The rules pin in Polidicks needs to be updated with the newly-implemented "drive-by-shitposting" rule, and an explanation on how it works.
[QUOTE=Chonch;53077892]The rules pin in Polidicks needs to be updated with the newly-implemented "drive-by-shitposting" rule, and an explanation on how it works.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Hezzy;53077611]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 [highlight][B]working[/B] on writing a rule[/highlight] that we think is fair and addresses this particular issue. We won't be issuing retroactive bans.[/QUOTE]It'll be updated [I]when[/I] the time comes.
[QUOTE=Chonch;53077892]The rules pin in Polidicks needs to be updated with the newly-implemented "drive-by-shitposting" rule, and an explanation on how it works.[/QUOTE]
From what we can gather by reading, it boils down to:
Don’t make a post that makes a significant claim, and then proceed to not defend or source said post
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53078077]From what we can gather by reading, it boils down to:
Don’t make a post that makes a significant claim, and then proceed to not defend or source said post[/QUOTE]
Hmm wondering about this, if we don't allow non reputable sources then it sorta restricts people to only saying what news outlets print.
I dislike that drive by stuff from those posters but there are times I've said things which didn't have explicit proof, it's more inferred from things or hearsay or deduced or predicted.
Eg if I said the tory party in the UK are trying to privatise the NHS. I believe that statement to be correct. There is no statement stating that's tory policy. I believe also that lots of tories provably have shares in private healthcare and/or that they're tax evaders. I have no proof for this bar a few examples of cases which we know about but that can be dismissed as anecdotal one off stuff.
Would I be disallowed from saying these things or would I have to make it clear that these are unconfirmed beliefs and only my beliefs?
Another example is trump tax cuts not making extra jobs. I believe that to be the case, I've seen a video where business leaders are asked if they'll make more jobs and non put their hand up. However can I state it for certain that those cuts won't make new jobs? No, not for certain, I don't know the future but I'm still fairly sure they won't create many (if any) extra jobs. Then you get people saying "just give it a chance" which seems almost like a "shut up and complain later once the damage is done".
Sorry tyll who try to avoid polidicks for leaking it in gd forumdiscussion but I think there is discussion to be had here (not about the political stuff but about the stance toward beliefs without explicit single sources)
Plus theres the time part of this, all it takes to derail discussion is someone to start demanding sources to every tiny thing, arguing in bad faith, obfscating and destroying discussion. It can take a while to find a source especially from something from months back, especially if it's the combination of several sources and if there is some nuance or context that must be explained to accompany it. Imo that is far worse and destructive than some clown coming in making a shit post about Obama being worse than trump and then disappearing. When rules aid people in trolling and arguing in bad faith then they're bad rules imo. Sadly there's no clear litmus test to explicitly identify someone doing it, we all know it when we see it but mods gotta give benefit of the doub
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53078152]Hmm wondering about this, if we don't allow non reputable sources then it sorta restricts people to only saying what news outlets print.
I dislike that drive by stuff from those posters but there are times I've said things which didn't have explicit proof, it's more inferred from things or hearsay or deduced or predicted.
Eg if I said the tory party in the UK are trying to privatise the NHS. I believe that statement to be correct. There is no statement stating that's tory policy. I believe also that lots of tories provably have shares in private healthcare and/or that they're tax evaders. I have no proof for this bar a few examples of cases which we know about but that can be dismissed as anecdotal one off stuff.
Would I be disallowed from saying these things or would I have to make it clear that these are unconfirmed beliefs and only my beliefs?
Another example is trump tax cuts not making extra jobs. I believe that to be the case, I've seen a video where business leaders are asked if they'll make more jobs and non put their hand up. However can I state it for certain that those cuts won't make new jobs? No, not for certain, I don't know the future but I'm still fairly sure they won't create many (if any) extra jobs. Then you get people saying "just give it a chance" which seems almost like a "shut up and complain later once the damage is done".
Sorry tyll who try to avoid polidicks for leaking it in gd forumdiscussion but I think there is discussion to be had here (not about the political stuff but about the stance toward beliefs without explicit single sources)
Plus theres the time part of this, all it takes to derail discussion is someone to start demanding sources to every tiny thing, arguing in bad faith, obfscating and destroying discussion. It can take a while to find a source especially from something from months back, especially if it's the combination of several sources and if there is some nuance or context that must be explained to accompany it. Imo that is far worse and destructive than some clown coming in making a shit post about Obama being worse than trump and then disappearing. When rules aid people in trolling and arguing in bad faith then they're bad rules imo. Sadly there's no clear litmus test to explicitly identify someone doing it, we all know it when we see it but mods gotta give benefit of the doub[/QUOTE]
Well sources are quite important, but the general rule of thumb is that if we aren't going to be citing everything then only the claims that are called into question need sources (and new information, though that is usually done in the form of new threads), its up to the people in the discussion to be able to discern whether poster's claims are truth or not, and to question them when necessary. The guy bringing this up just got unbanned after insinuating that Obama's presidency saw similar scandals to Trump's, but after being questioned he didn't even post in the thread again.
IMO, source rules really only ought to apply to historical fact claims, hard number claims, or quotes. Everything else can be supported by sources, but shouldn't require direct sources.
I don't think you should be banned if you can't provide a source, as along as you concede/apologize.
I don't know if you saw my PM or not Hezzy,but sorry for not accepting the video game earlier,I honestly forgot to check the prize giving stream so yeah,but thanks again! :D
[QUOTE=Hezzy;53077611]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.[/QUOTE]
Works for me!
[QUOTE=Ott;53078208]I don't think you should be banned if you can't provide a source, as along as you concede/apologize.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is my line of thinking about this.
[t]https://i.imgur.com/qfs7jSK.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53078184]The guy bringing this up just got unbanned after insinuating that Obama's presidency saw similar scandals to Trump's, but after being questioned he didn't even post in the thread again.[/QUOTE]
I've always thought it verboten to continue posting in threads after you've been banned in them. Is this no longer conventional wisdom?
[QUOTE=Chonch;53078430]I've always thought it verboten to continue posting in threads after you've been banned in them. Is this no longer conventional wisdom?[/QUOTE]
IIRC that was more of a rule-of-thumb for people who kept on posting like a idiot.
Because if they got banned once in that thread, there's a high change they'll keep on posting dumb shit related to it.
All posts must have an APA format reference list at the end including proper in text citations and proper citation format. No hanging indent = ban.
[QUOTE=Chonch;53077892]The rules pin in Polidicks needs to be updated with the newly-implemented "drive-by-shitposting" rule, and an explanation on how it works.[/QUOTE]
I think that it's common knowledge that dumb claims without backing them up is shitposting. You confirmed it was when you were asked for citations and you ran away. If mods want to update the rules to reflect it sure why not but we shouldn't have to be told not to hit and run.
All I'm picturing when I hear "drive-by shitposting" is just a car screaming by like [I]NYEOOOW[/I] as someone screams "I THINK HITLER WAS RIGHT!" under the roar of the engine, before disappearing into the midnight fog.
All I'm picturing when I hear "drive-by shitposting" is just a car screaming by like [I]NYEOOOW[/I] as someone screams "All I'm picturing when I hear "drive-by shitposting" is just a car screaming by like [I]NYEOOOW[/I] as someone screams "I THINK HITLER WAS RIGHT!" under the roar of the engine, before disappearing into the midnight fog." under the roar of the engine, before disappearing into the midnight fog.
[QUOTE=WrathOfCat;53077758]i imagine this will all be much simpler when we move to newpunch and we can use mentions :v:[/QUOTE]
yeah a big thing for me personally is that I don't go and read every new post if there's a couple dozen of them since I last checked the thread, probably not the only one either. I'm sure on that basis alone that I've been an offender more than once.
ditching the read threads section is probably just gonna make drive by shitposting worse though.
[editline]24th January 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Craptasket;53078374]Yeah, this is my line of thinking about this.
[t]https://i.imgur.com/qfs7jSK.png[/t][/QUOTE]
that's not a line
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53077684]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.[/QUOTE]
the kim dotcom post was in SH though. the difference in standards between SH, polidicks, and the rest of the forum needs to be clarified in the stickies
[QUOTE=thejjokerr;53078743]The chart never ends.
Where am I supposed to start and when does it end because I think I'm stuck[/QUOTE]
It starts with good intentions and ends up in OIFY
If you're truly too dense to figure out if your post is a shitpost or not, maybe you ought to consider not posting it in the first place?
[QUOTE=Kiwi;53078690]Several spelling mistakes. It sucks.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=butre;53078704]
that's not a line[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thejjokerr;53078743]The chart never ends.
Where am I supposed to start and when does it end because I think I'm stuck[/QUOTE]
[b]NEW[/b]
[QUOTE=NightmareX91;53079023]you need to learn how to make a proper flowchart[/QUOTE]
imbeciles
[QUOTE=Craptasket;53078900]imbeciles[/QUOTE]
you need to learn how to make a proper flowchart
Flowcharts are for nerds, use common sense instead.
[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;53079059]Flowcharts are for nerds, use common sense instead.[/QUOTE]
common sense isn't methodical, and it's nowhere near as pretty as kiwi's pink and blue arrows with comic sans
[QUOTE=NightmareX91;53079065]common sense isn't methodical, and it's nowhere near as pretty as kiwi's pink and blue arrows with comic sans[/QUOTE]
found the nerd
[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;53079068]found the nerd[/QUOTE]
real nerds take moderation matters into their own hands instead of reporting everyone they disagree with and hoping someone else does the dirty work for them
[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;53079059]Flowcharts are for nerds, use common sense instead.[/QUOTE]
Common sense isn't common
[QUOTE=NightmareX91;53079023]you need to learn how to make a proper flowchart[/QUOTE]
its not a flow chart
Should there be a Mueller investigation megathread? Things could come to a head soon.
[QUOTE=Mezzokoko;53079068]found the kiwi alt[/QUOTE]
ftfy
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
Forum Discussion v6 - Newpunch Migration Underway
