Ab Antiquo

Vetras wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 01, 2017 7:09 pm

But, what makes her posts ineffective is that if one portion of what she said was incorrect - like the spouting of random numbers that are not as precise as she wants the reporter doing this editorial to be - then what's to say the rest of it isn't just fluff with a sliver of fact, if there is any fact at all, further into her statements?

So this logic applies to a citizen who is trying to offer a more accurate portrayal of events, events that she was the catalyst for, but not to the reporter who has written the initial piece and has the trust of the people to present the information accurately? Is that what you're saying?

The problem here, I think, isn't the fact that Seyda is making "minor corrections", the problem here is that any corrections need to be made at all.

I think this is an interesting case as Liander is, I'm guessing, just trying to get his article published while it is still relevant, so mistakes will happen, but it shouldn't be happening at the rate Seyda is pointing them out.

In the end, if we applied your logic to Liander's article, we'd stop reading at the fact sheet after the first paragraph.


It's inaccurate to list me as someone involved in this conflict.

My being zeroed, and the words that lead to my zeroing had nothing to do with this conflict and I am not in any of the lineages involved.

And if you want to make the argument that I am involved, why has he only listed one of the people that attacked me, when there were 4? Surely if I'm involved, so are all the people that zeroed me?


If that's incorrect, what's to say the rest isn't just fluff with a sliver of fact, if any at all?


I'm sure there are other, more pertinent examples of inaccurate "fluff" in this article, but that's the one I can speak to with some knowledge.

The point that I was making is that Seyda wants to nitpick at an article but doesn't even provide the correct information to counter what Liander has already verified with several people. What I'm saying is, if this was really something she cared to correct anything with any type of credibility - as I've pointed out the one discrepancy that caused me to hardly want to read anything else going forward from her - she needs to condense the lengthy replies to something people aren't going to go cross-eyed reading, first of all, and secondly, not to arbitrarily throw out numbers in hopes people aren't going to second guess her work.

I underlined what was originally my point because it hurt her counter-argument, for me personally. I don't have a problem with the opposing side making corrections to what's happening. In fact, it gives more substance to the article itself. And as I've said before, Liander has shown he's not had any problems editing his articles but like me, he will double check your facts to ensure that he's giving the citizens of this city the most accurate coverage that he can.

Vetras wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:09 am

The point that I was making is that Seyda wants to nitpick at an article but doesn't even provide the correct information to counter what Liander has already verified with several people. What I'm saying is, if this was really something she cared to correct anything with any type of credibility - as I've pointed out the one discrepancy that caused me to hardly want to read anything else going forward from her - she needs to condense the lengthy replies to something people aren't going to go cross-eyed reading, first of all, and secondly, not to arbitrarily throw out numbers in hopes people aren't going to second guess her work.

I underlined what was originally my point because it hurt her counter-argument, for me personally. I don't have a problem with the opposing side making corrections to what's happening. In fact, it gives more substance to the article itself. And as I've said before, Liander has shown he's not had any problems editing his articles but like me, he will double check your facts to ensure that he's giving the citizens of this city the most accurate coverage that he can.

I look forward to seeing him do his due diligence and verify Seyda's comments and edit his article accordingly, as the fact that Seyda had to comment at all shows that he, in fact, didn't verify his information with enough people. Based on the article, and Seyda's comments, it seems his numbers are based on the "verified" numbers of only one side of the conflict, which, I think is the definition of biased journalism.

I also look forward to seeing any mention of my name removed from the article, as again, I have no part in the conflict at all, and including me is frankly sloppy research and misleading.

You are a fucking cheerleader for the other team. You are apart of this whether it be physical or emotional support. Two of the other four that fucked your shit up would have joined but we don't like some on the other side either. So... STFU about all this whining. Has it been two weeks yet? No... 5 days and counting.

FenReiss wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:30 am

You are a fucking cheerleader for the other team. You are apart of this whether it be physical or emotional support. Two of the other four that fucked your shit up would have joined but we don't like some on the other side either. So... STFU about all this whining. Has it been two weeks yet? No... 5 days and counting.

/reasonable, level headed discussion on the merits of Liander's journalism and Seyda's additional observations.

Updated.

This is a general reminder of our community standards for the news and reports section, specifically:

• 1. Posts should remain on topic. While derivative discussion stemming from the original topic is fine, obvious attempts to derail the topic may be split off into a more appropriate area;
  4. Disagree respectfully where possible;

FenReiss wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:30 am

You are a fucking cheerleader for the other team. You are apart of this whether it be physical or emotional support. Two of the other four that fucked your shit up would have joined but we don't like some on the other side either. So... STFU about all this whining. Has it been two weeks yet? No... 5 days and counting.

Technically he isn't a cheerleader for us. He is on my staff. While not everything he says comes directly from the mayor's office, it has been brought to my attention that anything he does say, is contributed to me (because apparently staff are not allowed to have individual thoughts and reactions- I will remember that when the AB staff give their personal opinions, and hold it against the AB), so I'd hope given that he would at least have the pretense of being on our 'side'. But to be clear, Alex has not, nor will he attend any of the discussions or conferences regarding this conflict. He is speaking purely as an outsider in that regard, just as many others have. Should we assume all D'dary, you, and the other dozens throwing in their two cents are also involved in this conflict?

Where do you draw the line? He works for you, and his personal opinions align with yours.

No, he's not a combatant, and no he isn't sired into any lineage, but he's a very vocal supporter. So, I suppose I'm confused about where his job ends and his opinions begin. Especially as, if I recall correctly, people were being directed to him regarding mayoral affairs.

His job is when he says...From the Mayor's Desk. He's been pretty specific about posting that about anything that is job related.