[QUOTE=Scratch.;53071813]tracking protection turned on?[/QUOTE]
Huh, that was it. I'm not sure why it was only tweets and not Youtube or any other embeds, but I'm glad to have it fixed.
Anyway, thank you for the help!
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;53071815]Ech, I have to turn it off to get Twitter embeds to display?[/QUOTE]
You can keep it on, just add an exception for Facepunch and it'll allow tweets to embed again.
Not sure where to put this, but the community discord has an issue where it won't verify you until you have 50 posts when it says you can have 3 months or 50 posts.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53071812]Is anyone unable to get embedded tweets and hotlinks from twitter to display on Firefox Quantum? I have ublock origin and noscript installed. I don't know about ublock, but I did try with scripts allowed, but it didn't work. Haven't attempted it with either one completely disabled yet.[/QUOTE]
If you have the Disconnect plugin installed, it prevents tweets from being embedded.
So when everything's moved to newpunch and the moderators do their stuff on it for the first time, will everyone get a mulligan or will there be mass bans?
Does the 3,000 post count + 5 year still counts torwards getting gold?
I'd like to propose a rule change to both Sensationalist Headlines and Polidicks. My proposal comes from this thread: [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591590"]Kim Dotcom marries girlfriend and sues Government for 'multibillion-dollar damages' on same day[/URL]
And, more specifically, stems from this particular post:
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53066508]Before anyone defends Dotcom: He was literally on the take from organized crime groups. Like, actual murderous, racketeering crime groups. Just take that into consideration before you defend him.[/QUOTE]
Now, this post on its own seems harmless. But digging deeper this is literally nothing more than a snipe at best. Here's why: later on in the thread, several other users very clearly pointed out there's zero evidence whatsoever to back this up. The person in question never returned to the thread to validate his claims. IOW he stopped by, dropped a blatant lie in the thread, and left without any repercussions whatsoever.
This is equivalent of me dropping by a Tesla thread and going "yeah, but did you know Elon Musk was a convicted child molester? so you probably shouldn't support him" and promptly never showing up in that thread again. It's a blatant lie, derails the thread, and is specifically meant to bait people.
I'm proposing that a user should be given 24-72 hours to reply with an accurate non-biased (think Polidicks OP requirements) source when asked or be banned for snipe/libel/baseless misinformation/drive-by shitposting/whatever you want to call it. I think it's a tad ridiculous users are allowed to randomly drop lies into a thread with no substance behind them and get off scott free. There were obviously many people who even believed this post in question judging from the amount of zing and informative ratings it received.
[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53073336]So when everything's moved to newpunch and the moderators do their stuff on it for the first time, will everyone get a mulligan or will there be mass bans?[/QUOTE]
Everyone will start afresh on Newpunch according to the mod team.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53071830]You can keep it on, just add an exception for Facepunch and it'll allow tweets to embed again.[/QUOTE]Won't let me do that for Facepunch on FF Quantum for some reason :/
Guess I have to disable tracking protection on Twitter, which i'm loathe to do tbh.
[QUOTE=SoftHearted;53073362]Does the 3,000 post count + 5 year still counts torwards getting gold?[/QUOTE]
It's 2000 posts and 5 years.
I'm afraid you'll not make it.
[QUOTE=Mifil;53074625]It's 2000 posts and 5 years.
I'm afraid you'll not make it.[/QUOTE]
All I have left is less than 3 months. :c
[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;53073782]I'd like to propose a rule change to both Sensationalist Headlines and Polidicks. My proposal comes from this thread: [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591590"]Kim Dotcom marries girlfriend and sues Government for 'multibillion-dollar damages' on same day[/URL]
And, more specifically, stems from this particular post:
Now, this post on its own seems harmless. But digging deeper this is literally nothing more than a snipe at best. Here's why: later on in the thread, several other users very clearly pointed out there's zero evidence whatsoever to back this up. The person in question never returned to the thread to validate his claims. IOW he stopped by, dropped a blatant lie in the thread, and left without any repercussions whatsoever.
This is equivalent of me dropping by a Tesla thread and going "yeah, but did you know Elon Musk was a convicted child molester? so you probably shouldn't support him" and promptly never showing up in that thread again. It's a blatant lie, derails the thread, and is specifically meant to bait people.
I'm proposing that a user should be given 24-72 hours to reply with an accurate non-biased (think Polidicks OP requirements) source when asked or be banned for snipe/libel/baseless misinformation/drive-by shitposting/whatever you want to call it. I think it's a tad ridiculous users are allowed to randomly drop lies into a thread with no substance behind them and get off scott free. There were obviously many people who even believed this post in question judging from the amount of zing and informative ratings it received.[/QUOTE]
If it kills the drive-by shitposting some people do on the regular, hear hear.
[QUOTE=Gentleman Cat;53074744]All I have left is less than 3 months. :c[/QUOTE]
If you are desperate for Gold then just throw some cash into the community fund?
I've been seeing way too many posts lately where someone says something really stupid and baseless, then everyone in the thread quotes them and never get a response. Drive-by shitposting derails threads fast.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;53074888]I've been seeing way too many posts lately where someone says something really stupid and baseless, then everyone in the thread quotes them and never get a response. Drive-by shitposting derails threads fast.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you that "drive by shitposting" isn't a good thing, but I do understand the reluctance to respond when you have 10 other people going after you. It's almost impossible to have an actual discussion at that point.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53074889]I agree with you that "drive by shitposting" isn't a good thing, but I do understand the reluctance to respond when you have 10 other people going after you. It's almost impossible to have an actual discussion at that point.[/QUOTE]
imo if you post an opinion you should be able to have the nerve to back it up. If not, don't post.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53074889]I agree with you that "drive by shitposting" isn't a good thing, but I do understand the reluctance to respond when you have 10 other people going after you. It's almost impossible to have an actual discussion at that point.[/QUOTE]
Maybe people are going after that poster for making a bad post that had no sources/effort and was there to get people riled up.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53074889]I agree with you that "drive by shitposting" isn't a good thing, but I do understand the reluctance to respond when you have 10 other people going after you. It's almost impossible to have an actual discussion at that point.[/QUOTE]
posting the source is good for relieving any such pressure
[QUOTE=myon;53074900]posting the source is good for relieving any such pressure[/QUOTE]
I agree in principle, but many times there isn't such an easy answer. In the specific example above, you're right. They should have posted a source with their claim, but from my experience, it's pretty rare for someone to post a simple fact claim without a source.
The bigger problem is posting political opinions, coming back to 10 negative responses, and having difficulty responding at all.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53074906]I agree in principle, but many times there isn't such an easy answer. In the specific example above, you're right. They should have posted a source with their claim, but from my experience, it's pretty rare for someone to post a simple fact claim without a source.
The bigger problem is posting political opinions, coming back to 10 negative responses, and having difficulty responding at all.[/QUOTE]
Opinions with some backing in actual fact instead of being produced from questionable sources, along with an explanation of why such views are held, have usually led to a proper discussion with give and take except for more extreme view-holders on either side. If somebody's going up to extremes, you don't necessarily have to respond to such persons; respond to the people actually interested in a discussion instead of wanting to prove themselves right.
There's also nothing wrong with speculation provided it's inherently sound and veers from too much of a bias, backed up with an adequate foundation; groundless speculation never ends well whichever side of a discussion you see it in.
I just wanna say I love the name "drive-by shitposting"
Just makes me think of like 90's ganstas holding their Mac-10's sideways out their chevy convertible saying "yeah but did you hear that Hillary Clinton molested children in a D.C pizzeria" to a bunch of random civilians and driving off
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;53074987]I just wanna say I love the name "drive-by shitposting"
Just makes me think of like 90's ganstas holding their Mac-10's sideways out their chevy convertible saying "Don't kid yourself. Obama had his fair share of ridiculous news stories like this. This presidency has almost been like a darker reflection of the previous one." to a bunch of random civilians and driving off[/QUOTE]
ftfy
[QUOTE=Kiwi;53075012]What are you doing?[/QUOTE]
Drive-by shitposting :v:
[QUOTE=Kiwi;53075012]What are you doing?[/QUOTE]
Yup, in hindsight it was a shitpost. That guys post was a perfect example of a drive by shitpost in polidicks though.
MD honey you're supposed to have a getaway car
Imagine wanting to keep Nazis around because you don't want the forum to be an "echo chamber" of common sense.
[QUOTE=dai;53075040]MD honey you're supposed to have a getaway car[/QUOTE]
If peeps make a mistake they should admit it and accept the consequences, gives closure I think
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53075028]Yup, in hindsight it was a shitpost. That guys post was a perfect example of a drive by shitpost in polidicks though.[/QUOTE]
You don't outshitpost an Australian, seppo
[QUOTE=Kiwi;53075108]Be aware that my post was merely a perspective but if it should be made a rule it’s being discussed [i]heavily[/i][/QUOTE]
Drive by shitposting is still shitposting, just like ironic shitposting. The only discussion that should be had is whether or not you guys are going to retroactively enforce bans on posts that are considered drive by shitposting.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;53075220]What if an opinion is ideological in nature? How exactly are you supposed to give sources to that which hasn't been researched yet?
Should we not have opinions on obscur or new subjects because there are no "sources" that solidify some inherent undisputable truth one way or the other about any given subject? I get what you guys are saying, but I think you guys are pushing it with the "gib sources" stuff. Sometimes it's nice to just have a discussion or even a debate about stuff that don't have a featured article on the BBC.
I also think that, indeed, when one person is supposed to be replying to 8 other posters all hammering the same point, at the same time, using different wording it can feel a bit shit. By the time you're done replying to just one or two, the page refreshes and 5 new posts pop up directed at you. Why wouldn't you feel discourged to continue to conversation, or at the very least, compromise and reply to the select few you can manage? Your guys response to that being "well you should probably not have shit opinions :^)" is infantile.[/QUOTE]
But the problem is that people are giving their opinions on things that should be easily to cite, like the post about Kim dotcom or posts about how Obama has said things similar to Trump. These aren't ideological opinions that are pushing the envelope of political theory, they are claims that should be backed up, and I think your assertion that there can be no indisputable truth behind these claims to be problematic, for lack of a better word. There should be no reason to be against people having to back up their arguments. I'm not sure if it should necessarily be bannable, but as I've said in the past, I certainly think its a dick move. Finally, what's infantile is putting words in peoples mouths. Don't do that.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;53075220]What if an opinion is ideological in nature? How exactly are you supposed to give sources to that which hasn't been researched yet?
Should we not have opinions on obscur or new subjects because there are no "sources" that solidify some inherent undisputable truth one way or the other about any given subject? I get what you guys are saying, but I think you guys are pushing it with the "gib sources" stuff. Sometimes it's nice to just have a discussion or even a debate about stuff that don't have a featured article on the BBC.
I also think that, indeed, when one person is supposed to be replying to 8 other posters all hammering the same point, at the same time, using different wording it can feel a bit shit. By the time you're done replying to just one or two, the page refreshes and 5 new posts pop up directed at you. Why wouldn't you feel discourged to continue to conversation, or at the very least, compromise and reply to the select few you can manage? Your guys response to that being "well you should probably not have shit opinions :^)" is infantile.[/QUOTE]
I think that's a valid point. But I don't think stating someone is 'a criminal' and has 'mob ties' counts as 'an opinion' of any sort. That sort of thing is a factual statement and thus either has a fact backing it or has no fact backing it and is thus a lie.
It's not about having 'shit opinions'. It's about saying 'the President has eight corpses buried in the basement of his boyhood home, all of them he murdered because they were black and this was covered up by the media'. That isn't 'an opinion'.
e: Neither is 'this party/person never did X' when objective truth (read: factual reporting, records, documentation, their own public statements) demonstrates that they, in fact, did do X.
e2: Really, all that's being asked here is for people to argue in good faith. I would hope we could all agree with that sentiment as goes Polidicks because it's more or less a 'debate-forum-cum-political-zeitgeist' forum.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Forum Discussion v6 - Newpunch Migration Underway
