Fake News ????

[pmedic920]

How do posters view the following linked headline for a thread? Is it fake? Should it be edited? Should it be left as is?

https://www.seahawks.net/threads/niners-reportedly-bench-purdy-again.205931/

I think the title is inaccurate based on what the tweet actually says.

I think members that only or almost only post re-tweeted information should reevaluate their style and desire to be contributing members of this particular community.

ETA
this is my personal opinion as a regular member here, it’s not my stance as a mod, nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of other mods/admins

 

[Rat]

I think the title is inaccurate based on what the tweet actually says.

I think members that only or almost only post re-tweeted information should reevaluate their style and desire to be contributing members of this particular community.

ETA
this is my personal opinion as a regular member here, it’s not my stance as a mod, nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of other mods/admins

Yep, Purdy isn't being "benched", he's dealing with a difficult injury and is being kept out for another week.

 

[flv2]

...“SEAHAWKS SUFFER TRAGEDY”

You click the link/tweet only to find out that a shrub at VMACK got run over by a golf cart...

Shrub lives matter!

 

[flv2]

How do posters view the following linked headline for a thread? Is it fake? Should it be edited? Should it be left as is?

https://www.seahawks.net/threads/niners-reportedly-bench-purdy-again.205931/

Please be patient with SCH, (and myself). Some of us view the World from a slightly different perspective. As she pointed out later in the thread former QB Dan Orlovsky views it as a controversy. If she had added a link to that in the 1st post along with the rest of it there wouldn't have been any issue.

Orlovsky also thinks Justin Fields is a good QB so obviously not every slightly different perspective looks good in daylight.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

We need more guidance?

I’m fairly certain almost everyone understands what we’re talking about.

Again, if you label / title your post appropriately everyone will understand what you want to discuss.

Fake news/AI for the fun of it is fine. Simply make it clear in your title what it is, and offer some of your own thoughts.

Rumors or speculation is fine, simply acknowledge that in your title, and contribute to the conversation you started.

Reposted tweets are fine, but offer some context and define what you want to discuss.

Nobody wants to click on a tweet and try to figure out what your angle is.
Nobody wants to provide clicks to you or the originator for something they have absolutely no interest in.
If you toss up some random tweet with absolutely no context, that in itself is “clickbait”.

This isn’t rocket science or brain surgery.


“SEAHAWKS SUFFER TRAGEDY”

You click the link/tweet only to find out that a shrub at VMACK got run over by a golf cart.

=clickbait.

I can definitely see adding one’s commentary to a retweet indicating what made the tweet worthy of being posted even when the tweet itself doesn’t involve rumor, speculation or alteration. Take the Grant Cohn tweet praising our offensive coordinator, which you suggested I visit this present thread over. No doubt, context would have helped other readers see why I wanted others to see this. Not everyone knows Grants history of publishing takes unpopular to his readership but based in fact. I’m not sure everyone even knows Klint has a brother as he’s been invisible.

Otoh, mandatory inclusion of “rumor/speculation” in headlines literally covers every draft prediction, potential trade and coach hot-seat prediction. Such cases are understood as inherently speculative already, so it seems redundant.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

Please be patient with SCH, (and myself). Some of us view the World from a slightly different perspective. As she pointed out later in the thread former QB Dan Orlovsky views it as a controversy. If she had added a link to that in the 1st post along with the rest of it there wouldn't have been any issue.

Orlovsky also thinks Justin Fields is a good QB so obviously not every slightly different perspective looks good in daylight.

The Niners told Purdy he wouldn’t start by Wednesday. He is benched for the eighth game. Not only do you have Orlovsky acknowledging a growing sentiment in the fan base, you have Steve Young publicly suggesting that Purdy confront Kyle if he feels held out. When I introduced the term “qb controversy” I should have included the above for sure, but the headline reflects a statement of fact.

 

[Jville]

Please be patient with SCH, (and myself). Some of us view the World from a slightly different perspective. As she pointed out later in the thread former QB Dan Orlovsky views it as a controversy. If she had added a link to that in the 1st post along with the rest of it there wouldn't have been any issue.

Orlovsky also thinks Justin Fields is a good QB so obviously not every slightly different perspective looks good in daylight.

It's not about perspective. The title remains disingenuous.

No poster is blocked from editing their own thread title for better accuracy and representation.

Why put that on the plate of monitors?

What about posting responsibility for the good of the forum community?

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

It's not about perspective. The title remains disingenuous.

No poster is blocked from editing their own thread title for better accuracy and representation.

Why put that on the plate of monitors?

What about posting responsibility for the good of the forum community?

Fine I changed “benched” to “sidelined” even though they seem analogous. I’d describe Joe Burrow and Kyler Murray as benched as they won’t be playing until December.

 

[glenwo2]

We need more guidance?

I’m fairly certain almost everyone understands what we’re talking about.

Again, if you label / title your post appropriately everyone will understand what you want to discuss.

Fake news/AI for the fun of it is fine. Simply make it clear in your title what it is, and offer some of your own thoughts.

Rumors or speculation is fine, simply acknowledge that in your title, and contribute to the conversation you started.

Reposted tweets are fine, but offer some context and define what you want to discuss.

Nobody wants to click on a tweet and try to figure out what your angle is.
Nobody wants to provide clicks to you or the originator for something they have absolutely no interest in.
If you toss up some random tweet with absolutely no context, that in itself is “clickbait”.

This isn’t rocket science or brain surgery.


“SEAHAWKS SUFFER TRAGEDY”

You click the link/tweet only to find out that a shrub at VMACK got run over by a golf cart.

=clickbait.

Like also another example :

Creating a thread entitled : "This is Hilarious!"

And not even stating in the title any info on what the subject matter could be.

 

[glenwo2]

that video was clearly authentic and not ai, fake or staged. Your reaching pretty far to "prove" your "Argument" or "point". And this thread isn't about what YOU define as what. Its a thread to gauge and let us know as admins and mods what clearly needs to change for what is and isn't allowed via links. Also educating yourself on what to look for closely will help you make an infomed decision if something is real or not. Most current ai videos that people keep falling for are made by Sora. And they're blurring out the Soro logo typicall top left or mid right. and if they're not visible theres slight distortions where its been heavily filtered out or cropped entirely. If theres no sora logo, hands, fingers, hair .. extra appendages with nothing attached (hand on shoulder no body). AI is far from perfect but knowing a starting point of what or where to look will help you a lot.

As for BS clickbait articles, Twitter/X links, those won't be allowed. They weren't previously before and shouldn't be now. As for "speculation", "rumors" posts... well if its a rumor thats just to generate clicks or views ie. "Chat sports" youtube then use your judgement if its bs and dung is being flung to see what sticks. We could see if ownership if the admins cannot, can add the ability to add tags to forum posts i.e. "Speculation", "Trade", "Rumor", "News" so titles stay simple but then the posts have some tag to show users what it might be.

I remember when I posted something from Chat Sports and some here helpfully let me know that the person (whomever is hosting it) was full of sh*t so I didn't post anything from there anymore.

If there is any source that is pretty SUS around here, I would like people to let me know so I don't put it up as a source or even give it the time of day.

 

[pmedic920]

I can definitely see adding one’s commentary to a retweet indicating what made the tweet worthy of being posted even when the tweet itself doesn’t involve rumor, speculation or alteration. Take the Grant Cohn tweet praising our offensive coordinator, which you suggested I visit this present thread over. No doubt, context would have helped other readers see why I wanted others to see this. Not everyone knows Grants history of publishing takes unpopular to his readership but based in fact. I’m not sure everyone even knows Klint has a brother as he’s been invisible.

Otoh, mandatory inclusion of “rumor/speculation” in headlines literally covers every draft prediction, potential trade and coach hot-seat prediction. Such cases are understood as inherently speculative already, so it seems redundant.

OTOH, a little common sense goes a long way.

Unfortunately “common sense” ain’t so common.

I get it, you want/need exact black/white rules.
That simply isn’t possible in this scenario. There are simply too many gray areas.
My hope was/is that a thread/conversation like this would bring us to a general understanding/consensus and that everyone would gain a better understanding of the issues.

If in fact you are simply trying to catch me in an ah ha moment, I’m going to suggest you abort mission.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

I remember when I posted something from Chat Sports and some here helpfully let me know that the person (whomever is hosting it) was full of sh*t so I didn't post anything from there anymore.

If there is any source that is pretty SUS around here, I would like people to let me know so I don't put it up as a source or even give it the time of day.

What’s sus or not subjective. Like, when challenged to contemplate sus in my postings, my first thought was that sauce Gardner kid video due to the spacious interior filmed without one piece of clutter despite two dogs and two very young kids living there. Not fake because of ai, but perhaps staged.

 

[RehireMora]

Make a Rumor Mill section on .net and require links.

 

[flv2]

It's not about perspective. The title remains disingenuous.

No poster is blocked from editing their own thread title for better accuracy and representation.

Why put that on the plate of monitors?

What about posting responsibility for the good of the forum community?

For sure I wouldn't have said benched. To me being benched is a HC showing a preference between similar options. To me being on the bench doesn't automatically mean you've been benched. I wouldn't say that an MLB closing pitcher was benched for the start of every single game. I would describe 'benching Purdy' as inaccurate but I wouldn't describe it as inaccurate with an intent to deceive.

I would have been more likely to title the thread: 'Purdy available but Jones named starter', and then interpreted what it meant for Purdy and/or the 49ers. I would post very long thread titles, which are equally unpopular.

I don't see this as an example of the fake news problem. 'Purdy benched after explosive row with Shanahan' would be fake news.

 

[Frank12]

I actually don't mind rumors as long as it comes from a reputable source and not from some weirdo Twitter account...

 

[Sperrydogg]

I said depends cause some rumors are accurate, but it’s iffy, so probably should always come with a disclaimer

 

[Sperrydogg]

It MUST include at the BEGINNING of the title "RUMOR" or "SPECULATION" to give the viewer an immediate indication of the type of post so they can make an immediate decision as to whether they want to spend precious minutes they have reading it.

Sometimes I only have time to read one post, and the last thing I'm interested in is unfounded rumors or speculation.

Now if I have lots of time to read and participate, there have been some really good "what if" posts to be involved in. Sometimes these speculations come true, and we look like geniuses!

So yes, allow rumor and speculation, but the 1st word MUST describe the post.

At least the first sentence

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

I think the title is inaccurate based on what the tweet actually says.

I think members that only or almost only post re-tweeted information should reevaluate their style and desire to be contributing members of this particular community.

ETA
this is my personal opinion as a regular member here, it’s not my stance as a mod, nor does it necessarily reflect the opinions of other mods/admins

For sure I wouldn't have said benched. To me being benched is a HC showing a preference between similar options. To me being on the bench doesn't automatically mean you've been benched. I wouldn't say that an MLB closing pitcher was benched for the start of every single game. I would describe 'benching Purdy' as inaccurate but I wouldn't describe it as inaccurate with an intent to deceive.

I would have been more likely to title the thread: 'Purdy available but Jones named starter', and then interpreted what it meant for Purdy and/or the 49ers. I would post very long thread titles, which are equally unpopular.

I don't see this as an example of the fake news problem. 'Purdy benched after explosive row with Shanahan' would be fake news.

I had heard “benched for injury” so many times I believed it had entered the sports vernacular as a relatively neutral term. To me it was a neutral term covering both demotions for performance and for injury.

At the suggestion of a long time member I’ve always trusted, I changed it to “sidelined.” However thst may not be the right verb either being that we may find Purdy active as qb2 in an hour.

My goal in conveying any of this was never to misinform. Going forward I’ll just say he’s not expected to be the starter yet again. I am really sorry for having complicated it.

 

[pmedic920]

I had heard “benched for injury” so many times I believed it had entered the sports vernacular as a relatively neutral term. To me it was a neutral term covering both demotions for performance and for injury.

At the suggestion of a long time member I’ve always trusted, I changed it to “sidelined.” However thst may not be the right verb either being that we may find Purdy active as qb2 in an hour.

My goal in conveying any of this was never to misinform. Going forward I’ll just say he’s not expected to be the starter yet again. I am really sorry for having complicated it.

“Benched”

Although it can be used multiple ways, I think most sports fans relate “benched” to a discipline or punitive action. ie production or rule violation etc.
Sure it can be argued otherwise but when we’re talking about an injury related issue “sidelined” seems much more appropriate.

I simply don’t want people opening a thread expecting to hear that player x was “benched” when in fact he’s not playing due to an ongoing injury.
This is where the “clickbait” or “fake news” angle comes into play.

Hopefully that makes sense to you.

 

[SantaClaraHawk]

“Benched”

Although it can be used multiple ways, I think most sports fans relate “benched” to a discipline or punitive action. ie production or rule violation etc.
Sure it can be argued otherwise but when we’re talking about an injury related issue “sidelined” seems much more appropriate.

I simply don’t want people opening a thread expecting to hear that player x was “benched” when in fact he’s not playing due to an ongoing injury.
This is where the “clickbait” or “fake news” angle comes into play.

Hopefully that makes sense to you.

Well, it definitely does. I am sorry for using that particular verb. “purdy not starting for eighth week” would have avoided all of this so I’ll do that in the future.