Make having no source, punishable.

[Deleted]

I see plenty of threads that start with a rather bold statement fo things that apparently happened one way or another, but often lack any source or a source even remotely credible.

I think it'd be only proper to infracted people for not including a source when making bold statements to start a thread. Because without a source, one or more, some threads are little else but flamebait or nation bashing when anyone, with nothing to back them up, can say anything they want and claim it's news.

[Simulacrum]

Aye, that's a good first step.

Then I think we should punish having bad sources. They're basically the same as using "nothing" to back up a post, anyway.

Then we should punish sources that disagree with whoever's doing the punishing. They're so biased their opinions are worth nothing anyway.

Then we should punish based on association...

[Steve French]

Yes these ideas could only lead to a better forum. Did we get that sarcasm font yet?

[Deleted]

Aye, that's a good first step.

Then I think we should punish having bad sources. They're basically the same as using "nothing" to back up a post, anyway.

Then we should punish sources that disagree with whoever's doing the punishing. They're so biased their opinions are worth nothing anyway.

Then we should punish based on association...

The difficulty in punishing bad sources is how you determine what's good and bad. It's a bit sketchy to say "bad source" because the moderators subjective opinion would be the determining factor.

But yeah as a start I'd love to see infractions for not giving sources. It's misinformation at its worst and is almost exclusively meant to bash a group of people, a nation or other.

[Deleted]

The difficulty in punishing bad sources is how you determine what's good and bad. It's a bit sketchy to say "bad source" because the moderators subjective opinion would be the determining factor.

But yeah as a start I'd love to see infractions for not giving sources. It's misinformation at its worst and is almost exclusively meant to bash a group of people, a nation or other.

So don't punish people posting nothing, as you will result in people spamming shit that's wrong for the sake of posting some random shit. Even more than it is now.

[Deleted]

Yes these ideas could only lead to a better forum. Did we get that sarcasm font yet?

Unconstructive posting is against the rules right now though, so eh...

[Elim Garak]

Make demanding a source for a known fact punishable

[frogger237]

I see plenty of threads that start with a rather bold statement fo things that apparently happened one way or another, but often lack any source or a source even remotely credible.

I think it'd be only proper to infracted people for not including a source when making bold statements to start a thread. Because without a source, one or more, some threads are little else but flamebait or nation bashing when anyone, with nothing to back them up, can say anything they want and claim it's news.

Do you have a source to back this up?

[Rumred]

Make demanding a source for a known fact punishable

Now that is a idea i think we can all get behind.

[Deleted]

So don't punish people posting nothing, as you will result in people spamming shit that's wrong for the sake of posting some random shit. Even more than it is now.

But they already do that.
The problem is that there's plenty of threads popping up that start with a post with no sources, stating incredible things, blatant rumors and misinformation, which leads to a thread full of shit.

It's proper damned etiquette to post sources when you make a thread OP.
It can only be punished, since there's no system to encourage good behavior here rather than fear of infractions.

[Hotmail]

Because without a source, one or more, some threads are little else but flamebait or nation bashing when anyone, with nothing to back them up, can say anything they want and claim it's news.

What's wrong with that?

[Captain Douchebag]

Make demanding a source for a known fact punishable

Yes please.

[Xandrigity]

One can only make a thread if one provides a powerpoint presentation with all sources sited.

[Deleted]

Make demanding a source for a known fact punishable

Ludicrous.

[Deleted]

Unconstructive posting is against the rules right now though, so eh...

It would be better to infract the knows trolls in off-topic, I mean seriously...EVERYONE knows they are baiting and trolling and it's mentioned in every thread "not another xmember thread" and yet the moderation does fuck all about it.

[Auxora]

I totally agree it's a problem, but the tough part from a mod standpoint would be that "reputable" sources is a bit subjective. There are tin foil hat folks that think any YouTube channel recorded in somebody's basement to look like a news channel is a concrete source. Same for fringe web news sites. But then there is more middle ground like RT or The Guardian that are heavily biased, or even mainstream media like Fox News being biased. So it's tough to say only post facts.

So it's really more up to the reader to go to multiple sources, and try to filter out ones that have a clear agenda behind them (which are most).

[Deleted]

I suppose the suggestion is a bit unmanageable.

I'd just really like to see people using proper sources, or any sources at all. It's intensly bothersome when someone starts a thread based on completely wrong information or blatant ignorance. They never end with any good discussion being had, because everyone has to point out for several pages how ridiculous the source is or the lack thereof being absurd. It's like walking into a car dealership to buy a car when the only thing you know about them is how the wheel was invented. Know what I mean?

I was thinking it'd save the forum goers a lot of time and bother if people were, if not on the same page, atleast reading the same book. Or reading a book at all.

- - - Updated - - -

I totally agree it's a problem, but the tough part from a mod standpoint would be that "reputable" sources is a bit subjective. There are tin foil hat folks that think any YouTube channel recorded in somebody's basement to look like a news channel is a concrete source. Same for fringe web news sites. But then there is more middle ground like RT or The Guardian that are heavily biased, or even mainstream media like Fox News being biased. So it's tough to say only post facts.

So it's really more up to the reader to go to multiple sources, and try to filter out ones that have a clear agenda behind them (which are most).

On top of that, a single source isn't good either. Then again if we'd have to o all that, I suppose all discussion would be difficult and bothersome. Some times you just wanna talk about crap, not write a paper on the subject.

[Tziva]

Uncited claims is something that you, as users, should call out, question, and debate. That kind of thing is the responsibility of the discussion participants. People should learn to be critical and mindful of on their own if they are going to participate in discussions of a controversial nature and not rely on the punitive actions of forum moderators.

It is not something that requires moderator intervention, and implementing such a policy would be time consuming and overly authoritarian.