2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link.
totally abused, way too vague. add that 'common knowledge' is defined as what a 6-month lurker of the sub would know, which would include most of the big names/orgs/topics listed under rule 1.
PEOPLE ARE STILL MAKING LINK POSTS by merey adding one line of description for it. especially with "school teacher/priest in Bumfuck, Idaho/Chimichanga, Mexico arrested" <----a post has to have ANALYSIS OR CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED RESEARCH BEHIND IT, maybe 1/10 of Q posts pass this test.
since Q-fags maintain that everything political INCLUDING pizzagate is subsumed by Q they should stay in THEIR OWN SUB.
repeat offenders making way too many threads per week like @migratorypatterns should have their posts deleted, even arbitrarily
Rule 2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link.
Rule 2 is fine.
Reason: We have many newbies, and people from other subs who wouldn't have a clue what OPs are talking about, when claims needn't be sourced.
Also, many people share Pizzagate posts on Twitter, so that people without any background knowledge about Pizzagate will read them. They can't be redpilled when claims are not sourced properly.
I can understand though, why people who have been here from the beginning, and are here almost daily, assume that some stuff is 'common knowledge'.
IMO, posts should be written in a way that newbies will understand them. This way, they'll get more traction, and can be spread outside of v/pizzagate.
as usual you misunderstand the criticism against you. I understand what sourcing is for. I say YOU LOT have proven yourselves to have zero judgement as to what demands it. do you even appreciate that "common knowledge" is subjective, jfc.
Well, I know that you're still cross with me because I asked for sources in your lenghty post that came with many unsourced claims. But you were able to add them in no time. :-)
I won't go into the details, but I can totally see why you would like to abolish sourcing claims. :-)
I won't go into the details, but I can totally see why you would like to abolish sourcing claims. :-)
I JUST said it, cunt: this mod team of women (of both sexes) don't know what "common knowledge" means. for example: if OP says "pedo swirl" does that require a source? no? how else would "newbies" be able to compare tho!!!
Well, I know that you're still cross with me because I asked for sources in your lenghty post that came with many unsourced claims.
I realize that youre not historically astute enough to know that "Ghetto" was coined for JEWISH neighborhoods and not black ones. This is what I mean by common knowledge being subjective; there are intelligent people like me, then there are also YOU
I realize that youre not historically astute enough to know that "Ghetto" was coined for JEWISH neighborhoods and not black ones.
Well Donkey, IIRC, you talked about a 21st century neighbourhood that has been labeled 'ghetto', because many - but not all - shop or diner owners there are Jewish. And - IIRC - I asked you to provide evidence that the specific shop owners you talked about were Jewish. Which you couldn't provide, btw.
So you are the one now who suddenly starts talking about black neighbourhoods. I never did that.
Btw: Calling me 'cunt' twice means you are out - bye!
view the rest of the comments →
auralsects ago
totally abused, way too vague. add that 'common knowledge' is defined as what a 6-month lurker of the sub would know, which would include most of the big names/orgs/topics listed under rule 1.
PEOPLE ARE STILL MAKING LINK POSTS by merey adding one line of description for it. especially with "school teacher/priest in Bumfuck, Idaho/Chimichanga, Mexico arrested" <----a post has to have ANALYSIS OR CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED RESEARCH BEHIND IT, maybe 1/10 of Q posts pass this test.
since Q-fags maintain that everything political INCLUDING pizzagate is subsumed by Q they should stay in THEIR OWN SUB.
repeat offenders making way too many threads per week like @migratorypatterns should have their posts deleted, even arbitrarily
think- ago
Rule 2 is fine.
Reason: We have many newbies, and people from other subs who wouldn't have a clue what OPs are talking about, when claims needn't be sourced.
Also, many people share Pizzagate posts on Twitter, so that people without any background knowledge about Pizzagate will read them. They can't be redpilled when claims are not sourced properly.
I can understand though, why people who have been here from the beginning, and are here almost daily, assume that some stuff is 'common knowledge'.
IMO, posts should be written in a way that newbies will understand them. This way, they'll get more traction, and can be spread outside of v/pizzagate.
auralsects ago
as usual you misunderstand the criticism against you. I understand what sourcing is for. I say YOU LOT have proven yourselves to have zero judgement as to what demands it. do you even appreciate that "common knowledge" is subjective, jfc.
think- ago
Well, I know that you're still cross with me because I asked for sources in your lenghty post that came with many unsourced claims. But you were able to add them in no time. :-)
I won't go into the details, but I can totally see why you would like to abolish sourcing claims. :-)
auralsects ago
I JUST said it, cunt: this mod team of women (of both sexes) don't know what "common knowledge" means. for example: if OP says "pedo swirl" does that require a source? no? how else would "newbies" be able to compare tho!!!
I realize that youre not historically astute enough to know that "Ghetto" was coined for JEWISH neighborhoods and not black ones. This is what I mean by common knowledge being subjective; there are intelligent people like me, then there are also YOU
think- ago
Well Donkey, IIRC, you talked about a 21st century neighbourhood that has been labeled 'ghetto', because many - but not all - shop or diner owners there are Jewish. And - IIRC - I asked you to provide evidence that the specific shop owners you talked about were Jewish. Which you couldn't provide, btw.
So you are the one now who suddenly starts talking about black neighbourhoods. I never did that.
Btw: Calling me 'cunt' twice means you are out - bye!
lovely1 ago
but you are