Suggestion for self-censoring of this board: Link to Sources

[BurtWorm]

If you start a thread to criticize a candidate, please include at least one link to back up your assertion. The link should be to a credible source, i.e., a neutral news story, a left/liberal/progressive journal or Website, or the words of the candidate him/herself, from a debate transcript or their own Website. If you can't do that, then think twice about starting your thread. If you start a critical thread without a link to a credible source, consider yourself flame-bait.

I will personally alert on every thread with a title that violates one of the ground rules for posting, and I hope every reasonable person on this board does the same.

[Don_G]

1. I Don't Wander Into DU Much Anymore

Much less GD 2004, but it seems like a reasonable suggestion to me.

[Printer70]

7. Why not?

Just curious.

[cprise]

2. A great way to let corporations play us like a fiddle

'Credible sources' = BS.

No thanks!

[BurtWorm]

4. Okay, we'll let you post incredible sources.

;)

[cprise]

9. No special favors, thanks.

.

[dajabr]

5. OK...how about no threads starting with...

I heard a rumour about...

I just saw on Faux news...

The Freepers are saying...

My sister loves Rush but will vote for...



I can live with that.

[slinkerwink]

3. I agree with you!

[hellhathnofury]

6. I echo.

[cprise]

8. If DU does this then sayonara

Welcome to the confines of corporate "legitimacy".

How soothing... don't have to think for yourselves or work at socializing.

Can I get that debate to go with a happy meal? Ooh, how exciting; today we have McChicken and the 'controversial' McBeef!

[BurtWorm]

10. The alternative is junk food for the brain.

Mass masturbation. Tastes like shit, without the calories!

[cprise]

13. Where did you get that from, some TV pundit?

Or Rush Limbaugh?

[dajabr]

15. Why so combative?

Of course original thoughts and ideas will remain. But, if I say I saw something in the Media, I would damn well source it.

I think you're confused about Burtworm's proposal??

[BurtWorm]

21. Perhaps he thinks I'm suggesting only pre-fab ideas be posted?

I don't know how he got that. But let me try to explain this by hypothetical example, in case cprise is the only one who doesn't get it:

Say you've read that Candidate X has flip-flopped on an issue. In the current state of anarchy on this board, you could post a thread with the title: Candidate X flip-flops on issue A, then post a one-liner like, "Candidate X is a weasel and a liar." Or you could be a little more subtle (and no less annoying) by typing, "How can we trust Candidate X? How can the voters at large trust him?" You've now succeeded in spewing gas and inflaming Candidate X's supporters. Very high-temperature, low-illumination situation.

The alternative is to post a thread with a less inflammatory title, and make your point, linking to the source for your assertion. Now the people who respond to your post see the reason for it and either have to concede or have to defend the candidate based on better information.

As many people will be asking you to back up your assertion anyway, you will reduce one pointless step in the dance of the dueling Democrats.

[cprise]

30. Then conservatives get large qty's of accessible ammo

If you want to make a point about some of the more illegal aspects of BBV, for instance, it will be broken links and shutdown websites vs. soft-pedaling and half-truths from corporate sources.

Slashdot posts stories about the DMCA based on activist reporting and hearsay, in addition to other sources, because for some aspects of the issue there is nothing to link back to. All that community has are their common experiences and inferences.

So candidate supporters get inflamed. *YAWN* They're just not used to it yet.

[BurtWorm]

31. Why would you post about BBV in here? Why wouldn't you post that in GD

i.e., the original GD, where that self-censorship "rule" wouldn't apply?

PS: Conservatives are very nondiscriminating when it comes to dirt anyway. If we know where the dirt comes from, we'll have a better chance of fighting it than if it comes out of the swamp of rumor.

[cprise]

32. Because it's an issue in the primaries, as DMCA should be

.

[BurtWorm]

33. It's only a primary issue if any of the candidates make it an issue.

Otherwise it doesn't belong in here.

[BurtWorm]

16. Do you have something against backing your argument up with substance?

That's your prerogative. But if this self-governing rule becomes part of DU culture, you'll have to face the consequences of dealing with a lot of angry people who disagree with you.

[cprise]

18. I didn't see a source for post #10

...so I thought I would question it.

No big deal.

Should I have hit Alert instead?

[dajabr]

20. So, you're just wasting our time here...

Unlike Burtworm, who's trying suggest ways to improve the discourse on the board.

Great :eyes:

[cprise]

24. I thought someone might like to 'try it out'

... you know?

I was being faceteous.

[TexasSissy]

11. A good idea.

Of course, I might end up getting "reported" myself, if I get carried away. It's so much hassle looking up the link to a story you read previously, but then, if you look it up and post the link, you're less likely to misremember exactly what it said.

[Dookus]

12. well alerting on threads that violate the rules is fine....

but there's no requirement that any criticisms of candidates be based on a neutral news story.

Taking up more of the moderator's time and energy on threads that don't break the published rules won't be constructive.

[BurtWorm]

14. That's why I'm calling for self-censorship.

Then mods don't have to do a thing but clean up after the flame fests for people who risk bashing a candidate without backing up their point.

[Dookus]

17. what I'm saying is

hitting alert on a thread because it doesn't conform to YOUR standards is wasting the moderators' time. There's no requirement that a criticism be backed up with sources or links.

I suspect the admins and mods would frown upon an organized effort to abuset he alert function.

[cprise]

22. I have to agree re: sources

Because there will soon be a list of unacceptable sources and even topics (you know, the 'nebulous' ones like ideology), etc.

Personally, I try not to feed the trolls which is why I stay out of many BS arguments: Let them drop.

Many opinions and personal observations are, however, both controversial and valuable. Their threads may heat up enough as it is without having to fight off Alerts based on some generalized idea of credibility.

Some of the rules already in place go a bit too far, and are more apropriate for boards like Slashcode where mods use deprecation instead of deletion. Don't make DU's limitations worse than they are.

[dajabr]

23. "Many opinions and personal observations"

Please, please, please see post 21. You're completely missing the point.

[BurtWorm]

27. cprise, let me make this clear for you, please.

I'm repeating myself, but I don't want to be misunderstood. If people break the rules pinned at the top of this board, they should expect to get alerted on.

But my suggestion has nothing to do with those rules. It has to do with changing the culture here among posters and restoring a more productive, less destructive atmosphere. The mods and admins can't help us here beyond what they already do. We have to help ourselves. We have to give respect to get respect from people who disagree with us. If we start spreading random threads with half-remembered dirt on candidates we'll do anything to de-rail so our guy stands a better chance, then we'll get that in return. And we'll deserve it. But if we give our opponents the chance to consider the evidence we considered for themselves, we can hope they'll return the favor so we can answer them more intelligently.

This is self-government. We take responsibility for our words. If we can't do that here, how can we hope to do that outside of here?

[BurtWorm]

26. I said clearly I'd hit alert on threads that don't conform to the

rules. I meant the ones pinned at the top of the board. I'm not going to alert when people don't self-censor and post responsibly. I'll either ignore them or hit back as good as I get.

[revcarol]

19. Some thoughtful posters just put several sources

and independent thinking together in a new way...for the rest of us to think about.

Or they point out contradictions...

Or they are a total computer illiterate, as I am, and wouldn't know how to link a source if their lives depended on it...

I would be against this self-censoring.But I also do not click on threads that say:'Help me answer this repug e-mail," or "My neighbor sez," then comes out with Rush's latest talking point.We aren't stupid, and this is a place for thought, not just depending on conventional or unconventional media to think for us.

[BurtWorm]

25. I'm talking about marshalling evidence for assertions.

Of course people will continue to talk about their gut feelings about candidates, and there will be no sources but one's own gut feelings to "link" to. But I'm not talking about that sort of personal expression. I'm talking about assertions about what a candidate said or did. It's not kosher to make a statement along those lines and expect people who surely won't agree with you to take your word for it.

If you need help linking, you can ask someone here.

[not systems]

28. Can you back that up with a link, please?

:D

[BurtWorm]

29. That's it! I'm alerting on the next person who pulls that!

;)