"Panic alert" email postings

[smithmax]

Would it be possible to require someone to post a link to a credible source when posting in Legal and Political forum? It seems like a lot of the new posts are just copypasta from an email from some group like GOA.

I understand this would put more work on the Mods, but hopefully it would put an end to the posting of those stories.

Read More

 

[Minisocks]

seconding

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

Just like the title says..... could you define what constitutes a reliable source?

Opinions will vary wildly and we will never get an agreement.

Thats just the nature of the beast.

And more moderators? I will agree that most of the moderating on this site is pretty good but there are times when threads are pulled or sanctions are invoked in a trigger happy (no pun intended) fashion.

Much like our gun rights, we don't need more rules, just enforce the ones we have and enjoy the freedon you have.

T_H

 

[dontreadonme]

Even Snopes can be off-base. The only way to really police these is to have the forum members challenge/confirm/debunk what is posted. That's one of the benefits of this format. Besides, what percent of us NWFW members even think the "main stream media" is credible?

 

[Minisocks]

We don't need super-strict criteria here. It's just a matter of reducing the "panic alert" emails.

For example, A mass emailing from your crazy uncle? That might not be reliable. An article on Drudge/Huffington Post? Probably mostly reliable but also probably biased but who isn't these days?

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

Hey my crazy uncle is reliable.....

 

[Trlsmn]

seconding

3rding

Would it be possible to require someone to post a link to a credible source when posting in Legal and Political forum? It seems like a lot of the new posts are just copypasta from an email from some group like GOA.

I understand this would put more work on the Mods, but hopefully it would put an end to the posting of those stories.

I'm of the opinion it would make less work for the Mods.

 

[smithmax]

A reliable source for some senate bill could be a link to the actual text of the bill, or AP, reuters, etc.

There are some great things posted in that section, it's just frustrating to see it diluted with the chain letters.

 

[Trlsmn]

A perfect example is this, reposted today the 3rd time this week and about the 50th time this year of a non issue BS story!

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33308

 

[MarkSBG]

Link was broken...

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33308

 

[TonsOfOregonBrass]

A perfect example is this, reposted today the 3rd time this week and about the 50th time this year of a non issue BS story!

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33308

I don't see a credible link Trlsmn. That one goes no where. 404 errors are not a credible source for your argument.

I agree with the credible links. Everyone gets tired of the chain bulk mailed crap that gets reposted all the time.

 

[Trlsmn]

Hehe! thanks for fixing that Mark!

 

[Artilleryman]

I dunno....while yes, the panic alert emails are aggravating I don't see a need to create a whole bureacracy here to deal with them. I guess I'm just encountering waaay too many "there oughta be a law about that" folks here in multnomah county and want to go in a different direction than that......but from what I've seen, the board members usually do a very fine job of correcting the tin foil hat types that seem predisposed to panic posts. Might be a bit simpler to just leave it at that.....just my .02

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

I agree with Artilleryman.

Enforce existing rules and call it good.

T_H

 

[ZeroRing]

The "panic-emails" and "tin-foil hat" type postings are usually pretty obvious to most folks here and, from what I've seen, they are usually pointed out for what they are by the rest of the folks here.

As others have said, what one considers a "reliable source" is a debate in and of itself! (I for one, do not consider AP, Reuters, or the MSM in general as "reliable sources" most days).

That being said, I am generally of the opinion that as long as the topics aren't re-hashes of something that has already been beat into the ground, they follow existing forum rules, and don't descend into all out flame wars, the membership here self-polices fairly well.

 

[elsie]

Perhaps a "dead horse" section that these repeated subjects can be moved into after it has been determined that they actually fit the criteria. I would also suggest that new threads in that section cannot be created so that it is easier to scan through, but existing threads can be replied to (if that is even possible with the forum software).

It should even be called The Tenderized Dead Horse section... B-)


elsie

 

[Silver Fox]

......but from what I've seen, the board members usually do a very fine job of correcting the tin foil hat types that seem predisposed to panic posts. Might be a bit simpler to just leave it at that.....just my .02

Seems the tin foil hat types stand out. As long as no one posts under the thread it will fade away. Besides who will we laugh at if they are banned.

Long live community policing.

SF-

 

[Member 5605]

As a rule of thumb whenever I post an article I always post the link to the information.

I never post email's (because we all know how reliable they are)

the

[quote=Article]
blah blah blah
[/quote]
[url] the actual article.... [/url]

Such a simple format goes a long way in not posting crap.

 

[Trlsmn]

Seems the tin foil hat types stand out. As long as no one posts under the thread it will fade away. Besides who will we laugh at if they are banned.

Long live community policing.

SF-

What I proposed was not a rule change or even something we would bother to talk to the member about. My idea is to just merge these new posts about the same persistent Tin Foil Emails into existing threads on the same subject. Think of it as house keeping not punishment.

As a rule of thumb whenever I post an article I always post the link to the information.

I never post email's (because we all know how reliable they are)

the

[url] the actual article.... [/url]

Such a simple format goes a long way in not posting crap.

That is a good way to post.

 

[Chee-to]

Would it be possible to require someone to post a link to a credible source when posting in Legal and Political forum? It seems like a lot of the new posts are just copypasta from an email from some group like GOA.

I understand this would put more work on the Mods, but hopefully it would put an end to the posting of those stories.

Question for mods; Is the GOA considered a reliable source, or is it to be censored because a few don't like what they have to say, what's next Fox news ?