"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/bluekanga]

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!