I saw your report and did not act on it because this site ranks with an acceptable reliability score from the media bias chart we use.
As moderators, we cannot ascertain the veracity of individual stories from white listed sources. You can use the link in the side bar to check the reliability rating of any source before reporting it; we only remove items ranking below a 32 reliability score.
For what it’s worth, I think the community is doing just fine at pointing out that a direct link to DeSantis isn’t presently verifiable, and it is creating reasonable discussion.
Are you threatening me? Go ahead and ban me if this is how you want to run things. I meant it as feedback on the rules, if you can’t take feedback on that please ban me.
The comment was not meant to be a threat but a statement of fact–you are welcome to participate or not.
Our rules, in fact, are entirely based on community feedback. Before implementing them, we had multiple discussions on what the users of the magazine wanted to see. We will also be reviewing the rules at a later date, so that people can share feedback on what they have liked and what they would like to see changed. However, we’ve had rules for something like two weeks at this point, so it’s a little soon for that. You would be perfectly welcome to create a meta discussion on the topic. If one of the rules turns out to need addressing promptly, I’m sure we can do so, and that will also be based on community feedback.
Finally, no, we don’t ban people just because they get angry about something and/or ask to be banned.
I saw your report and did not act on it because this site ranks with an acceptable reliability score from the media bias chart we use.
As moderators, we cannot ascertain the veracity of individual stories from white listed sources. You can use the link in the side bar to check the reliability rating of any source before reporting it; we only remove items ranking below a 32 reliability score.
Perhaps that threshold is too low then if this is what a “34” is.
You operate here on a voluntary basis.
Susinct and savage. I like it.
For what it’s worth, I think the community is doing just fine at pointing out that a direct link to DeSantis isn’t presently verifiable, and it is creating reasonable discussion.
Are you threatening me? Go ahead and ban me if this is how you want to run things. I meant it as feedback on the rules, if you can’t take feedback on that please ban me.
The comment was not meant to be a threat but a statement of fact–you are welcome to participate or not.
Our rules, in fact, are entirely based on community feedback. Before implementing them, we had multiple discussions on what the users of the magazine wanted to see. We will also be reviewing the rules at a later date, so that people can share feedback on what they have liked and what they would like to see changed. However, we’ve had rules for something like two weeks at this point, so it’s a little soon for that. You would be perfectly welcome to create a meta discussion on the topic. If one of the rules turns out to need addressing promptly, I’m sure we can do so, and that will also be based on community feedback.
Finally, no, we don’t ban people just because they get angry about something and/or ask to be banned.