I wonder if the mods are able to see if a user has someone on ignore.
But you're right. If a user is using the tools available by the forum (and suggested by those in charge), then how can you punish them/remind them in a situation like this?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Clarification on "Citation Rule"
- Thread starter bunnspecial
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
But you're right. If a user is using the tools available by the forum (and suggested by those in charge), then how can you punish them/remind them in a situation like this?
So you disagree with the moderators of this site that trolling is a thing that people do?
Please provide a citation that confirms this fact.
Oh wait, we're you expressing an opinion? I didn't see an IMHO before your statement or anything else that this is an opinion.
Is this reply silly? Yes, but it also serves a point. An opinion in one person's eyes can be seen as a statement of fact in another's. And it's real easy to put a personal spin on text when read cold.
And at no point did you address the elephant in the room which is the issue of the "ignore" functionality
Wait what?
What are you asking me to provide citation of? It's all in print. The member stated "every doctor you talk to will recommend the vaccine" his post did not indicate in any way that he was not stating fact but an opinion.
As far as the ignore function, I'm not sure what to do with that, if the mod's cannot easily see this I'm not sure you can do anything but have the mod's send a "citation reminder" before acting, I'm ok with that but seems like a lot of extra work for what I would think is a small number of instances.
Not at all, plenty of trolls about but IMHO trolls get reported and dealt with.
Last edited:
If one uses the generic you, they cannot be making a claim of fact. It’s a generalizing statement by definition. Feel free to read the wikipedia link posted above. Your post painted the statement as a statement of fact - which it was not.
Every kid you see is on their phones all day.
Every Yankees fan you talk to thinks this is the year they’ll go all the way!
Neither of those above statements should be construed as a statement of fact, and neither is “every doctor you talk to” a statement of fact. Considering that they use the generic you, they cannot be proven or disproven. It seems like this nuance of English was missed by the moderators.
In response to this write-up, I would like to say the following:
Is NOT the same as:
The 2nd poster has asked the first to support a claim that the first poster never made. Please see my other post about the “generic you” for explanation.
Please provide citation for this claim that 100% of trolls "get reported and dealt with"
Yes, seriously.
No, and here's the thing. You were aware we'd questioned you. If you'd had either of us in ignore then you wouldn't. Then we could have reported you for failure to provide citation.
You seem to be so wrapped around the axel of opinion/fact you've missed the issue of knowledge of said request.
This issue is primarily caused because @Eric took advantage of the site's functionality to ignore you.
And if you'd been moderated because you had me on ignore, and were banned by the site rules from telling me that you're ignoring me, would that be fair and justified?
To me, this raises a few interesting questions.
1. The mods have stated they don’t have access to your ignore list - if true, they have to assume you’re not ignoring the person requesting you back up your statement of fact.
2. If you are allowed to use “I had them on ignore” as a defense, what’s to stop somebody from claiming they were ignoring everybody and posting false claims all over the place?
Neither of these questions affect the issue at hand though. In this case, the 2nd poster was asking the first to defend a claim that the first poster never made. The original poster cannot be expected to back up a straw man claim presented by a secondary poster.
I can't fix the ignore issue. Only thing I can think of is when a post is reported for citation the mods would issue a citation request to the OP.
Now on to the hypocrisy... are those arguing that @ericgtr12 was stating opinion by using the generic "you" going to go on record as saying that the following statements should be allowed to remain on the forum because they are clearly opinion and not a statement of fact.
Preface: I don't believe any of these things, they are only for example purposes only
"everyone you talk to says masks don't work"
"everyone you talk to says vaccines cause autism"
"everyone you talk to says the election was rigged"
"everyone you talk to says climate change is fake news"
IMHO some folks here would be falling all over themselves to report the above statements as dangerous misinformation but conveniently want to give one of their own a pass.
Now on to the hypocrisy... are those arguing that @ericgtr12 was stating opinion by using the generic "you" going to go on record as saying that the following statements should be allowed to remain on the forum because they are clearly opinion and not a statement of fact.
Preface: I don't believe any of these things, they are only for example purposes only
"everyone you talk to says masks don't work"
"everyone you talk to says vaccines cause autism"
"everyone you talk to says the election was rigged"
"everyone you talk to says climate change is fake news"
IMHO some folks here would be falling all over themselves to report the above statements as dangerous misinformation but conveniently want to give one of their own a pass.
These are hypothetical statements, and you have no way to know how others would respond to these. I personally would not report these, as I can see they are generalized statements.
But to be clear, would you be for or against such statements being removed if reported? I think your answer to this is quite important in the context of this discussion.
Agreed, which is why I worded the phrase exactly as I did - but that little nuance was apparently lost on the person I quoted.
Furthermore:
@ericgtr12 is also on record as saying:
This is also dangerous misinformation as wearing a mask and taking the vaccine will not PREVENT the spread but will HELP prevent the spread, an important distinction for any member reading his post and taking it as fact. Unless of course he can back up this claim with citations?
@ericgtr12 is also on record as saying:
This is also dangerous misinformation as wearing a mask and taking the vaccine will not PREVENT the spread but will HELP prevent the spread, an important distinction for any member reading his post and taking it as fact. Unless of course he can back up this claim with citations?
Sure, they should stay, and the immediate response I'd imagine will be "maybe everyone you talk to says that".
Which is why I clearly stated IMHO, did you miss that?
I generally am not in favor of censorship, I would more likely challenge the statements versus request they be deleted.
So I assume you'd also take issue with the claim that condoms prevent unwanted pregnancies?
edit: Does advocating for condoms also count as "dangerous misinformation"?
Why report a post if you don’t believe should be removed? Perhaps you should petition the moderators to replace the post that @ericgtr12 made since you disagree with its removal.
Again, you are ascribing absolutes to a statement that isn’t absolute. Here is the definition of prevent:
The word prevention isn’t necessarily a 100% guarantee that something won’t happen.
Ok, I'll play, the CDC puts the failure rate at 13% so yes, if I'm in the mood to be picky I would say that is a dubious claim. I wouldn't stake my future on an 87% effectiveness rate. Condoms sure can HELP prevent unwanted pregnancies but can't prevent them.
Again, the word prevent doesn’t imply a 100% success rate. You are imposing that meaning upon it yourself. Read a tube of toothpaste sometime. It says right on it that it has been shown to prevent tooth decay. Yet not everybody who brushes their teeth with it has a perfect record of no cavities, even if they brush 2x a day.Ok, I'll play, the CDC puts the failure rate at 13% so yes, if I'm in the mood to be picky I would say that is a dubious claim. I wouldn't stake my future on an 87% effectiveness rate. Condoms sure can HELP prevent unwanted pregnancies but can't prevent them.
I never asked for its removal, I asked for a citation, there is a difference. If someone is so closed mined and triggered by the opinions of others that they need to block them I cannot be held responbsible for the unintended consequenses.
Last edited:
wow. i'm glad i'm not a moderator here. thanks for all that you guys do.
- Status