Let's establish some rules on rumors?

[Viktor Vaughn]

I appreciate your solution-oriented focus, Jake. Yet wasn't the catalyst for this people leaving because they were offended by the "toxic environment" (ie response to posted rumors).

So there's a problem we want to address without identifying the problem?
----------

How about this for a solution: People post in whatever thread they want with no moderation prior to their comments posting. When rumors posted in those threads take a life of their own, threaten to overshadow actual facts, or derail a thread -- they're moved to the rumors thread at the moderators' discretion.

So in other words, the status quo...

[IllogicalJake]

I appreciate your solution-oriented focus, Jake. Yet wasn't the catalyst for this people leaving because they were offended by the "toxic environment" (ie response to posted rumors).

So there's a problem we want to address without identifying the problem?
----------

How about this for a solution: People post in whatever thread they want with no moderation prior to their comments posting. When rumors posted in those threads take a life of their own, threaten to overshadow actual facts, or derail a thread -- they're moved to the rumors thread at the moderators' discretion.

So in other words, the status quo...

And that's a totally valid opinion. It just feels to me that the status quo results in more "rumors vs. facts" arguments, and those arguments fill up the threads with irrelevant posts. That's the problem I've identified but, you're right, there can be more to it. I'm open to discussing the problem. Overall I really just want discussion, with the hopes of it working out for the better, even if it doesn't.

If a big contributor to our toxicity is how people respond to rumors - then let's find a way where those that dislike rumors can easily ignore them, without telling those that want to discuss rumors to just go away.

[Wedgeguy]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have Rumor's in Anything Goes, guest can not read unless they are a member on here. I signed off and it went away and signed back in and here we are. Are we not leaving a large group of guests out of the loop with this power play?? Just asking!

[IllogicalJake]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but if you have Rumor's in Anything Goes, guest can not read unless they are a member on here. I signed off and it went away and signed back in and here we are. Are we not leaving a large group of guests out of the loop with this power play?? Just asking!

No, you're totally right. If you're not logged in, you can't read the Anything Goes board nor the rumors thread.

[Mpls9]

Oh for fuck's sake.....I have never seen a site like this (ArchBoston, SSP, SSC, UrbanNYC, etc) who's member's have such a stick up their ass about rumors. Like, really? It bothers some of you SO much there needs to be ground rules about them? And then you actually question and wonder why this place has the reputation it has among former members who have moved onto some of the aforementioned places.

If a rumor bothers you so much either ignore it or maybe re-evalute your life. Whichever of those two is easier for you.

[Nick]

https://forum.streets.mn/viewtopic.php?f=6&t ... 520#p68771

[Lancestar2]

[Just a warning, this is one of my long ranty posts. This is a separate thread from "Rumors" because that thread is about discussing those rumors. This thread is addressing the future of rumors (and, more accurately, any unsourced news on UrbanMSP.]

Face it, the 20 posts debating whether rumors should or shouldn't be allowed are more distracting than 1 rumor-based post in a thread.

This is getting ridiculous and repetitive. People call UrbanMSP a toxic community. I hate that. I want to welcome people. I want anyone interested in urban development to be able to come here and realize there's a very strong community behind it - stronger than SSP or SSC by long shots. I love debate but debate shouldn't be about excluding people. I don't feel that we should ever be making people feel bad or insulting them based on the fact that they chose to share a rumor with us that they've heard.

We're adults. We can see a rumor, identify it as a rumor, and decide for ourselves if we want to believe it or not. And what's great is you can post those opinions and have debates. But people don't like some of the content posted and it breaks out in countless arguments and pages to sift through. Why? These people aren't enemies, they're just as interested in urban development and want to see Minneapolis as much as we do.

It really seems like a good first step is just establishing a clear, concise rule on what a rumor is and where it belongs. This will cut out the need for posts about where rumors should be posted, if they should be moved, and whether they're welcome in a particular thread.

We can decide that all news without a source belong in the Rumors thread. And simply, any unsourced news should be moved to that rumors thread immediately. Maybe even a cross-post pointing people to discuss that rumor in the new thread. The con? The Rumors thread becomes hard to sift through because all of the unsourced news isn't organized by project or anything else. Also, Anything Goes is not viewable by guests. Is that a problem? Or is that better?

We can decide that all news without a source still belongs in the relevant development thread. The con? Those development threads are filled with a mix of sourced news and unsourced news, much of which won't play out to be true. It also means a lot of discussion may get drawn to the unsourced news rather than the reported facts of the construction. Is this okay? Or should those threads be more focused on real-world updates?

We really need to figure this out and come up with something, or else it'll just keep happening.

(And why do I care? Because I really do enjoy this community and love this city. I'm thick-skinned enough to take some of the things thrown at me, and I know I act asshat-ish myself. But I really, really hate it everytime someone posts on another community that they wanted to be active here but was scared away, whether it be for rumors or not. That's stupid. We should be welcoming to anyone that shows up and says they love Minnesota and want to fight for a better urban core. We should be about growing our community and our presence, not about being an exclusive club. I think the Rumors situation causes a lot of problems within the community and needs to be discussed.)

EDIT: Dammit I used the word 'e x c e l' and it got auto changed to spreadsheet. *shakes fist at the Xcel Energy Center*

Ok, A few questions. When I have a rumor that has several sources, does my listing of the source need to be in APA format? Should I save the source file in a PDF format file or Microsoft Word 2010? Also if I have news that does NOT have a source do I need to give a warning statement notifying the reader ahead of time to safeguard them from disappointment? Are ALL new sources acceptable or only the predetermined approved credited news outlets? If only approved sources are acceptable can you please Email me the prepared pre-approved list of acceptable sources? Finally if I decide to share my rumor and it proves not to complete come true within a realistic amount of time what will be my punishment for my failure in rumor gathering?

[IllogicalJake]

[Just a warning, this is one of my long ranty posts. This is a separate thread from "Rumors" because that thread is about discussing those rumors. This thread is addressing the future of rumors (and, more accurately, any unsourced news on UrbanMSP.]

Face it, the 20 posts debating whether rumors should or shouldn't be allowed are more distracting than 1 rumor-based post in a thread.

This is getting ridiculous and repetitive. People call UrbanMSP a toxic community. I hate that. I want to welcome people. I want anyone interested in urban development to be able to come here and realize there's a very strong community behind it - stronger than SSP or SSC by long shots. I love debate but debate shouldn't be about excluding people. I don't feel that we should ever be making people feel bad or insulting them based on the fact that they chose to share a rumor with us that they've heard.

We're adults. We can see a rumor, identify it as a rumor, and decide for ourselves if we want to believe it or not. And what's great is you can post those opinions and have debates. But people don't like some of the content posted and it breaks out in countless arguments and pages to sift through. Why? These people aren't enemies, they're just as interested in urban development and want to see Minneapolis as much as we do.

It really seems like a good first step is just establishing a clear, concise rule on what a rumor is and where it belongs. This will cut out the need for posts about where rumors should be posted, if they should be moved, and whether they're welcome in a particular thread.

We can decide that all news without a source belong in the Rumors thread. And simply, any unsourced news should be moved to that rumors thread immediately. Maybe even a cross-post pointing people to discuss that rumor in the new thread. The con? The Rumors thread becomes hard to sift through because all of the unsourced news isn't organized by project or anything else. Also, Anything Goes is not viewable by guests. Is that a problem? Or is that better?

We can decide that all news without a source still belongs in the relevant development thread. The con? Those development threads are filled with a mix of sourced news and unsourced news, much of which won't play out to be true. It also means a lot of discussion may get drawn to the unsourced news rather than the reported facts of the construction. Is this okay? Or should those threads be more focused on real-world updates?

We really need to figure this out and come up with something, or else it'll just keep happening.

(And why do I care? Because I really do enjoy this community and love this city. I'm thick-skinned enough to take some of the things thrown at me, and I know I act asshat-ish myself. But I really, really hate it everytime someone posts on another community that they wanted to be active here but was scared away, whether it be for rumors or not. That's stupid. We should be welcoming to anyone that shows up and says they love Minnesota and want to fight for a better urban core. We should be about growing our community and our presence, not about being an exclusive club. I think the Rumors situation causes a lot of problems within the community and needs to be discussed.)

EDIT: Dammit I used the word 'e x c e l' and it got auto changed to spreadsheet. *shakes fist at the Xcel Energy Center*

Ok, A few questions. When I have a rumor that has several sources, does my listing of the source need to be in APA format? Should I save the source file in a PDF format file or Microsoft Word 2010? Also if I have news that does NOT have a source do I need to give a warning statement notifying the reader ahead of time to safeguard them from disappointment? Are ALL new sources acceptable or only the predetermined approved credited news outlets? If only approved sources are acceptable can you please Email me the prepared pre-approved list of acceptable sources? Finally if I decide to share my rumor and it proves not to complete come true within a realistic amount of time what will be my punishment for my failure in rumor gathering?

I'm pretty sure you didn't even read most of my post...

[Silophant]

EDIT: Dammit I used the word 'e x c e l' and it got auto changed to spreadsheet. *shakes fist at the Xcel Energy Center*

I'm so happy about this I can't even. Thanks, Nick!

[Lancestar2]

I'm pretty sure you didn't even read most of my post...

Actually I did, if people are allowed to post there opinions in regards to personal feelings towards style of lighting or style of a building why can't they post something they hear as a rumor in the thread it relates to? I think identifying what we hear as a rumor in that comment is common courtesy. A rumor is never based on fact because if a rumor is proven by sources how is it a rumor? Also if people continue to shun, and belittle those who post rumors then we won't have to worry about issues with rumors being posted as fewer people will post rumors until they are confirmed. Either way, this forum is a great place to find information, but like every site online viewer discretion is advised. We should encourage ALL rumors to be shared and understand that most may never unfold and become a reality but simply knowing it exists is reward enough. I'm sure you mean well Jake but, people don't come here to debate organization layout of the forum. People come here to gain knowledge, about urban planning and development. If anything takes away from that experience for you I suggest you click that report post button and let a mod decide if the content takes away from that experience as well... and move on back into the world of city planning and development topics.

[grant1simons2]

I thought that was the plan.. To have let all rumors fly but just keep them in the rumor section.

[Wedgeguy]

I thought that was the plan.. To have let all rumors fly but just keep them in the rumor section.

But Rumors is under general discussion which is unavailable to guest and those who are not signed in! Is that fair to a guest who comes here to get some enjoyment out of learning more about what MIGHT be happening in the cities?

[grant1simons2]

No it is not! Which is why we should just make general discussion open to guests.

[IllogicalJake]

I'm pretty sure you didn't even read most of my post...

Actually I did, if people are allowed to post there opinions in regards to personal feelings towards style of lighting or style of a building why can't they post something they hear as a rumor in the thread it relates to? I think identifying what we hear as a rumor in that comment is common courtesy. A rumor is never based on fact because if a rumor is proven by sources how is it a rumor? Also if people continue to shun, and belittle those who post rumors then we won't have to worry about issues with rumors being posted as fewer people will post rumors until they are confirmed. Either way, this forum is a great place to find information, but like every site online viewer discretion is advised. We should encourage ALL rumors to be shared and understand that most may never unfold and become a reality but simply knowing it exists is reward enough. I'm sure you mean well Jake but, people don't come here to debate organization layout of the forum. People come here to gain knowledge, about urban planning and development. If anything takes away from that experience for you I suggest you click that report post button and let a mod decide if the content takes away from that experience as well... and move on back into the world of city planning and development topics.

Yeah... I'm encouraging people to ban it if they want to ban it, or don't if they don't. I'm presenting both sides of the argument in hopes that something can be decided so we can stop having this stupid argument.

What's funny is I've been the biggest stupid defender of people posting rumors and you assume I'm on the side wanting to source everything and get rid of them?

I love the rumors and speculation. I think it's 10% real knowledge and 90% crazy, but I love hearing what people have to say no matter their level of crazy.

Not everyone on this forum feels that way, clearly, so I started this thread summing up the argument so it can exist somewhere outside of every thread that ever has a rumor posted.

I just tried to start a place for the discussion because its occurring in so many other threads.

Stupid idea. I'm over it.

This isn't a community as much as news site with some debate mixed in. It's not my preference but I'm okay with that.

[David Greene]

I appreciate your solution-oriented focus, Jake. Yet wasn't the catalyst for this people leaving because they were offended by the "toxic environment" (ie response to posted rumors).

So there's a problem we want to address without identifying the problem?

Right. This is exactly why I asked for examples. I honestly, honestly don't know what people are talking about WRT "toxic environment" and rumors. We need to know what's wrong so we can fix it.

[David Greene]

Oh for fuck's sake.....I have never seen a site like this (ArchBoston, SSP, SSC, UrbanNYC, etc) who's member's have such a stick up their ass about rumors.

?? What are you talking about? I honestly want to know specifics. No one here begrudges anyone posting rumors.

[FISHMANPET]

I think people that doubt or question rumors are begrudged far more than the people that post rumors, yet somehow the doubters are viewed as aggressors and the rumor posters are viewed as victims, when it's the rumor posters doing the vilification.

[David Greene]

That's my view as well. Yes, people here question rumors and don't just assume the rumors are true. That's healthy and appropriate skepticism, not attacking the characters of those posting rumors.

I *welcome* criticism of my posts. Lord knows I've faced a ton of it on the SWLRT thread. It forces me to constantly rethink my assumptions and get things clearer in my own mind so I can better convey my thoughts.

[Didier]

Whether it's a rumor or just about any type of post in this forum, it all comes down to perceived credibility. Some examples:

• 1. If somebody in an official capacity makes an official announcement, we can pretty much accept it as fact.
  
  2. If a major media outlet reports on something, thus staking its reputation on that report, we can believe it's probably accurate.
  
  3. If an anonymous poster with a history of credible posts makes a claim, we have reason to believe the information might be true.
  
  4. If an anonymous poster with no history or credibility says something, we have no reason to trust the information.

This is pretty much how information sharing works in the world.

Honestly, most of us probably enjoy Avain's rumors more than most of the topics discussed here, and I think most of us are rational enough to discuss the rumors in context. Setting up barriers to what we can and can't talk about seems counterproductive. I'd rather we just focus on holding the discussion to a higher standard, which essentially comes down to:

• 1. Don't treat unverified information as fact.
  
  2. Don't get offended when you post information under an anonymous screenname and people don't automatically believe you. Skepticism in this situation is not a personal attack.

[holmstar]

?? What are you talking about? I honestly want to know specifics. No one here begrudges anyone posting rumors.

I think people that doubt or question rumors are begrudged far more than the people that post rumors, yet somehow the doubters are viewed as aggressors and the rumor posters are viewed as victims, when it's the rumor posters doing the vilification.

Wow. You really can't see how people who post rumors here are often treated? I'll give you that there has been a bigger push back against the attitude of the "doubters" in the last few weeks/month as people who enjoy the rumors have speaking up rather than just going away. It was soooo one sided before then that the change of the status quo probably does feel like an attack.