I’ll just make a new one (this isn’t oc) when I get home but that’ll be 10h at least. It’s OK to nuke this since it is sorta misinfo, although I didn’t know it when I posted it
I have a deep appreciation for this level of discernment. Moderating posts and their discussions in good-faith and abiding by the spirit/intention of the rules instead of strict enforcement by letter fosters community trust and makes it more difficult to argue against removals/bans when they do happen.
Thanks for volunteering and keeping the lights on.
…the precedent that people are allowed to make minor mistakes? Gasp THE HORROR
Seriously, this mistake isn’t a big deal, no intentional misdirection and in any case, the quote is more important for conversation than the actual author.
I think the objection here is that it creates a massive loophole: Intentionally post misinformation, claim you thought it was legitimate. Repeat until you stop getting the benefit of the doubt, start over with a new account, repeat ad infinitum.
I’m not sure what the best solution is, but I think we at least need some kind of very clear notice, on the feed page and not just in the comments, that the content is proven to be factually incorrect.
If it’s more serious misinformation, it probably warrants taking down the post, even if unintentional. The nuance would then be that genuine error doesn’t immediatly warrant banning, even if the post is taken down.
This one is a mild and unintentional case with little implications either way. If someone were to cite this as “But this one you left up!” as excuse for a different, more severe case, the mods would justifiably say that it doesn’t apply.
Besides, it’s not like setting a precedent is as serious for community mods as it is for courts of law - mods can change the rules when a situation arises that warrants it and enforce them accordingly, make one-off decisions for special cases or admit a previous decision was a mistake and generally have more leeway.
This has been reported for violating rule 2: “No misinformation”, as the quote was misattributed.
The full rule:
OP admitted they didn’t double check the author of the quote. This means it was not intentional.
Leaving it up.
I’ll just make a new one (this isn’t oc) when I get home but that’ll be 10h at least. It’s OK to nuke this since it is sorta misinfo, although I didn’t know it when I posted it
Nah. That would nuke all the back-and-forth found here. I’d rather keep the discussion up.
I have a deep appreciation for this level of discernment. Moderating posts and their discussions in good-faith and abiding by the spirit/intention of the rules instead of strict enforcement by letter fosters community trust and makes it more difficult to argue against removals/bans when they do happen.
Thanks for volunteering and keeping the lights on.
See he should have attributed that quote to Julius Caesar, then it would be considered humor and not misinformation.
JFC just enjoy the meme.
Should I make a new rule that all quotes must be attributed to Oscar the Grouch? I will, either way.
“All quotes must be attributed to Oscar the Grouch.”
This sounds like if someone just said they didn’t know it was bs, it’s a get out of jail free card.
not a good reason to leave it up. Think about the precedent that sets.
…the precedent that people are allowed to make minor mistakes? Gasp THE HORROR
Seriously, this mistake isn’t a big deal, no intentional misdirection and in any case, the quote is more important for conversation than the actual author.
I think the objection here is that it creates a massive loophole: Intentionally post misinformation, claim you thought it was legitimate. Repeat until you stop getting the benefit of the doubt, start over with a new account, repeat ad infinitum.
I’m not sure what the best solution is, but I think we at least need some kind of very clear notice, on the feed page and not just in the comments, that the content is proven to be factually incorrect.
If it’s more serious misinformation, it probably warrants taking down the post, even if unintentional. The nuance would then be that genuine error doesn’t immediatly warrant banning, even if the post is taken down.
This one is a mild and unintentional case with little implications either way. If someone were to cite this as “But this one you left up!” as excuse for a different, more severe case, the mods would justifiably say that it doesn’t apply.
Besides, it’s not like setting a precedent is as serious for community mods as it is for courts of law - mods can change the rules when a situation arises that warrants it and enforce them accordingly, make one-off decisions for special cases or admit a previous decision was a mistake and generally have more leeway.
I think the point is it’s factually incorrect about the least significant fact.
This is a great point but man that was hard to process.
Maybe I’m running a little slow today?
wait. You saw this comment, and reported it anyways?
Think about the precedent that pulling down discussions wholesale because some inconsequential detail about them is wrong sets.
It wasn’t intentional, FFS. I hate this place so much.