A TIL moderator travels to /r/undelete to defend a removal. Take #347 (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
32 ups - 0 downs = 32 votes
47 comments submitted at 04:19:58 on Jul 17, 2014 by IAmAN00bie
A TIL moderator travels to /r/undelete to defend a removal. Take #347 (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
32 ups - 0 downs = 32 votes
47 comments submitted at 04:19:58 on Jul 17, 2014 by IAmAN00bie
I don't think so. I try to comment in each post on undelete to explain exactly which rule was broken and our thoughts on removing the post. sometimes the users are understanding, sometimes they want blood.
I take it as a personal shortcoming to have a post from TIL make it onto /r/undelete. A post shouldn't make it all the way to the top 100 of /r/all before a moderator realizes it breaks a rule. We're in the process of adding more mods (we got a nice short-list from the lizard people, letting us know who they approve of) so hopefully we can reduce the number of TIL posts in /r/undelete further.
edit: only non-defaults can opt out of /r/undelete
Do you actually realize Weird Al's parents really did die in 2004 around the same time the Onion made that satirical article?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/music/2004-04-11-weird-al-parents_x.htm
That doesn't change the fact that the onion is not a reliable source because it is a satire website.
I'm fine with all this shit but I still can't get my head around how the TIL was about the article and the article can't be used as proof of the article existing.
Wow. Seriously?
Do you really still not get it or are you just sticking with that line to save face at this point?
I think you don't get it.
I have a tough time taking you seriously when you have a history of pissing in the popcorn.
This thread from two days ago, Comment that is later link to SRD is made at 15:21, every other reply to that comment is within 15-20 minutes of the time they posted. The comment gets linked to SRD at 16:09 and at 16:46 you are calling the guy a douchebag
How do you explain the fact there is over an hour difference between everyone else's comment and yours, while all the other comments are only a few minutes apart?
Report it to the mods, then. Whether or not SJ's a popcorn pisser doesn't change the fact you're being ridiculous.
We have consistently told the users that The Onion is not a reliable source. I don't see how consistently enforcing the same set of rules is considered ridiculous. Is it too much of a burden for them to find a different source? is there literally no other source for this information?
Except that it is a reliable source for the fact that the article in question exists, because of course it is. Why would you cite a secondary source when you can just send users to the primary source and let them draw their own conclusions?
The Onion is not permitted as a source, it's literally that simple. Many subreddits maintain a list of sites that are not permitted, why is it that you think TIL should be any different?
Because you tried to justify your actions. If you'd just said 'The Onion is not an accepted TIL source', that would have been one thing, but you went on to try and justify it based on the fact The Onion is a satire site, which makes no sense in this context. I'm not arguing because I think you don't think you have the right to prohibit sites from your sub, I'm arguing because your justification for doing so is irrational.
More Comments - Click Here
Because that would actually defeat the purpose of TIL. If you link to the primary source, the only thing that you learn is that the Onion published an article about an event. That is not worthy of TIL at all, the fact that the Onion publishes articles about things.
The original submitter did not want his TIL to be about the fact that the Onion published an article. His TIL was about an editorial opinion about the article published by the Onion. This opinion is not found in the primary source. It could be found in a secondary source, but the submitter did not provide that.
So yes, sometimes a secondary source is actually better than a primary source, especially if only the secondary source contains the primary point that you want to make.
res ipsa loquitur, bro. The Onion is a reliable source of the fact that The Onion's articles exist, which was the sole assertion of the TIL. You are objectively wrong.
Edit: I feel the need to emphasize this; it's not that I disagree with you or that 'anyone with common sense' could see that you're wrong, your position is actually logically impossible. If you want to globally ban submissions from The Onion, that would be one thing, but this is just a frivolous argument.
>The Onion is a reliable source of the fact that The Onion's articles exist, which was the sole assertion of the TIL. You are objectively wrong.
False. We have consistently told the users that the Onion cannot be used as a source. Therefore, The Onion is, by definition, not an authorized source. It is no different than the subreddits that said "No submissions from Gawker" after the Adrian Chen incident. Just because the post followed every other rule and the information contained within it is accurate does not mean that somehow the source is no longer prohibited. If you don't like it, I believe Reddit's official stance is "Create your own subreddit" and allow the sources that you think should be allowed.
I feel the need to emphasize this, 'anyone with common sense' can see that there is a difference between "what is accurate" and what is "allowed to be posted to TIL".
>If you want to globally ban submissions from The Onion, that would be one thing,
That is literally what we have said from the beginning, submissions from the Onion are prohibited. How is this hard to grasp?
>That is literally what we have said from the beginning, submissions from the Onion are prohibited. How is this hard to grasp?
No, what you are saying is that The Onion is banned because it's not a reliable source. You're justifying your actions instead of simply stating you're not going to accept submissions from The Onion, because we said so, that's why. If your justification fails, your actions make no sense.
> No, what you are saying is that The Onion is banned because it's not a reliable source.
No, what we are saying is that because it is a satire page, we have added it to the list of pages that are banned. This doesn't mean that it is only banned in certain circumstances, it doesn't mean that sometimes it is unbanned. it is prohibited for use as a source. full stop.
Suppose I make a bunch of alternate accounts and do a bunch of vote manipulation and I get caught and I get banned from Reddit. Would it be fair for me to say "You should let me post this one thing because it is not part of the reason I got banned" and expect the admins to allow me to post more content after being banned? Of course not.
>You're justifying your actions instead of simply stating you're not going to accept submissions from The Onion, because we said so, that's why.
Like I said. We have said this from the beginning. We have said "Because of it's status as a satire news source, The Onion is not permitted" We did not say "Because of it's status as a satire news source, The Onion is not permitted most of the time" or "Because of it's status as a satire news source, The Onion is not permitted sometime". I really don't see how this is hard for people to understand, every subreddit maintains a list of sources that are not permitted, TIL is no different.
This is such a wild conversation that could probably be some kind of meta post itself. It's just like everyone's completely talking past each other and repeating themselves like we're inside some Kafka novel.
I'm not gonna jump in with my own opinion but, damn, you sure everyone in here really isn't a bunch of robots?
I don't even think it's so much that they're talking past each other. The TIL mod keeps adapting his exploitation to try to get the guy to understand that the onion isn't an approved source. Ever. Even if it's an onion article about the onion itself
Either /u/postirony just wants to argue or is really really dense. I'm not sure which way Occam's razor is cutting though.
Your reading comprehension fucking sucks.
Doesn't change the fact that you're obviously retarded.