Posting and discussing sources: a D&D feedback thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Posting and discussing sources: a D&D feedback thread

Rockit: Feb 2, 2017

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

Yeah, pretty much. There's a reason RT published Reade's column, and it directly pertains to what this thread is about. As someone stated earlier, it perfectly fits Russia's propaganda model of using state-backed sources to give voice to and/or amplify anti-American dissent, when credible and higher caliber sources won't touch it with a ten foot pole. It's also a wonderful example of why such sources virtually always lead to pages upon pages of inflammatory and acrimounous posting: because infiltrating domestic conversations like that is their goal.

Just the simpstic Knee-jerk of "source bad" lead people to defend an Islamophobic Russian nationalist who only opposed an annexation and supports others while condoning race riots. If you don't think that's necessarily counts as being an "Far right insurrectionist" fine that there was more to it than russia fake news. Sure one of my sources was indeed the hill but i just looked at what they sourced and confirmed for myself what he said. Didn't even bother to read the hill.

Straightforward source dismissal is ultimately a lazy static and is against the ethos of effort posting and talking to others. It's true that RT is exploitative propaganda but I feel that makes it more important to suss out to do the research on whether it's completely making something up, twisting an half truth, or exploiting an legitimate issue. Telling people the well they're just brainwashed and not actually enaged with the inaacturares like what a source dismissal does isn't good faith

By all means if how they use poo poo sources or misread sources show them to be an rear end punish them and if the actual actual has no evidence or other articles refute then it does make sense just go source bad but for it to be the automatic response to the problem isn't in line with the board's ethos and at best their defense is "They don't deserve to be treated better."

Rockit fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Feb 4, 2021

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 21:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 18:16

Rockit: Feb 2, 2017

Main Paineframe posted:

If you're accusing someone on Something Awful of being a sexual assaulter, that's something you should raise to Jeffrey.

If you're not, then I hope you can understand the differences between an internet forum discussing news articles and an organization covering up internal accusations of sexual assault against its own members.

I understand the difference but you can't just deny the silencing effect talking about sexual assault allegations have on people who think their own abuse and/or the average abuse claim is just as credible as Tara's. Sure there's probablites some actual diffrernces between them(Even if i think those differences don't matter the way the mainstream would think they do) but they don't know that and getting people to shut up wouldn't just make them get over it like you're planning.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 22:01

Rockit: Feb 2, 2017

Deteriorata posted:

If you want to talk about it, start a thread and go hog wild.

Greyjoy and others framed their decision like no talk about this is allowed ever. Besides, I'm asking for the mod's opinion on this. That and the effect is still something when you can't talk about it in one of biggest thread even if it's revenant to the discussion.

Not that i'd prefer talking about this rather than actually trying to kill the knee-jerk "Source bad" instinct.

If you don't want me to talk about this with you I made an post that i put a lot more effort on above that i really like to hear an response to.

Rockit fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 4, 2021

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 22:06

Rockit: Feb 2, 2017

Kalit posted:

TBF, this goes way beyond simple source dismissal. The OP that started all of this posted tweets without looking anything up about them. Without providing any context. In which the tweets were a mess of screenshotted tweets/article headings/etc mashed together.

The issue at hand is because it is common in USPol to see people who are a) posting information without verifying it, and b) posting context-less jargon without providing their own views/explanations because it fits their narrative.

In my initial response, yes, I did question the source of it being from an RT reporter. I stated my initial skepticism of this. However, I also looked up one of the claims that he made and showed how he was trying to paint a false picture. For reference, here's my response:

An effort post isn't just only rebutting one point and treating that as representative of the whole. It's possible for Duss to be reasonable on Afghanistan while unreasonable on syria(This is just an hypothetical..i assume otherwise but will do my own research on that) and when you're comparing your candidate to someone who condoned race riots you kind of are showing your own rear end. Not condoning that behavior as the tweets claim i assume but does show ignorance that isn't appropriate for someone trying to do FP.

Rockit fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Feb 4, 2021

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 22:17

Rockit: Feb 2, 2017

Kalit posted:

I'm not claiming my post was an effort post. I'm claiming that the OP was posting terribly and didn't even bother to look up what they were posting to ensure that the tweets were accurate. While also making a snide remark about the source of the tweets.

Just because i found your response inadequate doesn't mean the original post wasn't worse shite. It was but this thread is also about how people deal with bad sourcing and people not making effortpost is a fair thing to criticize. I already said if someone just posting bad sources in bad faith they should be punished.

Thorn Wishes Talon posted:

If something that is published or reported by a bad source is both correct and credible, there will virtually always be a better source reporting on it because it has passed the threshold for verifiability. That better source should be used instead, especially if the bad source is a well-known propaganda outlet and/or has been shown to frequently misrepresent the information for click-bating purposes. The exception to this is news that the bad source happens to break, which will be rare, and in such cases, again, it is better to wait until a better source reports on it.

I'm okay with not blacklisting sources, but IMO there should be a more stringent requirement for the poster to answer axeil's questions if they insist on using a bad source:

While i do agree better sources exist i don't think they're good enough to just trust or dismiss without doing independent research nor would i nessciraly recall if things were previously reported even if read the front pages of the best sources everyday . For example it's not like the Atlantic and Forbes are talking about how problematic Navalny is now(And if so whether they make it top pages material.). I had to find the better sources myself rather look for Vox to post a new analysis article or something. And again i had to look things up on the hill to find out about his islamophobic blog posts. It's not quite an magical "Marketplace of scoops and reporting" in journalism.

Expecting better sources even with those caveats is understandable but the response to act like if none is provided for you none exist is clearly insufficient. This place is supposed to be a discussion place with critical thinking not just feed of the least bad sources. Effort posting in response to this will only clearly things to the misinformed and give rope for bad faith actors to hang. Don't get me wrong..I would prefer if people who used biased/explotive/half-truth sources to acknowledge and explain themselves but forcing people to describe in details particularly how poo poo their sources isn't how to actually teach media literacy. To be blunt it sounds more like paperwork to piss people off rather than actually giving people brains. Just encourage them to say for example: "I know the hill is trash but they link to his website which he says those things." Or "I know the twitter is very sus but he linked the full video for context. It's not what he says but it's still pretty trash." Having those cavets and having others show what good media literacy is like is more effective rather than making people answer questionnaires.

Rockit fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Feb 4, 2021

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 22:49

Rockit: Feb 2, 2017

Space Gopher posted:

Remember when someone brought up a detailed description of accusations against Biden when they were barely, tangentially relevant in an effort to own their posting enemies, a survivor pointed out that it was unnecessary and triggering them, and the response was not an apology but instead "I'm aligned with you" along with a clarification of specific details for anybody who didn't get it?

Because that was a thing that happened just a couple of weeks ago.

Who, exactly, is creating an unsafe space for survivors here?

Someone else being an prick about this issue doesn't make Jaxyon one nor does it let the mod team off the hook for this. whataboutism is a poor play. There's nothing stopping me from calling out that lovely behavior and the mods tack of hoping this blows over .
In fact..I did that in the very thread you're talking about .

Rockit fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Feb 4, 2021

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 23:05

Rockit: Feb 2, 2017

Herstory Begins Now posted:

We have at various points allowed people to discuss Reade's accusations in multiple threads but it progressively devolved into massive shitshows that were all around disgusting and unpleasant and, imo, categorically unhealthy both on an individual level and to dnd as a space as a whole. Even in the threads that had multiple extremely severe warnings of 'if you are lovely about this you will get huge probes.'

If there's a way to have a thread for discussing the allegations without being extremely lovely about it, I'm fine with that. So far though, none of the normal moderation tools or tightly moderating stuff has been at all effective in creating any productive discussion on the subject. Also after this long, I don't know what people would even be discussing about it anymore.

The whole Reade situation is an injustice for some people and that going to impact their feelings on the press, Biden, and other things. The world acting it neither happen effetely only creates a Streisand effect where they point out this injustice if they think it's relevant(And despite the
shitness of the discussions it was if in the feedback threads it was in the self-fulfilling prophecy way.)

I don't entirely blame y'all for this choice but if people find Reade credible they just aren't going to hear "While people are only going to be unreasonable over this accusation not yours/any others." like y'all trying to say even if that's actually true. You must at least respect that if do nothing else different.

Edit: I do appreciate you doing just that Herstory.

Rockit fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Feb 4, 2021

# ¿ Feb 4, 2021 23:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 12, 2024 18:16

Rockit: Feb 2, 2017

To continue on previously topic:
I think my preference for cavets and effort rebutting makes more sense with this being an atypical kind of board to this website. People who lurk will be more comfortable and be more welcome with posting to deal with misconceptions than they would having to write an questionnaire if they're source is weird. .

# ¿ Feb 5, 2021 00:01

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Posting and discussing sources: a D&D feedback thread