiotic take on an article is dumb, when you should just be able to point out that the article disagrees with the twitter idiot.

* # ¿ Jan 31, 2021 13:31
  • Quote
Kchama
Jul 25, 2007

fool of sound posted:

OK, so the rough draft of new rule that I'm kicking around looks like:

Looks like a good start.

* # ¿ Feb 15, 2021 19:36
  • Quote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Posting and discussing sources: a D&D feedback thread