0
0

[–] tjarco 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I like the use of flairs, but don't think they currently are being used to there full potential, some suggestions

  • 2. Help Needed - Same thing but shorter, for posts that are specifically asking for input
  • 3.not sure what this means
  • 4. New Leads - *combines people of interest - also see #9
  • 5. Context - posts related to providing context: historical cases, circumstancial evidence, related crimes
  • 7. =#4
  • 8. Propaganda - memes, infographics, articles, videos, that aim share information, not contribute to create new evidence
  • 9. Follow-Up - breakthroughs/new evidence regarding old leads
  • 10. Repost - for labelling posts that contain the same information posted elsewhere, should warn the OP for deletion.
  • 13. Narrative - posts regarding how PG is received by public, MSM views, Censorship, new legislation, signs of cover-ups
    1. Accuracy in question - if interesting but little or shaky proof, OP should be asked to clarify & edit.
    1. Discussion - Place to let people freely talk and theoritize without having to source claims, aimed to encourage free thinking and forming hypothesis NOT CLAIMS. Bit of free brainstorming now and then is essential and I feel like there isn't a good place for this yet.

0
0

[–] KnowThyself 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I want to get people's inputs on flairs. I think we want our flairs to be as objective and as useful as possible. The more subjective a flair is the more potential for abuse and the more it feels like the mods are controlling the narrative. I think they look like this right now:

Objective: People of Interest, Business Fronts, Already discovered, New Evidence, Possible False Flag (emphasis on possible)

In the middle: Debunked, Potential Lead, Needs sources,

Subjective: Breakthrough, Relevance in question,

Removals: My proposal is to get rid of 'Breakthrough' as I think that is up to the users to decide. It can be covered more objectively with the 'New evidence' flair. I see the use for 'Relevance in question' but it also seems to give mods a lot of power to decide what is relevant. If it's unclear how it relates to Pizzagate it could be tagged with the 'Needs Sources' flair. (Maybe call it 'Needs More Sources')

Additions: As boring as it looks I think we need a 'Meta' tag, as I see a ton of posts talking about the investigation itself, rather than doing actual research. I think the other two flairs needed are 'Symbolism' and 'Memes/Infographics', but it would require removing one more to make enough room. Thoughts?

@kingkonwaswrong @crensch @millenial_falcon @melitica @numbchuck

0
2

[–] Phobos_Mothership 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

My proposal is to get rid of 'Breakthrough' as I think that is up to the users to decide. It can be covered more objectively with the 'New evidence' flair.

I like this.

I see the use for 'Relevance in question' but it also seems to give mods a lot of power to decide what is relevant. If it's unclear how it relates to Pizzagate it could be tagged with the 'Needs Sources' flair. (Maybe call it 'Needs More Sources')

I actually think that we need 'relevance in question', as more of a way to get other mod's input. Irrelevant posts are deleted, so I could see why we would want this flair. Instead of deleting something a mod is unsure of we can tag with 'relevance in question' and ping the other mods.

could we combine 'business fronts' and 'people of interest' by having 'people/businesses of interest' ?

0
0

[–] kingkongwaswrong [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The more subjective a flair is the more potential for abuse and the more it feels like the mods are controlling the narrative.

Spot on

My proposal is to get rid of 'Breakthrough' as I think that is up to the users to decide. It can be covered more objectively with the 'New evidence' flair.

agreed

As boring as it looks I think we need a 'Meta' tag, as I see

yep

I generally trust your judgement - and I think that if you feel like you need to continue to iterate based on feedback/utility then Ithink you should continue to do so. Maybe come up with your final list and then put it to the community with your rationale, and see what they think.

0
0

[–] Blacksmith21 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

So what is the deal on the current "flair" categories:

1) What are the options? 2) Is there any way to search by category?

0
0

[–] kingkongwaswrong [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

We need 1 person to own the flairs - to be the final decider on what they are and then change them if they need changing. I want it to be one of you guys. Let me know if you want this responsibility.

@Codewow @knowthyself @blacksmith21 @millenial_falcon @Eggs-Vs-Bacon

0
0

[–] KnowThyself 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

If no one else has volunteered I can do this. I find myself doing a lot of the flair-ing and I see some then never get used and others that need to be more specific.

0
0

[–] Crensch 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Sorry, I probably tread on your toes today with the new flair post. Please feel free to undo what I've done, or add in your own changes. For whatever reason, this post evaded my notice until after I'd done something. Sorry.

@kingkongwaswrong

0
0

[–] kingkongwaswrong [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

ok it's you then! I will up you to mod so you can edit the flairs

0
0

[–] Blacksmith21 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

My .02 here:

1) There needs to be a "catchall" or "everything else" tag

2) I suggest we have an "EVIDENCE" section where we have evaluated a piece of research which can summarize the research behind the evidence. (We need a new thread here to discuss such a document template)

3) Collaboration Request (2) - I'm assuming this is where crowdsourced autists work on a lead or provide expert input? [speaking of which, having a list of users/skillsets who can act as SMEs may be of some help, especially on very technical or legal issues]

4) Meta (3): What is this?

5) I would merge (5) Historic/Ritual/Child Abuse into (8) Symbolism & Infographics section

6) Should we add MEDIA - YouTube (and other) videos, WAMU radio interview, mems, news, etc.

7) People of Interest (7) maybe should be changed to NEW LEADS. All unverified subjects here.

8) The Giustra Files (10): Should this go back to CF/CGI/Haiti/NGO master thread? They are all related, more or less.

9) CPP/Besta/Pizza - I think this should be open to include other pizza operations who may be involved, once they clear "NEW LEADS" and "COLLABORATION REQUEST".

10) Connected crimes - What are we talking about here? Dutroux, Franklin, etc? I would caution the use of "connected". Maybe HISTORICAL CRIMES or something. "Connected" in me insinuates a foregone conclusions, just because the crime is the same.

Once we finalize this, we will need to work together to stay on top of tagging info.

0
0

[–] KnowThyself 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Since we only have 10 to work with, I'm not sure it's worth it to have a "catchall" tag. Anything not tagged would fall into that category. That's just my opinion though, not complaining if its there.

Meta would be like a post about how to spread information about pizzagate or a discussion of how to better organize out efforts. Basically anything discussing the investigation itself, rather than the contents of the investigation.

Can you give an example of how you would merge (5) and (8)? They seem like pretty different ideas and I'm not sure how I would sum them all up in a short phrase.

0
0

[–] Blacksmith21 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

5) I would merge (5) Historic/Ritual/Child Abuse into (8) Symbolism & Infographics section

I put "symbolism" into the occult catch-all, unless I'm missing something. Assuming "infographics" refers to memes, etc., I'd put that into "media".

So "meta" is "communications and public affairs"?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] kingkongwaswrong [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I flaired it - it was upvoted and looked legit and good.. I just dont have enough brain power to read it properly and assess.

IMO I will ask more investigators to join us who can read through and flair...

edit - can you tell this person to post in the thread as well? instead of just to us? That way the community can get involved. I have no idea whther to remove the flair based on 1 person

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] kingkongwaswrong [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

no worries, dont stress.

There is a script where you supposedly can have more, but I dont know eneough to research it.

0
0

[–] KnowThyself 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Re: Historic/RitualChildAbuse, does this refer to something like an article about child abuse that happened in 2008, but not related to pizzagate? Checking to see if that classifies as historic. @codewow @blacksmith21 @millenial_falcon @Eggs-Vs-Bacon

0
0

[–] kingkongwaswrong [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I think it's all the vids and articles about these things coming to light from a while back. there isnt HEAPS of that stuff. I suppose we should ask, what is the purpose of flairs and what are we trying to achieve? What are the most helpful things to label? I just added one for 'dead end' bc there was one major thread where after investigation OP even said he thought it was a dead end

0
0

[–] KnowThyself 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That is definitely useful, so people don't waste their time. I see a few posts where users are connecting one person/group to another person/group. Shadiness in implied, but it isn't really new evidence of crime. I'm wondering if there should be a flair specifically for connecting previously unrelated things. Like "New Connection" or something like that.

load more comments ▼ (2 remaining)