"I don't like backing up my opinions when 13 people disagree with me" is only tangentially related to the topic at hand, which if you'd go back and read was people dropping claims into threads then bouncing without backing them up. Two different things
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53075257]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 [B]posts about how Obama has said things similar to Trump[/B]. 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]
I assume the bolded part is in relation to my recent comments in the thread about the CNN threat. If it's not, please correct me.
Here's the problem: I did back of my citation of Obama. I gave the NYT as a source, which includes the direct quotes. The part you disagreed with isn't that Obama said those things, but that they aren't similar enough to be relevant... and that's where facts end and opinions begins. So we have a discussion. If you were in fact referring to that thread, then it's a perfect example of what both Marbalo and I have mentioned: the confusing of hard facts and opinion.
Speaking specifically for Chris Morris' post on Kim Dotcom, did you still need mod action after all?
[quote]
[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]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;53068128]the only reference i can find to this is the [URL="https://www.theverge.com/2012/1/19/2719223/megaupload-criminal-copyright-justice-department-conspiracy"]US justice department calling Megaupload an "international organized criminal enterprise allegedly responsible for massive worldwide online piracy"[/URL] and another article [URL="http://www.gamespresso.com/2015/01/congratulations-kim-dotcom-you-paid-off-a-criminal-organization/"]chastising Kim Dotcom for paying off Lizard Squad to stop them from DDoSing game servers[/URL]. neither of these really seem congruent with your assertion that he was on the take from murderous crime groups. perhaps you misinterpreted some things? if not could you please share your sources with us?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53074417][B]You are correct, it's my mistake.[/B] The last time I read about Dotcom at length was when Megaupload went down, and I misconstrued (and likely misremembered) what they meant by 'organized crime'. In addition to rumors at the time saying he was involved with mafia groups it became pretty fuzzled in my memory. I would say that it's hardly my fault for misremembering a detail about someone who was last relevant a good seven or six years ago, but I've got memory issues as it is so I probably should've looked for a source before posting, mea culpa.
[editline]23rd January 2018[/editline]
He has a history of insider trading and illicit business manoeuvrers though, so the common image of him as some kind of free speech martyr is, at best, misguided, and at worst a manipulative ploy by a snake in the grass (him).[/QUOTE]
[/quote]
[QUOTE=sgman91;53075291]I assume the bolded part is in relation to my recent comments in the thread about the CNN threat. If it's not, please correct me.
Here's the problem: I did back of my citation of Obama. I gave the NYT as a source, which includes the direct quotes. The part you disagreed with isn't that Obama said those things, but that they aren't similar enough to be relevant... and that's where facts end and opinions begins. So we have a discussion.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to rebut this in that most of your said 'discussions' revolve around debates of 'what the definition of the word "is" is'.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53075300]I'd like to rebut this in that most of your said 'discussions' revolve around debates of 'what the definition of the word "is" is'.[/QUOTE]
Obviously I disagree, but it's besides the point.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53075313]Obviously I disagree, but it's besides the point.[/QUOTE]
No, I think it is the point to an extent. If you're saying someone has 'said something' and then provide quotation that demonstrates they didn't 'say the thing you stated they did' I wouldn't say that's 'providing evidence to back your claim'.
To be succinct, your claim was that Obama stating that calling Fox News as being a source of 'illegitimate news' and that they were being his 'opposition' was the same as Trump calling every news organization other than Fox News a 'great danger to the country' and an 'enemy of the people'. That calling Fox News illegitimate and being oppositional to him is the same thing as calling every news organization aside from Fox 'a danger to the citizens and the nation itself' -- that they are an 'enemy of the united states', which is language typically reserved for actual enemies of the United States such as terrorists.
It doesn't quite rise enough to be 'hopeful incitement' but it's close and Obama's never made claims that rise even near to that. In other words: I don't think it's valid to say 'this person did stuff just as bad' and then provide something that doesn't demonstrate your claim while you then say 'in my opinion it does demonstrate my claim' when it objectively does not.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;53075332]No, I think it is the point to an extent. If you're saying someone has 'said something' and then provide quotation that demonstrates they didn't 'say the thing you stated they did' I wouldn't say that's 'providing evidence to back your claim'.
To be succinct, your claim was that Obama stating that calling Fox News as being a source of 'illegitimate news' and that they were being his 'opposition' was the same as Trump calling every news organization other than Fox News a 'great danger to the country' and an 'enemy of the people'. That calling Fox News illegitimate and being oppositional to him is the same thing as calling every news organization aside from Fox 'a danger to the citizens and the nation itself' -- that they are an 'enemy of the united states', which is language typically reserved for actual enemies of the United States such as terrorists.[/QUOTE]
Simply put: I never said Obama's statements were equivalent. That wasn't my argument. If you think it was, then you should reread my posts in total. This isn't the place to have this discussion. So I'll leave it at that.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53075342]Simply put: I never said Obama's statements were equivalent. That wasn't my argument. If you think it was, then you should reread my posts in total. This isn't the place to have this discussion. So I'll leave it at that.[/QUOTE]
You are making a direct comparison. Thereby, you are stating that the situations are equivalent - thereby you're stating that the statements are equivalent because you are asking us to compare them as the same and arrive at a conclusion that 'they are equally as bad'. Come on, now. If you don't want to have the discussion here, that's fine, but don't pretend what you supplied as evidence in any way rose to justify what you stated.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53075291]I assume the bolded part is in relation to my recent comments in the thread about the CNN threat. If it's not, please correct me.
Here's the problem: I did back of my citation of Obama. I gave the NYT as a source, which includes the direct quotes. The part you disagreed with isn't that Obama said those things, but that they aren't similar enough to be relevant... and that's where facts end and opinions begins. So we have a discussion. If you were in fact referring to that thread, then it's a perfect example of what both Marbalo and I have mentioned: the confusing of hard facts and opinion.[/QUOTE]
No I was talking about someone else, I don't want to get banned for calling out so I won't say who, but I don't think any posts you made would fall under the suggestion being made here.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;53075192]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]
Retroactively enforcing bans on a newly created rule wouldn't exactly be fair would it
[QUOTE=Craptasket;53075295]Speaking specifically for Chris Morris' post on Kim Dotcom, did you still need mod action after all?[/QUOTE]
Like Hezzy said, I don't really agree with retroactively banning users for something that wasn't against the rules at the time.
But I think his post is a good point for a possible rule change that, in my opinion, will help cull some of the shitposts or outright lies/libel/spread of misinformation.
The point of the suggestion was to cover users who are posting this stuff as if it's facts which is why that post is such a good example for my suggestion. There's no opinion here, it's stated as a pure and plain fact.
I'll admit I'm also guilty of having posted stuff in the past that I thought was fact, and our memory isn't close to being perfect, and it's only a day or two later reading back on it that I realize I was wrong. So it's understandable if they post back saying "yeah I fucked up, I was confusing this was something else."
My suggestion is to more cover the bases for people who drop that kind of stuff and vanish never to be heard of again. Because otherwise I could drop some random obscure claim like "WikiLeaks has actually been subjugated by the US and is being used to purport the false claim of Russian influence in an attempt to discredit its releases" and nobody would be the wiser even though I have zero evidence to back this up.
I don't think the grace period should be any longer than a week. This is anecdotal but after a week I don't really keep track of my posts unless it was in a megathread I frequently check. Like I said in my original post, I'm vouching for 24-72 hours to be used as the grace period.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53076269]How do you expect to enforce that? I highly doubt there's any sort of forum feature to make it easy for mods to check that.[/QUOTE]
Add a report option for it. Have it show up in the report list X hours/days after it's reported, or just wait on it until it's been X days since first reported. If they review it and it was a shitsnipe, then it's banned.
Doesn't need to be a complex feature, it's basically just shit post reporting with a timer.
[editline]23rd January 2018[/editline]
I also am going to throw "shitsnipe" into the hat along side "drive-by shit posting" for the official name of this.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53076292]From what I understand, adding any sort of feature is pretty much not gonna happen because the forum foundation is so old.[/QUOTE]
I'd assume whatever report system they have shows time stamps.
I just don't think it's right to expect users to babysit all the threads they share their thoughts in, just in case someone wants them to expand.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53076330]I just don't think it's right to expect users to babysit all the threads they post in, just in case someone wants them to expand.[/QUOTE]
It's not about babysitting your posts for debate. It's about the people who make blatantly inflammatory posts in a thread with no factual components attached.
The goal is that if someone makes a claim that they don't back up initially, and they get called out, that they come back and justify themselves or they get banned for starting shit with a shit post.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53076335]Then whats the point of posting if you don't read the replies?[/QUOTE]
To share your thoughts? One post is one post, not a commitment to monitor the entire thread until it dies.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;53076340]It's not about babysitting your posts for debate. It's about the people who make blatantly inflammatory posts in a thread with no factual components attached.
The goal is that if someone makes a claim that they don't back up initially, and they get called out, that they come back and justify themselves or they get banned for starting shit with a shit post.[/QUOTE]
But for people who share (what they thought was correct) information, how can you guarantee that they even know there are people responding to them? I'd be pretty peeved if I got banned out of nowhere, because of a post a week ago that no one told me I was supposed to defend. I'd be OK with these new rules IF there was some way to notify the person that they need to back up their claim other than in-thread responses because chances are they don't even know people are arguing with their post.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53076351]Why share thoughts if you don't read the replies? Then you're just talking to yourself.[/QUOTE]
Or you are giving your two cents and moving on because you didn't expect a continued conversation?
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53076342]To share your thoughts? One post is one post, not a commitment to monitor the entire thread until it dies.[/QUOTE]
You're missing the very large point here.
[QUOTE=Zombinie;53076357]But for people who share (what they thought was correct) information, how can you guarantee that they even know there are people responding to them? I'd be pretty peeved if I got banned out of nowhere, because of a post a week ago that no one told me I was supposed to defend. I'd be OK with these new rules IF there was some way to notify the person that they need to back up their claim other than in-thread responses because chances are they don't even know people are arguing with their post.[/QUOTE]
This seems to be specific to the Polidicks forum. If that's the case, it's not really a place for you to debate things based on your opinion (some things are). But if you're going to engage in a factual debate with a contrary opinion, and fail to follow up or initially provide some sources, then don't post there at all.
[editline]23rd January 2018[/editline]
It's not even opinion posts so much as it is just outright false or unfounded statements.
[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;53076165]x[/QUOTE]
sounds kind of dumb imo. uninformed or mildly reactionary post =/= shitposting. you shouldn't have to gather scholarly references just to post a comment on a news article on a video game forum
now the post in question is probably borderline shitposting, but if so, isn't it already ban worthy? numerous users have been permabanned in the past for continuous low-effort or inflammatory posting in the news sections
if someone posts "WikiLeaks has actually been subjugated by the US and is being used to purport the false claim of Russian influence in an attempt to discredit its releases" then rate dumb and move on, reply to the post and ask for sources, or present an epic zinger counterpoint? I think posting an actual counterargument will be far more effective at correcting false claims than just silencing them with a ban
if someone actually sees a post like that and believes it at face value I don't see how facepunch moderators are going to protect them when they're going to pick up far more shitty opinions and falsehoods from facebook, the media, IRL, etc every single day
[QUOTE=krail9;53076407]sounds kind of dumb imo. uninformed or mildly reactionary post =/= shitposting. you shouldn't have to gather scholarly references just to post a comment on a news article on a video game forum
now the post in question is probably borderline shitposting, but if so, isn't it already ban worthy? numerous users have been permabanned in the past for continuous low-effort or inflammatory posting in the news sections
if someone posts "WikiLeaks has actually been subjugated by the US and is being used to purport the false claim of Russian influence in an attempt to discredit its releases" then rate dumb and move on, reply to the post and ask for sources, or present an epic zinger counterpoint? I think posting an actual counterargument will be far more effective at correcting false claims than just silencing them with a ban
if someone actually sees a post like that and believes it at face value I don't see how facepunch moderators are going to protect them when they're going to pick up far more shitty opinions and falsehoods from facebook, the media, IRL, etc every single day[/QUOTE]
You can post counterarguments all day long, but that does nothing, has done nothing, and will continue to do nothing to help the problem.
Besides that, you're implying my suggestion encompasses all various forms of posts, which it doesn't. As I said, it's [B][I]specifically[/I][/B] for posts like the one I mentioned in my suggestion. Opinions are opinions, but there's a fine line between that and posts like the one I showed.
It's not a matter of if the post is believable or not moreso than the fact that it's allowed to occur in the first place.
I don't believe posts like those should be allowed to perpetuate themselves. When you present something as fact like that, I don't think it's asking for too much to simply provide a source for that information.
[editline]Edited: [/editline]
As for enforcing it, I don't see why we can't just do as Kiwi suggested and report the post as usual. The problem is that it's currently not against the rules to do such a thing, and I'm arguing that it should be.
I don't know if this is a thing already in newpunch or it's a feature that's possible, but it'd be nice to have a feature to notify someone if they've been referenced in a thread or something so they can participate and it's of interest. I mean, there are some people floating about here who do have domain knowledge about specific things, so it'd be nice to have them chime in on threads of interest.
[QUOTE=snookypookums;53076507]I don't know if this is a thing already in newpunch or it's a feature that's possible, but it'd be nice to have a feature to notify someone if they've been referenced in a thread or something so they can participate and it's of interest. I mean, there are some people floating about here who do have domain knowledge about specific things, so it'd be nice to have them chime in on threads of interest.[/QUOTE]
You can already mention people on newpunch like [highlight]@snookypookums[/highlight] and they get a notification
[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]
For the record I didn't respond in time (despite posting a bit afterward) because over the past two days I've been taking a lot of painkillers and trying to come down off several months of an alcoholic relapse. Again, not really an excuse, but it's left my memory very frazzled, and I actually completely forgot I made this post until I reviewed my post-history this morning, at which point I actually did the smart thing and [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591590&p=53074417#post53074417]did the research[/url], which admittedly I should've done earlier, but hey.
It wasn't a wilful lie. I was a teenager when Dotcom was busted and now I'm a full-grown adult. It's been a long time since I actually read into him. I mistook the news organizations claims at the time that he was related to "organized crime" to mean actual, you know, mafia groups rather than just a bunch of people who rip movies for a living. So, again, mea culpa. I think it's a bit unfair to accuse me of "drive-by shitposting" for making a statement like that-- I thought it was true, but it turns out I was wrong.
This is as embarrassing as the time I got refused pub service in Dagenham because I forgot my own birthdate on my ID and the bloke thought it was fake.
[editline]24th January 2018[/editline]
Ironically I did the same thing that happened in my namesake satirist's series, Brass Eye.
"There is no real evidence for it but it's scientific fact."
[QUOTE=Hezzy;53075895]Retroactively enforcing bans on a newly created rule wouldn't exactly be fair would it[/QUOTE]
Depends on whether or not you consider it a new rule, or an interpretation of an existing rule. You could just call it shitposting, without the need for the addition of the "drive-by" descriptor, and enforce it as normal. Personally, I find it odd that if users who have a known history of making posts that requires a new rule or rule interpretation to be enforced, why wouldn't you enforce it on them?
[editline]24th January 2018[/editline]
Basically yes, I think it [i]is[/i] fair to enforce a rule on people if it's a recent event or one that was cause for the new rule to be added in the first place.
I don't know if this is something that's already done/mentioned around here, but it would be nice if "BREAKING NEWS" got removed from SH/Polidicks thread titles after a day or so.
It's a little annoying seeing "BREAKING NEWS!!1!!" in the sidebar, only to find that it's the same old thread that's been bumped for some reason.
I have a question. What exactly did I do to get banned a few years back for spamming the OIFY? It just seems rather strange that I somehow got banned for spamming something which is essentially a spam receptacle.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;53077153]Depends on whether or not you consider it a new rule, or an interpretation of an existing rule. You could just call it shitposting, without the need for the addition of the "drive-by" descriptor, and enforce it as normal. Personally, I find it odd that if users who have a known history of making posts that requires a new rule or rule interpretation to be enforced, why wouldn't you enforce it on them?
[editline]24th January 2018[/editline]
Basically yes, I think it [i]is[/i] fair to enforce a rule on people if it's a recent event or one that was cause for the new rule to be added in the first place.[/QUOTE]
It would need to be a new rule, considering how specific it is. "Shitposting" is a very broad term used to describe low effort posts and the like. This is a very specific thing that people do in specific situations.
We're working on writing a rule that we think is fair and addresses this particular issue. We won't be issuing retroactive bans.
Polidicks is not just a news forum, but a debate forum. What y'all are calling "drive by shitposting" is essentially just refusing to participate. If you have no intention of actually carrying on a conversation or debate to any reasonable degree, then why post at all? I'm not saying you need to stick it out for twenty pages of cyclical debate, but at least make a cursory [I]attempt[/I] at participating in an actual discussion. If you want to drop one-off comments and disappear, go to a YouTube comment section.
i imagine this will all be much simpler when we move to newpunch and we can use mentions :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Forum Discussion v6 - Newpunch Migration Underway
