This thread will be used for discussing the moderation policy. Do not use the original MH17 thread to discuss the policy, you will be banned.
MH17 Thread
Forum Index > Website Feedback |
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
This thread will be used for discussing the moderation policy. Do not use the original MH17 thread to discuss the policy, you will be banned. | ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Original Message From Nyxisto: So is the current policy for the airliner thread not to talk about the Russia/Ukraine conflict at all? That's like talking about the Gaza Strip without using the words Israel or Palestine. Sure it's a loaded topic but the conflict is what it's all about. Policy is that if it isn't in a neutral media source then it's not valid. We can talk about the conflict from that lens only. | ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
SayfT
Australia298 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
on one hand separating the crash from the context renders the thread rather pointless. could make a tl-boohoo thread where people can collectively post spoilered boohoos whenever a tragedy occurs (boohoos about putin allowed as well). on the other hand adding an appendix to the ukraine crisis thread is probably deemed pointless by tl moderation as well (i thought it was great fun, albeit the dyslectic dialectic etc was frustrating at times). i wager it will take a long time before any solid info will appear, and in the meantime propaganda outlets all across russia and its puppet states (the rest of the world) will be pumping out hot air for pleb consumption. both thumbs down. | ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
On July 18 2014 09:19 Plexa wrote: No. Just the neutral source. This is so that both sides of the conflict can't point to the biases of a particular country. It may seem like a redundant step, but we see it as necessary. I would like to ask what constitutes a neutral media source? It seems like a term that has many loopholes. People are going to start posting news sources that wasted very little time spinning this news to fit an agenda and say 'oh CNN, trusted news source, they even say so on the television'. Saying you can post Routers or another trusted source is fine but names should be put forth and in the end challanged wether they fit the non-biased criteria. Banning all twitter quasi-news is a must though. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On July 18 2014 09:31 Sub40APM wrote: Yes. We're well aware of that.You do realize that from the perspective of a Russian poster, Western sources are biased since Ukraine is currently a puppet state of the West? I am not saying I agree with that perspective, but your quest for neutrality is doomed, at least until Malaysian reporters get on the scene I guess. On July 18 2014 09:36 nunez wrote: tl moderation is embarassing tl with that modnote, and it (tl moderation) seems out of its element. reword it and choose a different approach for moderating sources, or even better yet, close the thread all together if you don't have the capacity to moderate properly on a case by case basis, or even better yet, release the steering wheel and let tl loose on itself. on one hand separating the crash from the context renders the thread rather pointless. could make a tl-boohoo thread where people can collectively post spoilered boohoos whenever a tragedy occurs (boohoos about putin allowed as well). on the other hand adding an appendix to the ukraine crisis thread is probably deemed pointless by tl moderation as well (i thought it was great fun, albeit the dyslectic dialectic etc was frustrating at times). i wager it will take a long time before any solid info will appear, and in the meantime propaganda outlets all across russia and its puppet states (the rest of the world) will be pumping out hot air for pleb consumption. both thumbs down. On July 18 2014 09:44 zeo wrote: Thanks for your input.I would like to ask what constitutes a neutral media source? It seems like a term that has many loopholes. People are going to start posting news sources that wasted very little time spinning this news to fit an agenda and say 'oh CNN, trusted news source, they even say so on the television'. Saying you can post Routers or another trusted source is fine but names should be put forth and in the end challanged wether they fit the non-biased criteria. Banning all twitter quasi-news is a must though. | ||
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
Either way, I appreciate that this is a difficult topic and it's hard to keep the discussion respectful and meaningful. | ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
SpikeStarcraft
Germany2095 Posts
Maybe you should make clear in the MH17 thread that discussion about the Ukraine crisis is not welcome here in any form. Because that's what it is essentially. In the current state the thread serves no purpose. I was in disbelief when you said that this thread was for people to state that they lost a friend/relative. An online forum is not the place for personal griefing or psychological care. I know from reputable news sites that they dont allow you to post personal information and involvements in tragedies because it's not the place to do this. You're supposed to contact the authorities and/or grief with people you know. Also people lie on the internet and are not a reputable source. Also your definition of unbiased news coverage is ridiculous. Militarily all Nato members are puppet states of the USA. I think this incident, as sad as it is, is an interesting case study how propaganda works and how the different powers fight for the "right" interpretation of what happened. But yeah some topics seem to be too hot to handle for TL mods. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On July 18 2014 10:11 SpikeStarcraft wrote: I was wondering where else you would discuss implications on the Ukraine crisis so i looked up the thread for it but apparently you closed that one too. Maybe you should make clear in the MH17 thread that discussion about the Ukraine crisis is not welcome here in any form. Because that's what it is essentially. In the current state the thread serves no purpose. I was in disbelief when you said that this thread was for people to state that they lost a friend/relative. An online forum is not the place for personal griefing or psychological care. I know from reputable news sites that they dont allow you to post personal information and involvements in tragedies because it's not the place to do this. You're supposed to contact the authorities and/or grief with people you know. Also people lie on the internet and are not a reputable source. Also your definition of unbiased news coverage is ridiculous. Militarily all Nato members are puppet states of the USA. I think this incident, as sad as it is, is an interesting case study how propaganda works and how the different powers fight for the "right" interpretation of what happened. But yeah some topics seem to be too hot to handle for TL mods. Thanks for your input. | ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
I strongly support the older TL stance where you get rid of the people on teamliquid that lack maturity, or show extreme opinions, are trolls, and whatever. Instead, it feels like what TL does now (and LD/LH as well), is that instead of getting rid of toxic people, they try and make them coexist with the veterans of the site, and then any interesting discussion that is meaningful is not allowed. Because fuck, you know what makes good discussions? Controversial topics. If every thread gets this mod note, and educated people are not able to discuss freely, there is no points to have these threads. The only threads that exist are where everyone shares the same opinion about silly things. I really wish that the "Media/News/Controversial topics" forum, was moderated like the strategy forum. When you are being useless, baiting people, and doing all those other unfriendly things that hurt the experience of others on the site and steer the thread in the wrong direction, simply ban them from those topics. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On July 18 2014 10:44 FiWiFaKi wrote: That's fine, TL isn't a news site. If you want to discuss topics elsewhere with less moderation or different moderation then that's your choice. We've chosen this means to moderate the topic due to our experiences in the last Ukraine thread. We don't take stepping in and making mod notes lightly.Honestly that thread is not big enough to put such a comment on top. It comes off extremely douchey from teamliquid in a way that's very limiting. I'd much rather see people receive 2 day - one week bans if they post something outright stupid, or simply ban people from posting in that thread if they are absolutely stirring it in a wrong direction. The precaution in place really limits the thread in a negative way, to the point where I'd honestly rather go discuss is it anywhere else on the internet with a mature audience. I strongly support the older TL stance where you get rid of the people on teamliquid that lack maturity, or show extreme opinions, are trolls, and whatever. Instead, it feels like what TL does now (and LD/LH as well), is that instead of getting rid of toxic people, they try and make them coexist with the veterans of the site, and then any interesting discussion that is meaningful is not allowed. Because fuck, you know what makes good discussions? Controversial topics. If every thread gets this mod note, and educated people are not able to discuss freely, there is no points to have these threads. The only threads that exist are where everyone shares the same opinion about silly things. I really wish that the "Media/News/Controversial topics" forum, was moderated like the strategy forum. When you are being useless, baiting people, and doing all those other unfriendly things that hurt the experience of others on the site and steer the thread in the wrong direction, simply ban them from those topics. The thing is, a lot of people posting in these threads (as well as religion threads) are making perfectly rational posts based on their own internal calculus. Based on the information they're presented and the biases they assume to be there they have rationally determined that their posting is okay -- even if its detrimental to the health of the thread. These people are otherwise good posters who post in other areas (one poster in particular which would be considered problematic was a hero for the early starcraft community and has done many good things). It's just that these topics (which TL is not dedicated to covering) bring out the worst in them. Hopefully you can see the problem with your proposal now. | ||
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
It is an interesting situation for sure, like you mentioned, because it is politically charged, it brings upon an emotionally motivated discussion. And I think that's key in online discussions. The people who reply with their heart (as everyone has something that's extremely meaningful to them), make the thread opinionated (and low quality as people don't think and research before they post their opinions and perspectives) rather than factual. Well I have mixed feelings, I can view this stance from being as unbiased as possible, and it's logical. At the same time however, I'd argue that we (as in people visiting this site), are relatively like minded, and discussing with these people here is as good of a place as any. I simply believe (based solely on previous experience on teamliquid), that a discussion about such topics is possible, so long that people are posting with their brain rather than their heart, and other criteria: -Using proper English sentences, spelling, and grammar. -Citing their sources (using their discretion for proper sources of course). -Clearly having done their research about the topic. -Upholding a relatively neutral viewpoint, and remain spectators rather stakeholders. -Other qualities like being civil and not-agressive, which TL already upholds. Anyway, after listing this criteria, I see how teamliquid is doing their best to accommodate their thread, so with your words, yes, I see where I have a flaw with my argument. I do however wonder if these threads could be better handled with a case by case basis rather than the current method; I see the issues like people getting mad for getting banned/warned for saying something too though. I understand teamliquid and their mods/staff have been dealing with this for a long time, and I'm sure you guys have spent quite some time trying to find the best method, but it pains me to see that this really is the best thing for the thread to "work". Anyway, thanks. | ||
scott31337
United States2522 Posts
| ||
DeepElemBlues
United States5075 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On July 18 2014 12:06 scott31337 wrote: So is this article an acceptable source since it's on a Canadian news site? Or due to it's content its not? I don't want to get banned. http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/07/17/malaysian-passenger-plane-was-shot-down-by-rebels-intercepted-phone-calls-prove-ukraines-president-says/ As the article says, "Neither recording could be independently verified." so as long as you're not trying to distort what the article is saying then it'll be fine. | ||
Silvanel
Poland4601 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
Also, if you edit my posts, please be so kind as to let me know. I'd like to be able to refer to my posts without making a fool of myself. | ||
Steveling
Greece10806 Posts
| ||
mdb
Bulgaria4058 Posts
| ||
ferdkuh
10 Posts
| ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
*warning disturbing photos inside* http://www.examiner.com/list/russia-s-top-20-lies-about-ukraine http://www.examiner.com/list/russia-s-top-40-lies-about-ukraine http://www.examiner.com/list/russia-s-top-60-lies-about-ukraine http://www.examiner.com/list/russia-s-top-80-lies-about-ukraine | ||
datscilly
United States528 Posts
If not, are we allowed to post the neutral news source (http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-shot-down-tragedy-deaths-buk-missile-launcher-video-putin-russia-ukraine-obama-brits-dead-9613730.html) and then add that it is "a top submission on reddit"? | ||
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
| ||
Sjokola
Netherlands800 Posts
Like this one showing Russian media changing what they're reporting. Or this one asking someone what Russian media says. I always liked the fact that on TL I could get information from different angles. | ||
datscilly
United States528 Posts
On July 19 2014 01:08 Jormundr wrote: You can post news. Don't post about its 'reddit credibility' because that means absolutely nothing here. Definitely do not cite any sort of reddit comment. Redditors are not an authority on anything; they have no credibility. That link isn't solid, and doesn't really add anything to the thread. A london tabloid saying that "The SBU said..." doesn't give any more weight to what the SBU has claimed so far. While I agree that individual redditors are not proper sources, I disagree that Reddit itself has little credibility. In fact, many people have given up on reading the "major news outlets" and instead rely on various online sites for their sources of information. Teamliquid is a place where people discuss and form their opinions as well. If there is a mod note that essentially says "free discussion is not allowed", is that doing a service or disservice to the community? My point of mentioning reddit is, since the discussion is stifled here + Show Spoiler + even if possibly for a good reason | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On July 19 2014 02:20 datscilly wrote: While I agree that individual redditors are not proper sources, I disagree that Reddit itself has little credibility. In fact, many people have given up on reading the "major news outlets" and instead rely on various online sites for their sources of information. Teamliquid is a place where people discuss and form their opinions as well. If there is a mod note that essentially says "free discussion is not allowed", is that doing a service or disservice to the community? My point of mentioning reddit is, since the discussion is stifled here + Show Spoiler + even if possibly for a good reason Free discussion is allowed. Blatant bullshitting from Ukrainians and Russians (which is the history of unmoderated internet discourse of the issue) is not. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
If someone cites CNN on something, you can analyse it, or take it with a grain of salt. You can discuss the quote for what it's worth. Almost 100% of the russian sources are just idiocy on the other hand, and take alot away from proper discussions. So, in the end, i agree with those rules. Not that i would've had a choice anyway. | ||
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7519 Posts
For example SBU video. You should be able to post it and discussion of it. Claiming things is totaly different. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 19 2014 03:42 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: You should be allowed to post official statements or videos by rebels, ukraine or russia. I mean official. But ofc you should not be able to claim something with them. It is interesting to see/read what they say/show. For example SBU video. You should be able to post it and discussion of it. Claiming things is totaly different. What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. "Wasn't us, was them.". Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing. edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that? The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement? It's just crap, sorry. | ||
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7519 Posts
On July 19 2014 03:51 m4ini wrote: What good would that do? I can give you all the official statements from all sides right here, right now. "Wasn't us, was them.". Done. As if the rebels, ukraine or russia would actually say "well it was us, sorry". The only thing the perpetrator would do is try to obfuscate the truth. I don't think that's interesting, but rather annoying. The obfuscating as much as hysterical fingerpointing. edit: or do you actually think if the ukraine is guilty for that tragedy, the SBU (the secret service, come on) would help in the slightest to uncover that? The "rebels" already deleted all the tweets that could be used as information on what happened (the tweets about them shooting down a cargo plane for example, even though no cargo plane is missing) - what do you think will be their next statement? It's just crap, sorry. Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 19 2014 03:56 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: Nah, they just don't say "it wasn't us, it was them". I want to see whole picture. How they claim their things? Who says what. That's interesting and it's important what they say. It's happening on their land. no, it isn't crap. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. | ||
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7519 Posts
On July 19 2014 04:06 m4ini wrote: They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. Not to mention, you can do that just fine. You're not allowed to discuss it in this thread, but you can totally read whatever you want. Who says what was pretty clear, russia says it's ukraines fault, the rebels deleted all their tweets and remain rather silent (even though the resignation of their "commander" is quite telling), the ukraine points to rebels. There. That's all the info you get on ukrainian/russian sources. Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? That's literally the least important thing. And that "it's happening on their land" crap, gtfo. Neither the ukrainians, nor the russians or the rebels were truthful when it came to euromaidan. Not even remotely. They all hid their wrongdoings, why would it be different this time. edit: not discussing here though, was my last post about this. As a sidenote though: bs like this derailed the ukraine thread. omg you still dont understand. If you are going down to that path how do you know who lies? Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? "Oh ye they are biased let's ban them totaly" That's like saying to accused murder that you can't defend yourself coz you are biased. And you make it sound like I read those coz I want to know full truth from them? "gtfo" You still fail to understand that somebody wants to see bigger picture than just what CNN, BBC, twitter or finnish media says. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. What somebody hides, another one finds. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7519 Posts
On July 19 2014 04:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Please kindly ask Ghanburighan to translate his twitter posts instead of just posting links to them. Twitter have translate button but I agree with you | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 19 2014 04:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Please kindly ask Ghanburighan to translate his twitter posts instead of just posting links to them. You'll note that the original post had a functional translation above the tweet. As it noted, all that the tweet said was that OSCE denies being shot at. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
The kind of speculation we get from such sources is quickly leading to the same kind of shitposting that made the Ukraine Crisis thread impossible to follow. For example, look at this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/462231-malaysian-airliner-shot-down-over-eastern-ukraine?page=37 One tweet that was later rebuked by OSCE led to a page or two of low-quality posts. | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: omg you still dont understand. If you are going down to that path how do you know who lies? Who gives a shit about "how they claim things", if one of them 100% lies anyway? It was either russia, ukraine or the rebels. As long as you don't know which one of these three sources is guilty, what point is there to read their "news"? "Oh ye they are biased let's ban them totaly" That's like saying to accused murder that you can't defend yourself coz you are biased. And you make it sound like I read those coz I want to know full truth from them? "gtfo" You still fail to understand that somebody wants to see bigger picture than just what CNN, BBC, twitter or finnish media says. They don't? Just go on the respective newssites and read, wtf. If you want to see the whole picture, you don't go to sources that potentially want to hide something. That's the dumbest thing you can do. What somebody hides, another one finds. Look, you can have your discussion on reddit. We will have a team liquid quality discussion here. The shit flinging match that comes from adding bad sources into the mix is neither interesting or informative to TL readers at this point, and it certainly is not welcomed by TL moderation staff who had to spend a lot of frustrating time and effort to keep the Ukraine Crisis thread the way it was. I would assume that as far as TL staff is concerned, they can have broad sweeping rules for source material that will keep shitposting to a minimum or they can have no thread at all, because without these guidelines they don't have the manpower to make sure that a Ukraine thread lives up to TL quality expectations. | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 19 2014 07:21 LegalLord wrote: In light of the current progression of the MH17 thread, I'd like to request that you also limit any speculative and/or unconfirmed news, including hearsay and non-official Twitter reports. The kind of speculation we get from such sources is quickly leading to the same kind of shitposting that made the Ukraine Crisis thread impossible to follow. For example, look at this page: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/462231-malaysian-airliner-shot-down-over-eastern-ukraine?page=37 One tweet that was later rebuked by OSCE led to a page or two of low-quality posts. You shouldn't use a cannon to kill a mosquito. Twitter has a lot of information and other sources have a lot of disinformation, doesn't make sense to ban a source of media. Instead of seeing them as 'low quality posts' you should take that as a community learning process. The info was partly correct, I. E., there was a shooting, but the context required elucidation which later posts provided. That's how a lot of valuable learning happens. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On July 19 2014 07:44 Ghanburighan wrote: You shouldn't use a cannon to kill a mosquito. Twitter has a lot of information and other sources have a lot of disinformation, doesn't make sense to ban a source of media. Instead of seeing them as 'low quality posts' you should take that as a community learning process. The info was partly correct, I. E., there was a shooting, but the context required elucidation which later posts provided. That's how a lot of valuable learning happens. Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc. If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 19 2014 04:34 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: What somebody hides, another one finds. And yet you never know because "what another one finds" might be a lie, or forged to shift blame away. It's pointless. Your try to equal the newsposting of biased sources with a court is dumb too, since a defender is not supposed to be neutral (hint: medias are). And, in fact, they're also not allowed to lie or forge evidence. Not to mention, a person in front of court might very well be innocent. In this case, one of the three known parties is not. That's a given. So one of those three parties is 100% lying, and as long as you can't absolutely assure the people in this thread who is lying and who isn't, keep them all out, it only leads to weird nut-theories, conspiracies and almost admirable mental gymnastics to justify a bullshit post from a biased source. I am (and the mods too, i guess) talk from experience there. We had a thread about ukraine where any source was welcome. RT was quoted dozens of times in regard of the ban of russian language that never happened, which RT didn't report. One of many examples. And every single time the thread took a nosedive because people started explaining again. Not to mention that every fact that gets reported by ITAR TASS, RT, kievpost and whatnot will also be reported on other, less involved medias. They only filter the bullshit, but you will not miss any actual news. Twitter is similar to the internet as a whole: a lot of useful information hidden in an ocean of BS, inflammatory posts, propaganda, etc. If the purpose of banning Ukrainian/Russian sources is to cut down on questionable content, I think it's fair to say that Twitter has to go as well. Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
| ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 19 2014 08:18 LegalLord wrote: Tweets of firsthand accounts, maybe. Reporters echoing an unconfirmed second-hand story is no better than hearsay. That's what i meant. | ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
Although the US has its dick resting on half of Europe, however, I think those (western european) sources should be tolerated considering they can be at least somewhat fair, even despite the insane US influence. But hey, who am I to make fair decisions? Ah, carry on lads. | ||
DeepElemBlues
United States5075 Posts
We will have a team liquid quality discussion here. Apparently that means the discussion gets derailed for 3-4 pages about what is a legitimate source which is basically what was happening before the mod note went up anyway and now people are getting banned because they're posting the source material for news stories from "neutral" outlets. Because BBC story about Ukraine recordings? Okay. Posting those recordings along with that BBC story? Bant! How this accomplishes whatever ill-defined goals that mod note and its enforcement are intended to accomplish... *shrug* As if a New York Times or BBC story about those recordings is less likely to cause charges of propaganda and falsification and yelling about that than the actual recordings themselves. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=22626945 And look at that post, can't link directly to RT but is linking to a "neutral source" story regarding RT coverage okay? Would that be any different from just posting a bunch of RT stories? How about a link to a video on the New York Times website of those recordings? Linking directly to them on Youtube, bant. What about linking to this? The fuck's the difference between linking to it on YT and linking to it on NYT? http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003007434/intercepted-audio-of-ukraine-separatists.html This shit's low-grade Kafkaesque, congrats. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Side note: if you get rid of the bad posters and just have good intelligent, constructive discussion, it tends to be very boring and have few posts, as the matters are quickly settled. Most threads only get posts as a result of idiotic arguing. | ||
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7519 Posts
On July 19 2014 08:12 m4ini wrote: And yet you never know because "what another one finds" might be a lie, or forged to shift blame away. It's pointless. Your try to equal the newsposting of biased sources with a court is dumb too, since a defender is not supposed to be neutral (hint: medias are). And, in fact, they're also not allowed to lie or forge evidence. Not to mention, a person in front of court might very well be innocent. In this case, one of the three known parties is not. That's a given. So one of those three parties is 100% lying, and as long as you can't absolutely assure the people in this thread who is lying and who isn't, keep them all out, it only leads to weird nut-theories, conspiracies and almost admirable mental gymnastics to justify a bullshit post from a biased source. I am (and the mods too, i guess) talk from experience there. We had a thread about ukraine where any source was welcome. RT was quoted dozens of times in regard of the ban of russian language that never happened, which RT didn't report. One of many examples. And every single time the thread took a nosedive because people started explaining again. Not to mention that every fact that gets reported by ITAR TASS, RT, kievpost and whatnot will also be reported on other, less involved medias. They only filter the bullshit, but you will not miss any actual news. Agree and disagree. I think tweets of reporters are fine. .... I said official statements. Not some scrub daily posts by russian ukraine media. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 19 2014 15:26 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: .... I said official statements. Not some scrub daily posts by russian ukraine media. Proper official statements get relayed by other medias too though. Like governmental statements etc. | ||
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7519 Posts
On July 19 2014 21:15 m4ini wrote: Proper official statements get relayed by other medias too though. Like governmental statements etc. Earlier it looked like you get ban if you do that. Im not still sure will you get banned for that or don't. Policy is that if it isn't in a neutral media source then it's not valid. We can talk about the conflict from that lens only. On July 18 2014 09:13 Cheerio wrote: But if a neutral media source reposts it, then I can post it as well? Including in it's original and more informative form (if it was shortened)? On July 18 2014 09:19 Plexa wrote: No. Just the neutral source. This is so that both sides of the conflict can't point to the biases of a particular country. It may seem like a redundant step, but we see it as necessary. This says you will get banned/its not allowed. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 19 2014 22:40 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: Earlier it looked like you get ban if you do that. Im not still sure will you get banned for that or don't. This says you will get banned/its not allowed. As far as i understand it, you can quote the neutral source relaying it, but not the ukrainian/russian one. Like: russiangovernment.com airs an official statement, telegraph.co.uk relays it. You're allowed to post the telegraph. At least that's how i understand it, might be wrong. An admin/mod should clear it up in this case. | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 19 2014 23:53 m4ini wrote: As far as i understand it, you can quote the neutral source relaying it, but not the ukrainian/russian one. Like: russiangovernment.com airs an official statement, telegraph.co.uk relays it. You're allowed to post the telegraph. At least that's how i understand it, might be wrong. An admin/mod should clear it up in this case. Correct. | ||
TheBloodyDwarf
Finland7519 Posts
So rules that Plexa said earlier in this thread have changed. That's good change. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
On July 20 2014 01:10 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: So rules that Plexa said earlier in this thread have changed. That's good change. It didn't. You asked if you can post the neutral source AND the original russian/ukrainian source (for more understanding etc), and that is still not allowed. | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On July 20 2014 01:10 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: So rules that Plexa said earlier in this thread have changed. That's good change. No, you just don't have good reading comprehension. In your last post, plexa confirmed that you can't post ukrainian/russian source articles when they are mentioned in neutral media. AKA upholding the original and very simple rule of "Don't post russian/ukrainian media". | ||
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
Just close the thread IMO. Al-Jazeera is one of the only news sites we can use and they are less reliable than the onion | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On July 20 2014 06:06 Orcasgt24 wrote: S if I am understanding the situation correctly, no Russian, Ukrainian, Ukrainian Separatist, American or EU source can be considered neutral? That doesn't leave anything to quote as a source of info. Just close the thread IMO. Al-Jazeera is one of the only news sites we can use and they are less reliable than the onion Read the first post or the mod note, it's not that hard... Things not to post due to mod note: Things from Russia Things from Ukraine Things not to post in general on team liquid: Reddit opinions Random geocities blogs Your grandma's twitter | ||
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On July 20 2014 06:27 Jormundr wrote: Read the first post or the mod note, it's not that hard... Things not to post due to mod note: Things from Russia Things from Ukraine Things not to post in general on team liquid: Reddit opinions Random geocities blogs Your grandma's twitter On July 18 2014 08:52 Plexa wrote: In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned. This thread will be used for discussing the moderation policy. Do not use the original MH17 thread to discuss the policy, you will be banned. The whole Ukraine issue is pro EU vs pro Russia. That eliminates EU sources as neutral. On the subject of Russia, no American source can be considered neutral because the attitude those two nations have towards each other is still very much cold war like. I did read it the post. Maybe you should try and understand it? | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On July 20 2014 06:32 Orcasgt24 wrote: The whole Ukraine issue is pro EU vs pro Russia. That eliminates EU sources as neutral. On the subject of Russia, no American source can be considered neutral because the attitude those two nations have towards each other is still very much cold war like. I did read it the post. Maybe you should try and understand it? Read the line in between. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this post or the mod note as to what sources aren't allowed. You can try to be cute and do the incontrol sarcasm voice with "But there's no source that's truly neutral ermagerd!" but it doesn't make you look clever. The purpose of the mod note is not to have perfect neutral scientific sources, but to weed out the filth from the "throw shit 'til it sticks" propaganda strategies of the two countries. If you want that, ask for the Ukraine Crisis thread back. This thread, where TL members have lost friends is not the place for people to post speculations on how the crashed plane is a giant conspiracy by the russophobic western powers and there weren't actually any living people aboard the plane. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
"Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted" and the implication that any media whose country of origin is not ukrainian or russian is neutral. I think you will remove a lot of the discomfort simply by changing the phrase to: "Opinions/facts/accusations arising from other media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of it's puppet states) will be permitted." | ||
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On July 20 2014 06:45 Jormundr wrote: Read the line in between. There is absolutely no ambiguity in this post or the mod note as to what sources aren't allowed. You can try to be cute and do the incontrol sarcasm voice with "But there's no source that's truly neutral ermagerd!" but it doesn't make you look clever. The purpose of the mod note is not to have perfect neutral scientific sources, but to weed out the filth from the "throw shit 'til it sticks" propaganda strategies of the two countries. If you want that, ask for the Ukraine Crisis thread back. This thread, where TL members have lost friends is not the place for people to post speculations on how the crashed plane is a giant conspiracy by the russophobic western powers and there weren't actually any living people aboard the plane. That last line you wrote is the stupidest thing I have ever read. And I read alot of 9/11 conspiracy theories... If you want to ban people for stupid conspiracy theories, go for it. Then go pad the ABL post count with people from the US politics thread. Banning any media source though severely restricts the flow of information. If and when they find that black box a ukrainian news outlet will report on it first. Are you going to ban the poster who posts that because his source is ukrainian? | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On July 20 2014 07:14 Orcasgt24 wrote: That last line you wrote is the stupidest thing I have ever read. And I read alot of 9/11 conspiracy theories... If you want to ban people for stupid conspiracy theories, go for it. Then go pad the ABL post count with people from the US politics thread. Banning any media source though severely restricts the flow of information. If and when they find that black box a ukrainian news outlet will report on it first. Are you going to ban the poster who posts that because his source is ukrainian? Yes, they will ban that poster. The Russian/Ukrainian source ban helps the thread self moderate. This thread may have a slower flow of information as a result. That's the price for having this thread at all. It's either this or nothing, because TL staff doesn't have the time or energy to handle the amount of moderation required to keep a thread like that civil. As far as I know, tl mods receive no compensation for their efforts, and you're asking for them to take on a second job because you're too lazy to go to the Ukraine conflict on reddit. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
| ||
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On July 20 2014 06:32 Orcasgt24 wrote: Thats how the issue might be within Ukraine, but I think you have to clearly see that among the EU there is a wide variety of opinions. The Germans, the Italians, the Luxembourgians, the Cypriots, the Hungarians, are all opposed to further escalation/want to understand Russia/etc. In the now closed Ukraine thread pro-Russian voices were pretty evenly split between people with direct ties with Russia but also a significant proportion of German posters too. The whole Ukraine issue is pro EU vs pro Russia. That eliminates EU sources as neutral. On the subject of Russia, no American source can be considered neutral because the attitude those two nations have towards each other is still very much cold war like. I did read it the post. Maybe you should try and understand it? | ||
Tal
United Kingdom993 Posts
However, I think this whole issue needs to be treated more delicately than it has, particularly if it will be applied to other threads in the future. Describing European and American media as neutral is simplistic. Yes, Western media is the least biased, most professional, and generally best in the world, but it still has biases, and should still be viewed critically. Conversely, Russian/Ukrainian media, twitter, forum posts and the like are obviously at a infinitely lower standard, and I don't need to explain why. But they are still valuable, and are accepted uses of information for political analysts and consultants world wide. Intelligent people can still get a lot out of these sources, as long as they are aware of their biases. By completely taking them off the table, we are losing the chance for some of TL's brightest to really add something to the discussion. On balance, this may be worth it. By sticking to more reliable sources, we stop idiots misusing unreliable ones, which as we've seen, was destroying the thread. But let's not use phrases like 'neutral news sources', and let's be aware that by locking out bad comments, we are also losing the potential for great ones. | ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
And I believe there needs to be full clarification as to why JH was banned and what exactly he did wrong. So that people know what not to do in the future. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Perhaps opinion pieces should be restricted, separate from journalism. I get the feeling there's no mods on at the moment, or at least none working the thread. Cuz a mod is really needed in there right now to calm things down. I want mod power! zeo - remember you do have a history of bias and troublemaking; so your comments in the thread tend to rile people up, especially when they contain questionable propositions. Sometimes, even when you're right, people take it badly because of the history of other things you've said. Same principle as in The Boy Who Cried Wolf. | ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
On July 20 2014 22:59 Evilmystic wrote: He's here because Russian government employs a lot of people to support its propaganda narrative in the Internet. Russian speaking sites are full of pro-government comments made by fake accounts and bots for a few years now, there are a lot of people writing pro-government "analytical" posts in their blogs that are in complete agreement with official propaganda regardless of how far from real factual evidence it is. In last few months this cancer has spread to international communities too. On popular news sites every article that somehow relates to Russian interests receives a lot of similar pro-russian comments. Can someone please explain to me how this post is in any way acceptable? I thought it was a bannable offense to call someone a shill, no? Guess the double-standards bandwagon rolls on. Please personally insult anyone whose opinion about an event doesn't match yours. Asking for sources = the devil. Unbelievable. And what the fuck has this post got to do with anything the thread is about? | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13372 Posts
On July 21 2014 00:43 zeo wrote: Can someone please explain to me how this post is in any way acceptable? I thought it was a bannable offense to call someone a shill, no? Guess the double-standards bandwagon rolls on. Please personally insult anyone whose opinion about an event doesn't match yours. Asking for sources = the devil. Unbelievable. And what the fuck has this post got to do with anything the thread is about? Patience, grasshopper. | ||
mijagi182
Poland797 Posts
On July 21 2014 00:43 zeo wrote: Can someone please explain to me how this post is in any way acceptable? I thought it was a bannable offense to call someone a shill, no? Guess the double-standards bandwagon rolls on. Please personally insult anyone whose opinion about an event doesn't match yours. Asking for sources = the devil. Unbelievable. And what the fuck has this post got to do with anything the thread is about? First, he was responding to other user. Second, what he was reffering to a rather known thing, source (one of many): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/russias-online-comment-propaganda-army/280432 Lastly, hes from Russia which gives him +1 to credibility in such matter. | ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
There, we all know the US and Britain pay people to manipulate online discourse. According to your logic after every post in the thread I can say 'well golly, you sure are earning your 10 cents per shitpost on this forum' and that would be acceptable? Who the hell cares where he is from? You have absolutely no idea who he is. And I'm sure he knows nothing about me. He clearly accused me of taking money because I asked people to back up claims they made in the thread. Its insane and only serves as a personal attack. And your first point of him aswering another user, what the hell is that about? He was responding to a user that was personally attacking me, something moderation staff have been letting happen for years. Which is the reason why the Ukraine thread went to shit, you had people in the backround who contributed absolutly nothing to the thread chant 'ban him, ban him, why are people allowed to chalange our opinions? ban them' whenever the circlejerk got in danger. | ||
xM(Z
Romania5257 Posts
there's no way a mod reads all 50+ pages of crap. they looked through reports, maybe read some complains then boom, hit them with the hammer!. | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 21 2014 02:56 xM(Z wrote: there are like a myriad of lil' fuckers reporting posts. those should be banned first; policing the interwebs with their infected logic and moral standards, buying a + to gain more weight or credibility feeling oh so high and mighty when pushing the report button. there's no way a mod reads all 50+ pages of crap. they looked through reports, maybe read some complains then boom, hit them with the hammer!. Actually, I've read something like 90+% of the thread. | ||
KadaverBB
Germany25639 Posts
On July 21 2014 03:10 Zealously wrote: Actually, I've read something like 90+% of the thread. Yup^^ | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
We know this is of Russian origin because Russian propaganda channels report it. Examples: Itar-Tass, RT, Voice of Russia, etc. There are some articles that debunk such fabrications such as the best one on Stopfake.org. As I suspected, and a mod confirmed, Stopfake.org is not allowed in the thread. Yet, it has the best (only truly thorough) article regarding the Spanish air traffic controller fake. Here's the article I had in mind. Now, the problem is that apparently discussion of the Russian fabrication is allowed, but the debunking of it is not. Please advise how to proceed. | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On July 21 2014 04:52 Jormundr wrote: Quit trying to debunk a dead horse? If only it were dead... Yet, it keeps being discussed.- which tends to happen in a situation with scarce information. | ||
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
On July 21 2014 04:58 Ghanburighan wrote: If only it were dead... Yet, it keeps being discussed.- which tends to happen in a situation with scarce information. Yall revived zeo's dead horse so you could beat it again and now you're complaining that you need bigger sticks to beat it with? | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
also, I feel zeo should be removed from the thread, as a major source of problems. It's really annoying when he posts stuff like asking for higher quality reporting, then proceeds to use his usual dump of trashy reporting with provably false stuff. | ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
I would just like to know patience for what? Obviously mods have seen the post, mods have banned other users since. What is taking so long? Maybe a mod can pm me if they can't talk about it here? Meanwhile the thread is still being shitted up with opinion pieces. | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
If you cannot refrain from bias please do not kid yourselves that you are in any way unbiased, it is very clear that there is only one side to the story on this website. Admit that you cannot in any way refrain yourselves from taking sides and allowing manipulation of dialog so that it suites some members of the moderation team and I will never post in any thread to do with the situation in Ukraine again. I will not take part in any discussion in which shit-tier propaganda is allowed, where I am consistently attacked by immature brats that cannot handle other people's opinions, all the while given pats on the back by moderation staff who refuse to even warn users that resort to pathetic accusations of actually being paid to post. Not to mention the appalling amounts of back-seat moderating. Actually fuck it, I won't post in that thread again. Have fun with your circlejerk, actual discussion died in the General forum a long time ago. | ||
zatic
Zurich15239 Posts
On July 21 2014 17:53 zeo wrote: Actually fuck it, I won't post in that thread again. Have fun with your circlejerk, actual discussion died in the General forum a long time ago. Thanks a lot, this will make it really easier for everyone involved. Cheers. | ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
zeo- People like you are the reason gen discussion had issues; as you degrade the quality of truth-finding with a great deal of nonsense; and cry circle-jerk when people call you on it. Don't complain about the quality of posts when you're one of the main sources of shit-posts in those threads. You do have some legitimate points, but you bring up too many bad ones which makes people ignore you: a la the boy who cried wolf. Do not kid yourself, you are hugely biased, and not interested in the truth. seconding zatic as well. | ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
On July 21 2014 17:57 zatic wrote: Thanks a lot, this will make it really easier for everyone involved. Cheers. Do I get a forum star because I helped? @zlefin People will see whatever they want to see. Anyway, whatever, I'm done. At least I can say I tried to balance an unbalanceable discussion on this forum. If hearing one side of the story and a complete blanket ban on the other side is your thing... well then you have come to the right place. I truly believe some mods did the best they could. At least until it all went to shit with this thread. | ||
Falling
Canada10904 Posts
Not to mention the appalling amounts of back-seat moderating. That would be your last post in the thread, I believe. | ||
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
This puts me off from contributing in this thread, and I suspect others may have done the same. I am no more inclined to post anything as I would on a Russian extremist nationalist website, for example. This moderation rule and the moderators are responsible for hindering the quality of discussion on this website, and discussion is what ultimately keeps a forum alive. Moderators, please consider that before your own personal bias gets in the way of reason. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On July 20 2014 21:04 zeo wrote: So let me get this straight... Legallord was banned for personal theories... and yet there are countless opinion pieces posted on every page (including using blogs as sources). So its alright to link to clearly biased opinion pieces who state fog as fact yet giving your own opinion gets you banned? I completely agree with this, and the only reason I didn't dispute the ban was because I wanted to leave the thread alone for good. It seems that the moderation is more concerned with making sure information comes from a western media outlet than that it has any form of substance. There was one offhand comment I wanted to respond to, but other than that I am done with this topic. If a constant stream of speculative Twitter posts and sensational media is easier to moderate than opposing opinions, then so be it. | ||
m4ini
4215 Posts
Spoonfed stupidity doesn't enhance the quality of that thread, which even though only neutral media is allowed, is still quite high. Not much gets disregarded pointlessly, just look at how long the ominous SU-25 was discussed. If you remember, that was a claim made by the "opposition", russia. So far nothing is missed in the thread except bullshit like the corpsestory etc - so i don't really see the problem. edit: not to mention, stuff from russian sources still gets posted after it got reposted by neutral medias. So at worst, you're losing a day before you can discuss something. While i agree that the way the thread is moderated might not be the best way, it's far better than the clusterfuck the ukraine-thread became after russian trolls and tinfoilhat-theories derailed over and over. I think the moderation rule regarding a "neutral" media source is itself biased and ridiculous. It also represents a self-centered view of the world in believing that the Western view must be necessarily right (not that I'm saying it is wrong in this case). If you're not saying the western view is wrong in this case, than i don't understand why you're here arguing. This rule applies to no other thread afaik, so in this case the rule makes for a better discussion. | ||
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 28 2014 02:42 Cheerio wrote: MH17 thread has worked pretty well so far. Have you considered reopening the Ukrainian crisis thread (or having a fresh start) under the similar regulations? No | ||
2primenumbers
United States144 Posts
Best Regards, RG | ||
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On July 23 2014 11:28 m4ini wrote: If you're not saying the western view is wrong in this case, than i don't understand why you're here arguing. This rule applies to no other thread afaik, so in this case the rule makes for a better discussion. You miss the point of having a debate. I don't know for sure if the Western view is right or wrong, nor do I know if the Russian view is right or wrong. I intend to use the evidence and analysis in this discussion to form an educated conclusion. To do that, I must be presented with evidence from both sides, and the ridiculous rule prevents this from happening. I have no idea why you believe the rule makes for a better discussion. For people with no preconceived self-centered opinion on this issue, unlike yourself, this rule is garbage. | ||
Falling
Canada10904 Posts
On July 29 2014 01:36 2primenumbers wrote: IT is absurd that you believe that any news source is neutral and have pushed a large part of the discussion underground with this policy. Best Regards, RG People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote: People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. And yet, what's left seems to be more along the line of Twitter feeds and Western anti-Russia opinion pieces. Apparently having a "personal opinion" is also forbidden. The result is that a large number of people straight up refuse to participate. If the goal is to keep the discussion from really happening (an understandable goal in light of the original thread), then it does just that. If not, it's quite a misguided policy. Real opposing sources are important for a real discussion. | ||
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote: People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. I cannot take a forum moderator seriously, when he forbids posters from positing an opinion or evidence not endorsed by the media. Such a moderator is not fit to make any policy. | ||
zatic
Zurich15239 Posts
On July 29 2014 18:15 5unrise wrote: I cannot take a forum moderator seriously, when he forbids posters from positing an opinion or evidence not endorsed by the media. Such a moderator is not fit to make any policy. What is "the media"? After the terrible experience with the past Ukraine thread we banned propaganda from Ukrainian and Russian sources. You don't have to take any of us seriously. However TL decides themselves who is fit to make policy, thanks. | ||
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On July 29 2014 18:21 zatic wrote: What is "the media"? After the terrible experience with the past Ukraine thread we banned propaganda from Ukrainian and Russian sources. You don't have to take any of us seriously. However TL decides themselves who is fit to make policy, thanks. If TL is made of up logical, reasonable people, they would see how illogical and illiberal their actions are. But you made your decision, now I make mine: I'm outta here. | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 29 2014 18:28 5unrise wrote: If TL is made of up logical, reasonable people, they would see how illogical and illiberal their actions are. But you made your decision, now I make mine: I'm outta here. Did you participate in the Ukraine Crisis thread? | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 29 2014 10:19 Falling wrote: People seem to be really hung up on the existential issue of 'neutrality', cynically wondering if such a thing can exist. Whereas the ban is purely practical. Can we be assured prefect neutrality, of course not. Can we clean up a lot of propaganda garbage by allowing other news sources filter it out? Yes. Furthermore, by moving it away from Ukranian and Russian sources, it is far easier to judge the quality of the media given that most of the moderators are not well-versed in Russian and Ukranian media and their relative reliability (I know I am not.) But I can call B.S. when someone through conspiracy theories, tries to undercut the credibilty of reasonably credible Western journalists. It's on familiar stomping grounds that are much easier to research credentials and past history of reporting. If you truly didn't care about "neutrality" then you shouldn't had expressedly written "neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states)". If you had denied those as sources of information no one would care. But since you have written that any media source is neutral as long as they are not from those sources, then you are making a politcal statement that most members of TL probably do not beleive in. If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view. | ||
zatic
Zurich15239 Posts
On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote: [...] If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view. If only. Truth is it really doesn't matter what we do moderation-wise, people will ALWAYS complain. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On July 29 2014 21:59 zatic wrote: If only. Truth is it really doesn't matter what we do moderation-wise, people will ALWAYS complain. That sounds like an excuse not to try to make things right - "people will complain even if we do, so why even bother?" Sure, people will still complain, but what is the purpose of moderating the thread in the first place if you take that stance? The idea of neutrality enforced by the thread is honestly quite laughable. Hell, even the notice itself is rather biased, implicitly referring to any country that supports Russia and lies within its sphere of influence as "one of its puppet states." You could easily say the same about any country that has an interest in maintaining good relations with the United States, a country which is clearly far from neutral in this conflict. And yes, Ukr/Rus have a fair bit of propaganda, but they also have far more actual first-hand involvement in the conflict, with more physical presence at the locations where events occur. Most of the reports from Western sources come either from an embassy in Kiev or back from their home country. Ukr/Rus actually have people in East Ukraine. It seems that what you call neutrality is more along the lines of solidarity in opinion - everything should be along the same line of thought. The result is essentially what we see: a consensus among like-minded people interested in only one side of the story. Is that really what you're going for? | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
Falling
Canada10904 Posts
On July 29 2014 21:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote: If you truly didn't care about "neutrality" then you shouldn't had expressedly written "neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states)". If you had denied those as sources of information no one would care. But since you have written that any media source is neutral as long as they are not from those sources, then you are making a politcal statement that most members of TL probably do not beleive in. If you had simply forbidden the use of russia/ukraine as sources, people wouldn't had come here to complain enforcing a such a view. I didn't say we didn't care about neutrality, we do care. I said people are mistaking our use of the word 'neutrality' as though it were some sort of existential quandry: 'what is truth?' That is far beyond the scope of our mod note, which was entirely practical, not philosophical. We found that the preponderance of decidedly un-neutral information came from Ukrainian and Russian sources in the Euromaidan thread. All we are doing is allowing other media sources, one-step removed from being emotionally and politically invested in the crisis, to report the facts and filter out the propaganda/ B.S.. That's as neutral as we can ask for in a situation like this. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On July 30 2014 02:00 Falling wrote: I didn't say we didn't care about neutrality, we do care. I said people are mistaking our use of the word 'neutrality' as though it were some sort of existential quandry: 'what is truth?' That is far beyond the scope of our mod note, which was entirely practical, not philosophical. We found that the preponderance of decidedly un-neutral information came from Ukrainian and Russian sources in the Euromaidan thread. All we are doing is allowing other media sources, one-step removed from being emotionally and politically invested in the crisis, to report the facts and filter out the propaganda/ B.S.. That's as neutral as we can ask for in a situation like this. That makes sense in principle, but I don't think that's what actually happens. "One step removed" sources have their own bias because they also come from non-neutral nations. The discussion is tamer, but for the wrong reasons. On another note: looking over the last few pages, it seems that the thread has shifted to the topic of the Ukraine Crisis in general, what with the talk of sanctions, alleged artillery fire, Ukr vs separatist military offensives, etc. If the purpose of the thread was to pay respects to the innocent that died as collateral in a military conflict, as most of the mods here seem to suggest, I think the thread has run its course. Everything that doesn't have to do with assigning blame (speeches from leaders, removing the bodies, extracting the black boxes) has already happened. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 30 2014 02:00 Falling wrote: No, peoplea ren't mistaking your use of "neutrality" as a philosophical question. They simply don't like the direct insinuation that other sources that aren't Russian or Ukraine are neutral. If you simply said that Russian or Ukrainian sources aren't allowed, it would be understoof. Because you added a personal world view on neutraility and what constitutes neutral media, that is the source of why people are so disturbed by it.I didn't say we didn't care about neutrality, we do care. I said people are mistaking our use of the word 'neutrality' as though it were some sort of existential quandry: 'what is truth?' That is far beyond the scope of our mod note, which was entirely practical, not philosophical. We found that the preponderance of decidedly un-neutral information came from Ukrainian and Russian sources in the Euromaidan thread. All we are doing is allowing other media sources, one-step removed from being emotionally and politically invested in the crisis, to report the facts and filter out the propaganda/ B.S.. That's as neutral as we can ask for in a situation like this. | ||
Falling
Canada10904 Posts
On July 30 2014 05:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote: No, peoplea ren't mistaking your use of "neutrality" as a philosophical question. They simply don't like the direct insinuation that other sources that aren't Russian or Ukraine are neutral. If you simply said that Russian or Ukrainian sources aren't allowed, it would be understoof. Because you added a personal world view on neutraility and what constitutes neutral media, that is the source of why people are so disturbed by it. That might be their initial, gut reaction. But there's no reason for them to hold to being distubed by it as I believe we have made clear in this feedback thread that we don't have a starry-eyed view of non-Ukranian/Russian sources. If people are somehow still legitimately concerned that TL moderation is somehow naive towards media biases... I don't really know what to say. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
farvacola
United States18768 Posts
| ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On July 30 2014 21:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You seem to misunderstand. They simply don't like the way you've gone out to say that any sources which aren't ukrainian or russian are neutral. If you hadn't, this thread wouldn't really be a thing would it now? I don't think anyone has said that "Western media is by virtue of being western media completely neutral", simply that western media outlets are, as a rule of thumb, the less biased news outlets in this situation. You're reading into the semantics of the mod note far too much, I think you know what we meant. | ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 31 2014 00:19 farvacola wrote: Aww, some people don't like something the TL mods did or said? Poor them. They can read the Ten Commandments and get over it. Western media is less biased than Russian media. Quibbling over pedantics isn't going to change that. Awww yiss. And that's why they come here to explain their points of view. We are all invested in and free to express our preferences for the site we visit. So how about you stop brown nosing and being condescending and shitposting farvacola? Anyhow from this thread and some of the earlier comments of the Malaysian airliner thread we are discussing it is clear that people dislike the implications from the mod note, Zealously, and would be circumvented by removing certain phrases. Whether you will take anything from that is up to you. That is all I am going to say. | ||
Yurie
11533 Posts
| ||
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
| ||
Yurie
11533 Posts
On August 03 2014 10:07 Dangermousecatdog wrote: lol, no one has even posted in the thread for 2 days at the time of your post. And nunez isn't shitposting in it every hour. Overstatement much? I do not read it often, was just time for my next check after which I posted here. Check the posts, ignore the date. They are none of them related to the topic in the OP. They are general Ukrainian conflict posts. I often take a week without reading a thread before going into it again, that does not make observations about its direction any less accurate. Though since nobody is posting in it any more I guess it isn't relevant. I just assume sometime this week somebody will post a general Ukrainian post not related to the plane to bump the thread. edit I was right. | ||
zeo
Serbia6175 Posts
As anyone who didn't conform to the train-wreak of a policy called 'non-biasedness' got dealt with before. Because hey, its only non-biased if it panders to my beliefs. Right? What a joke. Close the thread already, or at least reopen the Ukraine thread if you are that set on the thread having absolutely nothing to do with the thread title. | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
| ||