Oh, come on now, I think it’s obvious that the rules of this board are not as rigidly written as to contain special rules about the Giraffe Board, so cut the mods some slack there. Dopes OTOH surely sounds like an insult.
Here’s a link to a thread I found with (what I believe is) ECG’s most recent guidance on Giraffe linkage:
This is as close as I could find to any actual rules regarding the Giraffe Board.
I’ve seen gripes about Giraffe, and to me it’s much ado about nothing. It’s soooooooooo boring.
Please, let’s not drag the Giraffe Board into this discussion. It is not relevant in any way.
Thanks. ecg’s post at the end of that thread more or less squares with my understanding although it’s not specific about a general link. I appreciate that time that you took to look that up.
What a bizarre take.
Not a problem. I was curious, too, as I’d not seen any specific rule regarding Giraffe but I knew it had been discussed a time or two.
Why? Everybody here knows that Cecil wrote down all the rules in the margins of old Chicago Readers in 1973. They covered every possible circumstance that might arise when the Internet he foresaw became a reality, and adhering to them would cut down the time of chaos that would bring to a mere thousand years.
How can you possibly not know this, especially when Hari Seldon was made a mod? That’s Cecil come back to laugh. A circle has no end.
Patently offensive, and so if you lure your debating opponent into exhausting his own argument on useless posts, then launch back with devastating counter arguments, it cannot be called a rope-a-dope. No: antique pop cultural reference to Norman Fell and Audra Lindley must be included so as to qualify as roper-a-doper.
Three’s Company?
Is what I said not true?
Another example:
In the past, a moderator stated that posters should read every post before replying, but later said the moderators do not.
Are you confusing the board itself with the posters? I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone called a dope, although I’m sure it’s happened. The board itself is commonly referred to as The Dope.
I think this would be in relation to their Mod duties. It’s not always necessary to read an entire thread to understand if something needs modding or not.
I don’t know the context of when you were told this, but in general we don’t expect posters to read every post in very long threads. On the other hand, if you have a habit of going into shorter threads and making posts that are disruptive simply because you didn’t bother to read much (or any) of the thread, then you can and probably will be moderated for that and be told to read more before posting.
We moderators do not have the time to read every post in very long threads, but we will at least read what we think are enough posts to get the general context of a flagged post.
Just to clarify about this.
Giraffe is a message board with several different forums. For those that aren’t aware, Giraffe is basically one of many protest boards that spun off quite a few years ago. In their specific case they wanted a forum where they could be more “edgy” (their description, not mine), which we do not have a problem with. If you like that sort of environment, feel free to check them out. We don’t have a problem with Giraffe in general and there is no rule prohibiting linking to Giraffeboards.
That said, one of their forums is dedicated to gossip/snark about us (technically it’s about any other board, but 99.99% or so is about us). What they do on their forum is their business, but we do not allow board wars or anything of the like here. So in this particular context, where the focus is on the gossip/snark, we don’t want anyone linking directly to that. In other words, thou shalt not stir up crap with other message boards on the SDMB.
So, context matters. Do not insult or attack Giraffe or any of its members. Do not link to their board specifically to stir things up. Do not bring Giraffe into ATMB discussions with the intent of stirring things up between boards or to focus on the snark. If you have a problem with anything that they post on their board, take it up with them. It’s their board, their rules. Don’t bring Giraffe issues back here. This applies to all message boards. It’s not a Giraffe-specific rule.
Links to Giraffe in general though are perfectly fine.
This is a good example of what we don’t want here. Don’t stir things up between boards.
I have a kinda question about the suspension. (I am not questioning that, BTW).
But I have sometimes quoted Wikipedia and gotten the same sort of reaction.
What is kosher with ridiculing a source/cite?
Not a mod of course, but Wikipedia is not a great source because the info in it could be written by just about anyone. An article on Wikipedia is only as good as the sources used for it, so you’re better off just using the sources cited in the article rather than the article itself.
I say this as someone who has been a Wikipedia administrator since 2009.
Of course Wiki isn’t perfect, nor is Twitter.
But, and this is the point I always make- my cite of Wiki is 1000% better that others “because I said so”.
IMHO, before you can dis a cite, you need to have a better cite.
Wikipedia is quite good on non-controversial things, however.
Some wiki articles are, others aren’t. The best I can say is it’s usually pretty clear (or at least clear enough) which ones aren’t, but of course there are exceptions.
Oh sure, and I’ve used it for that too.
In this case, the idea is that Twitter is a bad cite for something a person said on Twitter. That’s a ridiculous assertion. Imagine that you said, “Wikipedia has an article about kumquat addiction!” And then you linked to the article to prove it, and someone complained that Wikipedia is a bad source in response. That’s farcical.
Hmm, no. I can’t agree to that.
If you insist that there are secret mole people using mind control devices to force the population to watch reality television, and cite a Wordpress blog by a crackpot known for making up stories, you can’t demand that someone else have a “better cite”. There probably isn’t a cite to counter that, and doesn’t need to be.
Aren’t most things you need a cite for controversial?
Eh, it’s not always a “need” for a cite, but sometimes I use Wikipedia to offer someone more information about something in lieu of a wall o’ text in a thread. If I’m trying to prove a point, or refute an assertion, or win an argument, I’ll look for something more reliable.