- Joined
- Sep 6, 2017
- Messages
- 3,605
- Reaction score
- 2,450
- Location
- A Purple State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.
(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)
In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.
You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.
Hmm... where is the link to support that (bolded above) fact?
Hmm... where is the link to support that (bolded above) fact?
In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.
You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.
(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)
In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.
You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.
I suggest you look around and find a thicker skin. You are going to need it if your ass is chapped from the responses you got in that other thread. I don't think anyone mocked you at all.
Well, I'd link to the (closed) thread, but I'd probably get banned for doing so.
So, you don't believe facts are a good thing. Got it.
In the words of your own signature line "you're dismissed"...
OK, but some facts (such as the one which I bolded) are generally accepted without need of any links. Obviously, anyone is free to post links which dispute (challenge?) an OP's (or any other reply post's) allegedly "factual" content.
I am not attempting to "mock" you for your proposed forum rule change, but simply wanted to point out that including a link to any (all?) references to "factual" statements would be a daunting task for all (posters as well as mods).
For the Mods yes, but it shouldn't be a burden for individual posters when they are asserting a position as fact (separate from expressing an obvious opinion which doesn't require factual support)
I disagree, since many facts (or concepts) are generally accepted without need for a supporting link. An example would be discussion of a law/policy without a specific (linked) reference to the statute or (initial) policy statement. Many posts discuss (address?) M4A (or UHC) with no reference to any specific legislation.
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.
(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)
In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.
You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.
Sure, if the poster can provide enough specific info so that others can easily look it up themselves, that would be fine.
I generally believe if a claim is made the claimant is obliged to provide support if asked.
If one claimed the Atlantic was deeper than the Pacific one should either support the claim or retract it.
That could be tricky since using (comparing?) the average depth as opposed to the deepest single location may well yield different "facts".
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.
(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)
In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.
You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.
But....they told you:
1. It would take an army of mods given the volume of threads and sources they would have to read, then determine just how many of the stated 'facts' in the thread are supported by the sources, whether that support is strong enough, etc.
2. They do not want to have to take on a fact-checking role anyway.
It has nothing to do with a belief that "factual information isn't a good thing." It's about feasibility first, and responsibility second. You've been here a few years. Surely, you know which posters start threads with valid source support and which constantly spout off with bull****.
So yesterday, I started a thread asking for a rule requiring links for statements of "fact" made by OP's.
(Now, before this thread gets shut down..I understand and acknowledge that it's too much work for the Mods to handle.)
In that thread, several people either directly, or passive-aggressively mocked me for the the idea. The thread was closed before I had an opportunity to respond.
You know who you are, so here is your opportunity to explain why factual information isn't a good thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?