Edit: Even MBFC rates dropsitenews as a reliable source https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/drop-site-news-bias-and-credibility/
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
There is no rule about ‘blog sites’ on worldnews. Jordanlund has made this up and proceeds to classify anything he does not like as a 'blog '.
I want the power tripping bastard to update the rules to be more clear. If you think that is whining, then you still don’t understand that ‘only news articles’ is a shitty fucking rule when it isn’t clear what that means.
Especially when a source that would have been considered a news aite in the past is being questioned.
I don’t doubt they are shit! But how would anyone know they don’t count as news if the mod decides they don’t count at some point in the future?
Aw, jeez. You wrote:
And I somehow misread what you wrote as:
Jeez, imagine if you’d posted all that stuff, just sort of throwing vitriol around to no purpose. Although, everyone knows that getting into a big bitter argument with someone is the best way to change their mind and improve the policy, so you might want to consider throwing some personal insults and general aggrieved-ness into the mix. Just a little. Who knows, it might help!
Ah yes, being polite always works with unreasonable people who never admit they are wrong.
You just linked an example of that not working, so maybe I’m missing your point.
I wasn’t talking for Jordan’s sake. I already was pretty sure he wasn’t going to change the policy because I’ve had this conversation with him before. I actually don’t think he is in charge or has the ability to change the policy, I just think that for whatever weird reason, he’s chosen to go out and attempt to “defend” it. It was just sort of due diligence, I guess. I don’t really know why I chose to talk with him about the MBFC policy yesterday.
My point was that your chosen approach is guaranteed not to work. With reasonable people or with unreasonable people. And, you’re ignoring things that you could be doing that would work that no one is stopping you from doing (like posting the story you wanted to have posted, from some reliable source, or advocating for some other world news community with less bizarre moderation.) You’re just sort of throwing insults around. I’m saying that is unlikely to accomplish anything, although it might be fun.
I started off clear and concise and didn’t escalate until they dug in their heels and it was clear they weren’t going to budge. At that point I was posting to vent and maybe it would encourage others to try something that might get through.
Throwing insults around is not always a negative thing, sometimes expressing frustration is a valid thing for people to do even if it doesn’t fix anything. While your advice would work for engaging with reasonable people, it ends up being tone policing when the approach never mattered in the first place.
I went back to the beginning of your conversation and all I see is you and Jordan being equally snitty and pedantic at each other.
IDK, man. You’re not really wrong as far as talking to Jordan sometimes being like talking to a wall. But I think your chosen approach is pretty much guaranteed to make that tendency worse, if someone already has it. That’s as long as I really want to go back and forth on the subject.
Alright, you can have the last word.
Good point
The rules will never be clear enough for people who refuse to actually read them.
I took a look and I see their point. Rule 3 sounds like there’s effectively a black list of known unreliable sources. And even then, it sounds like there would be exceptions based on the mods’ discretion. I wouldn’t expect a blanket ban on blogs from reading that.
Personally, I think requiring a reputable source for an article is a good policy for the community, at least when one is available, as in this case. And it does sound like it is being enforced objectively. We are in an age where information is weaponized and fake news and engagement is manufactured maliciously. It makes sense to be skeptical of sources with no reputation on the line.
But I do think the requirement should be clarified in the rules better to match what it means de facto. If nothing else, it would simplify things when someone complains again in the future. And including a list of repeat offender sites could be helpful so long as it’s clear that it is not exhaustive. Just mentioning that MBFC is used to judge sources could reduce the amount of unreliable posts in the first place.
For reference, these are the rules I see:
Rules:
Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.
No racism or bigotry.
Posts from sources that aren’t known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.
Post titles should be the same as the article title.
No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.
Instance-wide rules always apply.