|
I don’t really think we should prohibit certain sources but I do think if you post a tweet and your description of it is not what the actual linked article/source says you should get an automatic week probation. I’ve seen two instances of this that led to big details - the one that stands out is someone posting a tweet criticizing Biden for his proposed minimum wage increase timeline... and the actual linked article referenced a bill from 2019 and nothing from Biden. It led to three pages of back and forth.
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2021 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
In fact, we also had the same thing happen again, last night, when someone posted a link to a bill as evidence that Democrats are bad... except the bill was written by a Republican. If you're too lazy to even do the tiniest bit of research - actually reading - the content you're posting and reacting to, then you should be getting hit with much more than a 6'er. I think doing this would clear out 75% of the worst sourcing issues, and then, at a later point, we can have a larger conversation if necessary about what sources are de facto bad faith. But let's at least punish the people posting "good" sources without bothering to read what they say before slamming their hot takes into the thread that aren't even supported by the evidence they're providing. Also I firmly believe that if you're posting anything that isn't strictly informational, i.e. anyone's opinion or reaction, you should have to add your own contribution, even if its "I think this is a great point!" Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jan 31, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2021 21:27
|
|
|
Let's talk about specifics. This was posted yesterday: quote:also, forgive me for going on a dems bad spree, but this is also really hosed up Except when you follow the actual link, the proposed bill is from a Republican. After a mod pointing this out, the OP followed up with: quote:okay in fairness i just realized Waltz is a Republican so its not necessarily "dems bad" but wasserman-schultz signing off on it is loving inexcusable The original post was never edited, and no punishment was handed out. Posting a link and then saying something completely wrong about that link needs to be a heavy probation. Read the loving poo poo you post! Can we at least make this a rule and enforce it before getting into specifics about testing sources? You should be responsible for the tweets and articles you post: both in accurately summarizing what they say, and also for checking to make sure they're not garbage. If you aren't ok with that, don't post the source. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:You're very angry about someone being wrong about who wrote the bill but ignoring that a greater point that's related to issues of Democratic Party values remains when you look that it's cosponsored by DWS, a major Florida Democrat, and his entire pitch is using her and a couple other dems as a way to say this ghoulish, racist, bill they support is bipartisan and good. I'm not "very angry", I'm pointing out that theres a problem in USPol where people post tweets without actually reading them or misrepresenting what a tweet says. There's a big difference between "this is a Democratic Party Bill!" and "this is a bill introduced by a Republican and co-sponsored by a Democrat" - its fine to bring up the topic and discuss he latter, accurate framing, but you should be honest about what the situation is, particularly when you're using a tweet as evidence... without seemingly bothering to read the tweet or the bill it links to. I grabbed this post because it was the latest example, but this happens all the time, and its not just about "Dems bad." There are a lot of garbage, in accurately framed tweets about Trump which are thrown into the thread. It takes literally 5 seconds to look this stuff up before slamming the "reply" button. If this isn't a rule then I don't see how D&D can be a forum that encourages effort posting. Here's the rule I'd propose: You are responsible for the tweets you post and the articles they link to. If you are going to post a tweet or an article, make sure your post - and any tweets you link - accurately summarize the content. Failure to do so will be punished harshly. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Feb 1, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
Beyond punishing people for lying about what a source claims or posting clickbait misleading garbage, I don’t think it’s the responsibility of moderators to police sources. The key to this, though, is to let people refute sources in real time. You are welcome to post something from RT and other posters are equally welcome to dunk on you for that. If you can’t defend your post then you’re going to get proverbially owned. Let the thread police itself.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 22:52
|
|
|
Like, trying to curate a list of “good” sources is going to require a level of moderation effort that frankly SA isn’t equipped for, and to be honest I don’t think USPol needs that level of scrutiny when it’s ok to post mybankruptcyfraudcrimes.text. If someone is posting stupid bullshit from the Epoch Times or whatever let posters tell them to gently caress off.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 22:55
|
|
|
Kalit posted:The problem with this is it promotes lazy posting while also feeds disinformation to lurkers/posters who only look at tweets/etc and do not follow discussions. For example, with that RT anti-Duss tweet, someone multiple pages later used a phrase from that tweet (Russian hawk). They were saying something to the effect of the US is ramping up interference in Russia's demostic policy because they're hiring Russian hawks like Duss. Sure, in a perfect would you could police content in this way, but it would require coming to a consensus on what are and aren’t good sources, which isn’t possible on a website with volunteer moderation and many posters who legitimately believe that RT is an excellent source. The challenge here is every time someone presents a source as an example of something that is inarguably propaganda that doesn’t have a place here, someone is happy to pipe up with “...wait a minute, I agree with what that says!” It’s the same discussion we’ve had in other contexts: there is too much ideological conflict to create a list of what is and isn’t ok to post without creating drama that, on its sum, will be far more distracting in a thread than just letting someone post RT and telling them to gently caress off. The key though is making it ok to say gently caress off.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 23:30
|
|
|
Also I would argue that people lying about what a source says - when the source in question is from a bog standard US newspaper - is the far bigger problem then someone posting propaganda from questionable sources. He’ll, last night someone posted an out of context Biden quote from an upcoming a TV news interview to support their conclusion that Biden is against increasing the minimum wage. Can we consistently deal with that first before trying to create more rules?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:The issue is no one loving does. Derails from bad sources and poo poo articles that aren't actually real happen all the time and go for pages, get dropped for 1 then get brought back up and go for another 3. Or someone comes in to reinforce the troll just because and welp here's ten pages of bullshit that poo poo up the threads. The solution with this isn’t to try to place guardrails on sources, it’s actually to punish bad faith trolls for being bad faith trolls. Let’s enforce the rules these people are already breaking instead of trying to invent new ones - and since the core problem here is failing to enforce existing rules, how is adding more rules going to help?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
does anyone have a good example of source that everyone can agree has no place on SA? for example: the epoch times.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
personally i don't think we should outright ban any news sources, but it should be fine to push back when someone posts a source which you think is questionable, as long as you are doing so reasonably, i.e. with a modicum of effort. if this ends up leading to derails then we can revisit if there does need to be some sort of black list of sources, but for now i am very wary of trying to create a list of acceptable and unacceptable sources. i posted this earlier, but if the purpose of this thread is to try to cut down on derails and arguments in uspol, almost all of those (latest notwithstanding) aren't caused by someone posting RT, they're caused by someone presenting a NY times or WaPo article and posting misleadingly about what it contains. to the specific RT story being discussed here, i think its fine to both post the article and discuss the content, while also potentially having a discussion about the context. i feel right now trying to parse the value of specific sources is a solution in search of a problem. note: this does not apply to blogs or twitter posts, but rather things posted by what are ostensibly news sources. i think we should crack down harshly on people posting bad tweets from unverified randos. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Feb 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2021 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
hi this seems to be a catchall moderation thread right now so I want to offer some unrelated feedback: I think that we should offer bucky a containment thread to peddle his particular brand of qanon, because giving safe spaces to batshit crazy posters (presterjane or D&D hero tobleronetriangular for example) are a long part of D&D tradition and quite funny. he seems harmless and if he's shunted off to a thread he won't be derailing other threads. SA is still supposed to a comedy forum and homegrown nutjobs are a long and venerated SA tradition which make for the funniest threads. he's totally harmless and we should err on the side of nurturing our special flowers. (actually i might make a new thread to suggest this, i guess?)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2021 01:06
|
|