Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |  [ show all ]
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25925822 -

It's one of the few perks of the job.  We can't edit someone else's posts without leaving an edit stamp, though.  Also, if a mod edits your posts, a record is kept, and we can see what he changed it from.

As soon as Balls gets back to me on the process for questions, I'll update the OP and get this party started.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #25925852 -

Sounds good.

For the record, I'm perfectly ok with Balls' request to ask questions.  As I said before, to me this about getting as much information as possible to make the right decision.  But I'll agree to whatever you and balls agree to on this.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925864 -

Oh, and I think we need one more rule.  If it turns out we both end up finding a lot of lies, I guess there needs to be a point where we call the game over.

I'm not yet sure what that number should be, I'm thinking somewhere between 8-12?

On the one hand, it might be good to see how this progresses to see what a reasonable number actually is, on the other hand we shouldn't allow someone to simply say "I'm bored" and quit once they realize they're about out of material.

To be clear, that wasn't meant as a snarky remark, just a general rule for the future if this type of format is ever used again.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925868 -

Quitting is conceding a loss. I'm sure I can find 100 fake stories if necessary.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925887 -

I guess the only way to make sure there is a break in between turns for clarification would be to make it compulsory.
I think that if I need to ask a question of anyone I'll just interject at my discretion because this feels like adding turns to the rounds.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25925895 -

Check final rule changes.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925900 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Two things:

1.  I believe we also agreed that the threshold of proof for the judge is 'more likely than not'.



Work this in there somewhere and let's light this candle.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25925908 -

Already did:

Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes false information.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.



--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925924 -

thanks, I'm tired.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25925929 -

Enlil said:
Already did:

Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes false information.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.



What's the burden of proof for the second sentence?  How about:

Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes information that is more likely false than true.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.



--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925932 -

And I got burned by the last sentence.  How about something like:

Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes information that is more likely false than true.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news, unless a conclusion is drawn where the omitted information would have resulted in a different conclusion.


Example:  "As you can see from the evidence, the US is not at fault", but they omit the part proves more likely than not that the US is at fault.

Assuming the petitioner provides this omitted information to the judge, who then believes it more likely than not this information would have resulted in a different conclusion.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (04/09/19 11:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925937 -

maybe there's a way we can tighten up the language a bit

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25925939 -

I added an example to make it more clear.  Does that help?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25925950 -

The problem I see with this rule is that simply presenting a biased perspective would render any story fake news.  I'm not sure any source, certainly on television, should be held to that standard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25925976 -

Ok.  Are we ready?  Or are you still working something out with Enlil?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #25926238 -

I was asleep, but my first impression of your proposed change is that the language you added would basically make any omission of relevant information fake news.  It that what you want?  If so, I do believe we're going to be here a good long while.

I haven't made any changes to the rules since my last post, so please clarify whether any are necessary.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25926333 -

Enlil said:
I was asleep, but my first impression of your proposed change is that the language you added would basically make any omission of relevant information fake news.  It that what you want?  If so, I do believe we're going to be here a good long while.


No, that's absolutely not what I want.  As you noted before, I previously said "This could go on forever if it included omission of relevant facts.  I recommend we go with false information."

I brought this up because when I argued that the US sanctions, which were designed to deny Maduro a critical source of financing to help him run the country, were absolutely relevant to "what is happening in Venezuela", you argued "that is NOT relevant to this discussion.  Falcon specifically limited the definition of 'fake news story' to include only stories with false information."

If I say that something "is not my fault" but I omit the information which would prove it to be my fault, I am lying not by ommittig the information, but by saying "it's not my fault".

Would you agree or not?



Enlil said:
I haven't made any changes to the rules since my last post, so please clarify whether any are necessary.


I did ask what the burden of proof was for 'false information' in your second sentence:
Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes false information.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.


I recommended changing it to something like:
Quote:
Petitioner has the burden of proving that the story is more likely than not a "fake news story." This term is defined as a story that includes information that is more likely false than true.  Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news.


Thoughts?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25926342 -

I don't have a problem with your last suggested language, although it's redundant.

As to the omission of relevant information argument, I'm not sure what you're arguing isn't the same as arguing that such an omission would count as fake news.  The term "relevant" means "anything that tends to make a fact in issue more or less likely to be true."  If we're saying that any omitted information that might change the analysis counts as fake news, we're saying that any omission of relevant information counts as fake news.

I've made the suggested changes.  Let me know if we have final approval.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Enlil]
    #25926525 -

I would be willing to hear arguments as to why an omission demonstrates an intent to deceive, but the standard would have to be quite restrictive to have any meaning in this setting.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa] * 1
    #25926822 -

As long as everyone is gtg, i am as well.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* American Propaganda
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 atomikfunksoldier 7,776 117 04/30/03 10:53 AM
by Rono
* US Propoganda
( 1 2 3 all )		 oO_wombat_Oo 1,689 51 04/10/03 10:53 AM
by Xlea321
* Propoganda... MokshaMan 1,253 13 11/02/01 06:33 PM
by ElPrimo
* anne coulter is on oreilly tonight
( 1 2 all )		 KingOftheThing 1,878 29 05/30/04 03:04 AM
by EchoVortex
* Feds Spend $1,000,000,000 on Anti-Drug Propaganda Ravus 1,029 6 02/02/05 05:59 PM
by Catalysis
* nutbag propoganda shakta 368 3 09/10/03 03:05 PM
by Edame
* How GIs in Iraq are Used to Spread Bush Propaganda Zahid 574 0 10/17/03 12:13 AM
by Zahid
* Israel v Palestine: who is right?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Phalanxx 4,183 50 06/10/03 03:36 PM
by Phalanxx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,821 topic views. 2 members, 589 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.032 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.