Zone1 Link Required?

[Leo123]

Forum rules: "Opening Posts require more than a Copy and Paste with a Link" Does this mean that EVERY new post requires a link? Just wondering. I got flak for not posting a link in Current Events. Thanks

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

End Zone 1.

 

[EMH]

The rule is applied selectively

 

[Natural Citizen]

Forum rules: "Opening Posts require more than a Copy and Paste with a Link" Does this mean that EVERY new post requires a link? Just wondering. I got flak for not posting a link in Current Events. Thanks

You didn't get flak, Leo.

If one makes a claim which is editoriaized in a thread title as if it is a fact, then a supporting source link is naturally expected.

And it is a rule.

My comment in your thread was more pertaining to the arbitrary enforcement of the rule. And, as I'd mentioned to you in that thread, it was nothing personal toward you.

If rules aren't going to be enforced equally, why have them?

How many people here have received a message saying ''Follow the rules"?

What compounded that was the later comment by the maude on duty contending something along the lines of well, sometimes these things turn out to be true...or something like that.

While that is true, in the mean time, it's a conspiracy theory, at the very least.

Well...if that's the way we're doing the rules now, they should move all of the threads about the harms of the COVID ''vaccine'' and the claims contending that it was a power grab out of conspiracy theory and put em back where they were in the first place.

Or, better yet, treat them the same way your thread was treated and don't move em to conspiracy theory at all, on this precedent that seems to be that things that might be true don't require any support for said claim. All in the spirit of ''equity,'' of course.

It's a matter of principle, Leo. That's all. The mauds wonder why the serfs give em such a hard time...well...stuff like this is why...

 

[White 6]

Forum rules: "Opening Posts require more than a Copy and Paste with a Link" Does this mean that EVERY new post requires a link? Just wondering. I got flak for not posting a link in Current Events. Thanks

Every new OP thread post that is stating information as facts does require a link, otherwise we would be more a part of the rumor mill than we are. We have a lot of people that just do not like some reports reported, for political reasons of their own. Yours got reported. Another mod, thought there was something to it and instinctually gave the report a "No Action Taken". That is only good for stalling action and is kind of going out on a limb. We double-check each other a lot. I suspect the report caused us both to start our own searches on the fly. I finally hit, because you had not only the FOX connection but the reporter's name. One thing I know about reporters these days, if they break a story, especially one that goes against the main line of their employer's star's repeated line, it will be somewhere else under their name, and many times these stories are not picked up by the rest of the mainstream quick, so was not surprised you didn't find it, probably using the same kind of search arguments I did, and was pissing me off until I went back to your thread and started over using her name with the story. Of course, she has a Twitter account. I think everybody on the damned planet has one but me.
That is not to say, we will always jump in to assist on verification research, and sometimes we just don't have the time, but even with links, you would be surprised how often we have. I knew there were 3 or 4 mods on duty, knew crap was covered, and I had the time. I saw the same when I was a regular member, and found a links in time to save people's threads from being killed, and got thanked by the Mod on duty. Sometimes, you will see a Mod ask a OP about a missing link. You can bet, somebody reported (often just to kill something they didn't like) and the Mod is having to figure out what to do with the thread, as it is a rule violation.

 

[Leo123]

You didn't get flak, Leo.

If one makes a claim which is editoriaized in a thread title as if it is a fact, then a supporting source link is naturally expected.

And it is a rule.

My comment in your thread was more pertaining to the arbitrary enforcement of the rule. And, as I'd mentioned to you in that thread, it was nothing personal toward you.

If rules aren't going to be enforced equally, why have them?

How many people here have received a message saying ''Follow the rules"?

What compounded that was the later comment by the maude on duty contending something along the lines of well, sometimes these things turn out to be true...or something like that.

While that is true, in the mean time, it's a conspiracy theory, at the very least.

Well...if that's the way we're doing the rules now, they should move all of the threads about the harms of the COVID ''vaccine'' and the claims contending that it was a power grab out of conspiracy theory and put em back where they were in the first place.

Or, better yet, treat them the same way your thread was treated and don't move em to conspiracy theory at all, on this precedent that seems to be that things that might be true don't require any support for said claim. All in the spirit of ''equity,'' of course.

It's a matter of principle, Leo. That's all. The mauds wonder why the serfs give em such a hard time...well...stuff like this is why...

Thanks, I couldn't find a link because the FOX site wouldn't let me access Special Report just minutes after it went off air. Later, Twitter had the info and White 6 posted it. The story was too new I guess. Anyway, it was true that Griffin reported it. I guess I will refrain from posting brand new information from now on if there is no link yet. I thought it was interesting and didn't think I'd be called a liar by folks I thought were 'friends' here. My bad.

 

[Rambunctious]

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thanks, I couldn't find a link because the FOX site wouldn't let me access Special Report just minutes after it went off air. Later, Twitter had the info and White 6 posted it. The story was too new I guess. Anyway, it was true that Griffin reported it. I guess I will refrain from posting brand new information from now on if there is no link yet.

Yeah, but that wasn't my point, Leo.

By that model, now every time someone gets a thread closed or moved to conspiracy theory for no link in the OP, it would be a valid question on their part as to why a maude didn't just come behind them and find an equally subjective link or supporting opinion and insert it later in the thread rather than closing it or moving it.

You should have just put a question mark behind your thread title and it would have been fine. Probably.

Whatever, though, man. As I said, it wasn't personal. It's just the principle of the matter.

As far as sources with this whole Russia thing, I personally don't trust western media as far as I can throw it. What they've kind of re-established is the old iron curtain. I don't even care what they do over there. It's none of my business. Well...aside from all of the fruits of my labor the war mongers are gonna hold me up at gunpoint to pay off later on.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Every new OP thread post that is stating information as facts does require a link, otherwise we would be more a part of the rumor mill than we are. We have a lot of people that just do not like some reports reported, for political reasons of their own. Yours got reported. Another mod, thought there was something to it and instinctually gave the report a "No Action Taken".

And you also have people who report posts like that simply because they broke the rules to which everyone else is expected to adhere and have perhaps received mod actions for breaking. So that we're clear.

Another maud's ''instinct'' on the matter with regard to whether topical content is legit is laughable justification for arbitrary moderation of the rules, White. Come on, man. That's what we call moderating by way of one's personal feelings or political view rather than the actual rules of the board.

You know it. I know it. Everybody else knows it. It's an insult to our intelligence to justify it like that.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What just happened here is actually a prime example of why I opposed that whole idea of giving the mauds more power to decide and approve what is worthy topical content for discussion and what is not worthy topical content for discussion and to approve who gets to partake in it in the other thread that came up in the feedback section.

Anyway. That's all I have to say about it.

You all have a great evening.

 

[progressive hunter]

Forum rules: "Opening Posts require more than a Copy and Paste with a Link" Does this mean that EVERY new post requires a link? Just wondering. I got flak for not posting a link in Current Events. Thanks

they got me and she that shall not be named pointed out anytime you copy and p.aste it has to have a link and yes it is in the rules,,
I think its a copyright deal,,

 

[White 6]

And you also have people who report posts like that simply because they broke the rules to which everyone else is expected to adhere and have perhaps received mod actions for breaking. So that we're clear.

Another maud's ''instinct'' on the matter with regard to whether topical content is legit is laughable justification for arbitrary moderation of the rules, White. Come on, man. That's what we call moderating by way of one's personal feelings or political view rather than the actual rules of the board.

You know it. I know it. Everybody else knows it. It's an insult to our intelligence to justify it like that.

BS. We aren't machines and know from experience the rules and why some people report on the rules and it isn't always for fairness or the betterment of the board.

Make no mistake, we are told when drafted our number 1 job is to keep threads open if we can within the rules, as people come here for the threads. We deal with every level of poster and every level of their knowledge of the rules. My experience is many people have never made it to the bottom of the Rules For Posting, yet here they are, and we try to make it work, correcting, educating and at times helping, sometimes helping people we don't agree with.

What you think you know and what you think I know and what you think everybody else knows is pretty subjective BS, but I thank you for your attempt to speak for everybody. So peddle your insult of intelligence line down the hall or contact a MOD of your choice and lodge a complaint, cause I'm not buying it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

BS. We aren't machines and know from experience the rules and why some people report on the rules and it isn't always for fairness or the betterment of the board.

Make no mistake, we are told when drafted our number 1 job is to keep threads open if we can within the rules, as people come here for the threads. We deal with every level of poster and every level of their knowledge of the rules. My experience is many people have never made it to the bottom of the Rules For Posting, yet here they are, and we try to make it work, correcting, educating and at times helping, sometimes helping people we don't agree with.

What you think you know and what you think I know and what you think everybody else knows is pretty subjective BS, but I thank you for your attempt to speak for everybody. So peddle your insult of intelligence line down the hall or contact a MOD of your choice and lodge a complaint, cause I'm not buying it.

Do better, White.

 

[White 6]

Do better, White.

That's as good as it gets. No apologies from me for helping a poster who could not find a reference link for something seen live on a TV news network.

 

[flacaltenn]

Forum rules: "Opening Posts require more than a Copy and Paste with a Link" Does this mean that EVERY new post requires a link? Just wondering. I got flak for not posting a link in Current Events. Thanks

I was just moderating that thread. --- what a coincidence.

In THAT thread -- you clarified the "source" in post 5. Probably before Fox News had a link on their website? Dunno. We're not against commenting on "Breaking" stories, but you should TRY to supply a link (like check the Fox site) for something that RADICAL and important.

ANY big assertion you make in a thread, ESPECIALLY if most everyone hasnt yet talked about it -- SHOULD have a link to the facts and details to promote discussion. Otherwise it's either speculation or people will invent their own theories.

So I'm inclined to let it remain open. SO -- I'll check the FOx site for a link and if its THERE -- I'll add it to your Opost.

 

[White 6]

I was just moderating that thread. --- what a coincidence.

In THAT thread -- you clarified the "source" in post 5. Probably before Fox News had a link on their website? Dunno. We're not against commenting on "Breaking" stories, but you should TRY to supply a link (like check the Fox site) for something that RADICAL and important.

ANY big assertion you make in a thread, ESPECIALLY if most everyone hasnt yet talked about it -- SHOULD have a link to the facts and details to promote discussion. Otherwise it's either speculation or people will invent their own theories.

So I'm inclined to let it remain open. SO -- I'll check the FOx site for a link and if its THERE -- I'll add it to your Opost.

I already posted the link from the FOX reporter reporting on-air hours ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, but that wasn't my point, Leo.

By that model, now every time someone gets a thread closed or moved to conspiracy theory for no link in the OP, it would be a valid question on their part as to why a maude didn't just come behind them and find an equally subjective link or supporting opinion and insert it later in the thread rather than closing it or moving it.

You should have just put a question mark behind your thread title and it would have been fine. Probably.

Whatever, though, man. As I said, it wasn't personal. It's just the principle of the matter.

As far as sources with this whole Russia thing, I personally don't trust western media as far as I can throw it. What they've kind of re-established is the old iron curtain. I don't even care what they do over there. It's none of my business. Well...aside from all of the fruits of my labor the war mongers are gonna hold me up at gunpoint to pay off later on.

I hadn't read thru far enough to see that White 6 had responded. And we're generally in agreement and we're NOT being "arbitrary". We TRY in all cases to SAVE threads if it's a simple fix. Sometimes the OPoster is STILL EDITING the darn thread and arranging a link -- and just POSTS it prematurely. I've seen it happen -- in fact -- I've DONE that. With reports coming in minutes after a thread posts -- We dont know if they even finished the Opost,

If it's easy to help -- WE DO when the thread is just created. Later on -- like hours after the thread post date - we dont help AT ALL if the topic requires a link..

And there's some contention within Mod Staff about excluding "Opinion" threads that dont post a link. If the topic is NOT an event, doesn't state important details as FACT or quote numbers, or quote people or REQUIRE A LINK for those things -- SHOULD WE EXCLUDE IT?

I come down on the premise that darn near every letter to the editor in the WallStreetJournal and other mighty sources - DO NOT require links for "political opinion". Especially if the event or story is well known or historical. So I believe there is ROOM for well crafted opinion threads to exist without links.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I hadn't read thru far enough to see that White 6 had responded. And we're generally in agreement and we're NOT being "arbitrary". We TRY in all cases to SAVE threads if it's a simple fix. Sometimes the OPoster is STILL EDITING the darn thread and arranging a link -- and just POSTS it prematurely. I've seen it happen -- in fact -- I've DONE that. With reports coming in minutes after a thread posts -- We dont know if they even finished the Opost,

If it's easy to help -- WE DO when the thread is just created. Later on -- like hours after the thread post date - we dont help AT ALL if the topic requires a link..

And there's some contention within Mod Staff about excluding "Opinion" threads that dont post a link. If the topic is NOT an event, doesn't state important details as FACT or quote numbers, or quote people or REQUIRE A LINK for those things -- SHOULD WE EXCLUDE IT?

I come down on the premise that darn near every letter to the editor in the WallStreetJournal and other mighty sources - DO NOT require links for "political opinion". Especially if the event or story is well known or historical. So I believe there is ROOM for well crafted opinion threads to exist without links.

Well all I know is that Flick said he saw some grizzly bears near Pulaski's candy store.

Placing that aside, a simple question mark at the end of the claim in the thread title would have been a legitimate reason for no link to said claim. Perhaps that's something for posters to consider in future circumstances of similar nature.

And yes I know you all agree. That's why I never cared for that whole ranked choice voting gag. But that's something else...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ah well. It's beyond my bed time. I need my beauty sleep. Have a good night, all.

 

[whitehall]

"More than a copy and paste" means that you have to explain what the hell it is. I hate to see a vid posted with simple instructions to "watch it". You didn't get through school by stealing videos or photos.