Flairs - what we have currently, and colour codes (pizzagatemods)

submitted ago by kingkongwaswrong

Hi Guys,

Here's our current flair list -

1. News 1. Collaboration Request (green) 1. Meta 1. Breakthrough (red) 1. Historic/RitualChildAbuse 1. Related Crimes 1. People of Interest (orange) 1. Symbolism & Infographics 1. CPP/Besta/Pizza related 1. TheGiustraFiles 1. ThePodestaFiles 1. TheClintonFiles

**We can only use 10 flairs so we need to remove 2 (or else the bottom 2 cant be used)**

We need to work out if these are working for us, if they make sense and if they help.

@Codewow @knowthyself @blacksmith21 @millenial_falcon @Eggs-Vs-Bacon

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

KnowThyself ago

I want to get people's inputs on flairs. I think we want our flairs to be as objective and as useful as possible. The more subjective a flair is the more potential for abuse and the more it feels like the mods are controlling the narrative. I think they look like this right now:

Objective: People of Interest, Business Fronts, Already discovered, New Evidence, Possible False Flag (emphasis on possible)

In the middle: Debunked, Potential Lead, Needs sources,

Subjective: Breakthrough, Relevance in question,

Removals: My proposal is to get rid of 'Breakthrough' as I think that is up to the users to decide. It can be covered more objectively with the 'New evidence' flair. I see the use for 'Relevance in question' but it also seems to give mods a lot of power to decide what is relevant. If it's unclear how it relates to Pizzagate it could be tagged with the 'Needs Sources' flair. (Maybe call it 'Needs More Sources')

Additions: As boring as it looks I think we need a 'Meta' tag, as I see a ton of posts talking about the investigation itself, rather than doing actual research. I think the other two flairs needed are 'Symbolism' and 'Memes/Infographics', but it would require removing one more to make enough room. Thoughts?

@kingkonwaswrong @crensch @millenial_falcon @melitica @numbchuck

Phobos_Mothership ago

My proposal is to get rid of 'Breakthrough' as I think that is up to the users to decide. It can be covered more objectively with the 'New evidence' flair.

I like this.

I see the use for 'Relevance in question' but it also seems to give mods a lot of power to decide what is relevant. If it's unclear how it relates to Pizzagate it could be tagged with the 'Needs Sources' flair. (Maybe call it 'Needs More Sources')

I actually think that we need 'relevance in question', as more of a way to get other mod's input. Irrelevant posts are deleted, so I could see why we would want this flair. Instead of deleting something a mod is unsure of we can tag with 'relevance in question' and ping the other mods.

could we combine 'business fronts' and 'people of interest' by having 'people/businesses of interest' ?

kingkongwaswrong ago

The more subjective a flair is the more potential for abuse and the more it feels like the mods are controlling the narrative.

Spot on

My proposal is to get rid of 'Breakthrough' as I think that is up to the users to decide. It can be covered more objectively with the 'New evidence' flair.

agreed

As boring as it looks I think we need a 'Meta' tag, as I see

yep

I generally trust your judgement - and I think that if you feel like you need to continue to iterate based on feedback/utility then Ithink you should continue to do so. Maybe come up with your final list and then put it to the community with your rationale, and see what they think.