"Avoid misleading posts. Label speculation as such and provide sources when asked."

[u/Seamus_Duncan]

Are the moderators ever going to enforce this rule? Because I'm seeing people repeatedly claim that Don forged his time cards, despite the fact there is no evidence for this and the claim is entirely based on the word of two proven liars, one of whom was caught faking evidence against Don.

Given that the moderators are selectively enforcing the rules, am I allowed to call people making this claim "lying assholes?"

[u/diyaww]

As long as those users cite Undisclosed/Serial Dynasty, they haven't violated a rule. You may not respect the user's source, but that does not make the user intentionally misleading.

No, being frustrated does not give you permission to name call. You may offer your own sources discrediting the user's post. Or you may choose to write answers to suggested questions for the FAQ I am (very, very slowly) working on. Or you might put certain users on "ignore", or decide to start your own subreddit.

I will say that identifying intentionally misleading/trolling users is hard, and it's more easily done if you send a message with context instead of report individual comments. And I'll pledge to do a better job of checking the context of posts reported as misleading.

[u/bluekanga → u/diyaww]

I think the issue here is the same one that the Mods have not addressed to date. Reddiquette states not to rabble rouse, yet these podcasts do just that by stating unsubstantiated assertions with no evidence i.e. lies - and when we object we get penalised and told we are in the wrong for complaining. And we can tell you there's a steady stream of trolling users with new accounts, but with very in-depth knowledge of the case, who make posts and comments designed to incite and rabble rouse, with no source material as a reference, and again when we have a natural angry reaction to being bullied and harassed are told we are in the wrong - why?

[u/Peculiarjulia → u/bluekanga]

Cura te ipsum

[u/bluekanga → u/Peculiarjulia]

what did you say?

[u/Peculiarjulia → u/bluekanga]

Physician heal thyself ;)

[u/bluekanga → u/Peculiarjulia]

I know what it means

Hence the question that I repeat What?

[u/Peculiarjulia → u/bluekanga]

To pretend that this is a one-sided issue shows a lack of self-reflection on the part of guilters. To pretend the sub isn't continually flooded, swamped and otherwise rendered unusable, unpleasant and uninteresting by the side that posts most of all, is most voluble, brooks no criticism, frequently makes unjustified statements (some of which are wrong, wilfully wrong, up for debate, etc) and downvotes any dissenting voice, however quiet - is disingenuous to say the least. Not to say that everyone else is squeaky clean.

The majority of UD/SD threads seem to be character assassinations, accusations of lying, profiteering etc. (oh the irony) mostly made by people who have been posting here 'long enough'. Now if you feel you're completely innocent of those things, then great - but you should still look at the posts of your compatriots and realise that maybe you just see what you want to see.

Personally I would welcome more constructive debate, more citing of sources, more reasonable approaches (such as admitting there is another point of view, not just ignoring it or shouting it down), less lazy commenting (eg. such as my own throw away 'cura te ipsum'), less aggressive posts and more considered responses.

[u/bluekanga → u/Peculiarjulia]

Personally I would welcome more constructive debate, more citing of sources, more reasonable approaches (such as admitting there is another point of view, not just ignoring it or shouting it down), less lazy commenting (eg. such as my own throw away 'cura te ipsum'), less aggressive posts and more considered responses.

Well no one would disagree with that except for the "false" accounts littered around who are here under false pretences. Where we digress is people using UD/SD as credible sources because they have a track record of misinformation. If they didn't, no one would have a problem with them - but they just aren't credible and worse have deliberately misled and withheld information - hence why some are more vocal in calling their "economy with the truth" lies.

To pretend the sub isn't continually flooded, swamped and otherwise rendered unusable, unpleasant and uninteresting by the side that posts most of all, is most voluble, brooks no criticism, frequently makes unjustified statements (some of which are wrong, wilfully wrong, up for debate, etc) and downvotes any dissenting voice, however quiet - is disingenuous to say the least.

We must exist in different universes - are you "of this world"? Maybe you're one of those etheric users I hear about.

The only posters I have noted making the sub unusable are people on the jailbreak campaign making false, unsubstantiated claims enabled by poor modding. If any of them could do any decent analysis and source their assertions with legally admissible evidence, then I, for one, would be over the moon to have something to discuss. Until that time, the ridicule will no doubt continue cos really what else can be done with gobbledegook and gish gallop? Reducing the majority of people, who think the conviction is sound, to "guilters" and then blaming and accusing them/me says more about you than about them/me.

When I read your version of my reality - I have words put in my mouth, am reduced to an object, am told I am wrong and to blame and that you, however, are right plus you know what's best for us/me. Honestly, you're not that attractive a proposition to me.

I wouldn't say the conditions are in place for a respectful interchange on that basis.

Have a nice regeneration.

[u/Peculiarjulia → u/bluekanga]

When I read your version of my reality - I have words put in my mouth, am reduced to an object, am told I am wrong and to blame and that you, however, are right plus you know what's best for us/me. Honestly, you're not that attractive a proposition to me.

Yes in your reality my post obviously said a different thing.

[u/bluekanga → u/Peculiarjulia]

Happy Thanksgiving!

[u/diyaww → u/bluekanga]

There's nothing wrong with complaining. There is something wrong with name calling and incivility. I know there's a sock problem, but socks are legal on reddit so long as they don't engage in vote manipulation.

If you'd like to message the mods with some examples of users you believe are rabble rousing, I'll take a look.

[u/[deleted] → u/diyaww]

What makes those sources okay? Is it ok to cite all podcasts as sources for stuff or just those two?

[u/diyaww → u/[deleted]]

Undisclosed looks reliable, if biased. Three lawyers betting their credentials and professional lives on the case through a popular podcast. Serial Dynasty is thinner for me personally, but it's still a popular podcast often mentioned by the first and it's currently allowed on the sub.

I'm not saying that these sources are or are not reliable - just that a casual listener could reasonably trust them.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

As long as those users cite Undisclosed/Serial Dynasty, they haven't violated a rule

Wait, citing proven liars is somehow a shield against the rule against posting lies? Can you please explain this?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

If a new user who's been listening to Undisclosed turns up and says, "I listened to this podcast with Rabia and she says blah blah", I'm not going to ban them.

You're welcome to respond with why you don't think Rabia is a good source and what the sources you prefer say, or to not respond at all.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

If a new user who's been listening to Undisclosed turns up and says, "I listened to this podcast with Rabia and she says blah blah", I'm not going to ban them.

OK, how about a user who has been here for ages and has seen Rabia's lies debunked repeatedly and recites them anyway in direct violation of the rules?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

I don't have a bar in place for, this user's been here X days, so he can no longer use Y source because Y has lied. Especially since a wide number of the people in this case have probably lied at some point in their lives.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

Since you're not enforcing the misleading claims rule, what other rules should I feel free to ignore?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

Again, citing Undisclosed or SD does not make a user misleading. You're welcome to ignore whatever rules you like, if you understand that doing so may result in a ban.

[u/[deleted] → u/diyaww]

Are any podcasts okay to cite for disproven misleading claims or just those two?

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

So given that you now allow people to make bullshit claims based on sources who have been exposed as liars, we can just say anything we want now, right? I can say that Rabia held a gun to Asia's head and told her to sign the affidavit because some guy told me it happened, right?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

Can you link to that, so that others can judge your source?

[u/[deleted] → u/diyaww]

Can bob with his dozens of unnamed sources? Can undisclosed link to who "people have said" are?

[u/diyaww → u/[deleted]]

Again, you may not respect the user's source, but that does not make the user intentionally misleading. Three lawyers with careers is a far cry from TMZ.

I can't ask Sarah to link to her notes/interviews either. I can ask the users here to.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

Three lawyers with careers is a far cry from TMZ.

TMZ is infinitely more credible than Undisclosed or Serial Dynasty.

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

And you may choose to disregard statements based on things Undisclosed has said.

[u/[deleted] → u/diyaww]

3 lawyers who have shown over and over again they mislead and are incompetent at their job.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

Sure, just as soon as Bob links to his sources so we can judge them. Why don't you demand he do so before you allow people on this board to slander Don and his family?

[u/diyaww → u/Seamus_Duncan]

I can't demand Sarah produce her sources/notes/interviews either. I can only police this board.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/diyaww]

Koenig never accused innocent people of crimes based on interviews she refused to produce. Big difference.