SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the more-than-just-a-40-year-old-TV-series dept.
Three months after she introduced the Internet Swatting Hoax Act in US Congress, Representative Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) found herself at the end of an apparent swatting attempt on Sunday night.
Melrose, Massachusetts police press spokesperson John Guilfoil confirmed to Ars Technica that the department received a phone call from "a computerized voice, not a natural voice" alleging "shots fired" and an "active shooter" at the address of Clark's home. The resulting police report confirmed an incident time of 9:57pm for a "life alert alarm" and "automated call reporting shooter."
This type of police report—using a disguised voice to allege false threats at a residence—is known as "swatting," due to the likelihood that police departments will react by sending SWAT teams to respond to serious-sounding threats. In the case of the Sunday night call, however, Guilfoil confirmed that Melrose police followed "established protocols" to choose a de-escalated response of normal police officers, though the officers in question blocked traffic on both ends of Clark's street with patrol cars. Guilfoil was unable to clarify whether weapons were drawn at the scene, and he did not answer our other questions about the incident, particularly those about the nature of the phone call received, "due to the ongoing nature of the investigation."
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 06 2016, @03:19AM
I'm not misrepresenting facts in this comment, it's my opinion based on my observations and interpretation of data I sourced.
Fair enough. However, without any specifics or the "data" you sourced, that's certainly the impression I got.
People are free to use mod points however they want. What does it matter how a comment is modded?
You're quite correct in your first point. As to your second point, the value in the moderation system is in raising quality comments to be more visible. This encourages a higher quality of discourse. I think the best part of the moderation system is that as a group we tend to promote quality arguments and/or information positively impacting the discussion at hand.
You may not think that important, but I prefer to see decent argument and quality information highligted, rather than lost amidst poorly constructed or vacuous arguments. As for myself, I always read at -1, but many only read comments at +2 or perhaps higher for just that reason.
While some (as I mentioned) may use their mod points to aggressively promote their own ideas or denigrate those with which they disagree, AFAICT the user base as a whole addresses that potential issue pretty well.
You know who has no self-respect? People who care how others mod them. If you're that concerned with what others think of you, you have a serious issue with self-respect and self-esteem. I'm not here seeking validation, I'm here to have my views challenged. It's the internet, people aren't always going to agree.
I may be mistaken, but it seems that makes you a little angry. Do you feel you're being accused? Is there something in the reasonably innocent question I asked that makes you uncomfortable?
I don't seek validation for my arguments either. As I've stated many times, I prefer to have honest discussion among people who may agree or disagree. I find that elevates the level of argument and challenges us all to examine our own points of view. This is extremely healthy and promotes quality ideas. It can also enhance our ability to express ourselves and allow us to hone (or modify) our own views and arguments.
I rarely agree and have actually had serious differences of opinions with The Mighty Buzzard and Hairyfeet and Ethanol-fueled in the past and kurenai.tsubasa has said some things I'm really uncomfortable with, but I see people attack and belittle them all the time.
The same is true for me (as you can clearly tell from my posting history [soylentnews.org]. While I vigorously engage those folks (and many others, yourself included) in debate about topics of interest to me, I shy away from ad hominem or similarly personal attacks. However, when I feel that an argument is lacking rigor, or doesn't use the best (or sometimes any at all) evidence to back it up, I don't hold back. Nor is that likely to change.
I too have just the one account. That's all I need -- as my beliefs are mine and I happily own them. As for moderation, I generally only mod folks up for quality comments -- I reserve any downmods for obvious trolls and spammy off-topic crap, although I often don't even bother and ignore those. That's my philosophy WRT moderation and I don't expect or insist that anyone act similarly. At the same time, if I notice a pattern WRT that, I may mention that in passing (as I did -- and you took some exception to, although I'm still not sure why that's such a sore spot for you).
In truth, I'm glad SN exists and with few exceptions (MikeeUSA or whoever it is that posts the AC trolls about marrying prepubescent girls) am grateful for all the members of the community we're building here. And even though I consider MikeeUSA to be a trollish jerk, I'm almost glad he's around too, if only to remind us that there are really unpleasant folks out there. In my view, no one should be silenced or pressured to modulate their views to conform to the predilections of others.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr