If someone makes a claim involving a legal matter, asking for a cite to back up the claim sounds pretty logical, whereas responding not with a cite but with a request to prove the opposite seems like a stall tactic.
In that particular case, states seem to be trying something novel, and, as @Northern_Piper and others pointed out in that thread, states have broad police power, so there’s no reason they can’t do it, and as it’s novel, there would be no existing cites. So, in that case, as UV and others explained, you can’t cite something that hasn’t happened yet, but you can describe similar circumstances, which posters in that thread did.
I’m not trying to re-argue what happened in that thread.
It’s not reasonable to ask for a cite for something that hasn’t happened yet, or a cite for someone’s opinion. It is reasonable to ask for a cite for a specific claim (masks work to control COVID, crime is at record highs in NYC, and so on).
Hopefully, you won’t need to be asked, because you’ll make a claim and back it up with a cite.
As far as best practices, I think it’s best to be polite and specific, and even provide a counter-cite if you think the poster is wrong: “Please provide a cite that crime is at record highs in NYC. This citation seems to show it was much higher in 1995, and only went higher until the late 70s” or whatever.
I think specificity in the request is important, because posts often contain multiple claims, and maybe you’re misunderstanding the poster’s claim, so being specific can clear up that confusion quickly. Further, if you have a counter-cite, provide it – there’s no reason to be coy if you think the poster is wrong.
When a reasonable (and I know that varies and is subjective) request for a cite is made, the original poster who made the claim should provide a cite, admit that they have no cite or admit their error.
When they provide direct factual quotes specifically relevant to the question being discussed, they are valid whether you like it or not.
Other posters don’t have to abide by your specific preferences for types of cites, and if you are going to dismiss huge swaths of the internet just because of your own preferences, you shouldn’t be surprised if your request for a cite is presumed disingenuous.
You dismissed Twitter posts (and other sources, including news articles), that contained direct specific quotes from individuals that were specifically relevant to the discussion, over and over again. That’s why you were suspended.
That’s a grossly dishonest and disingenous description of what’s going on in that thread. I certainly haven’t been mocking anyone, and neither have most of the people disagreeing with UV.
Stranger said (emphasis added)
A state cannot prevent a non-convicted person from traveling to another state (in general; I’m sure you can contrive some situation in which it could invoke public health or another measure to invoke authority), cannot claim that someone is formulating ‘intent’ to commit an action that is not a crime in the jurisdiction in which the act occurs, and cannot pass laws regarding the legality of actions in other states. There is actually a significant body of law about this regarding liquor laws and other ‘blue laws’ with challenges to whether someone from one state can travel to another state to purchase liquor or prohibited items in that state (even if their intent is to transport the the purchases back across state lines in violation of the laws of the home state), and I am not aware of any challenge that has held up regarding the legal exchange in another state.
I am hoping he will return with more detailed cites.