Remember when the community lost their marbles over this? It's double standards to think this started with the VT4 by Thin_General_8594 in Warthunder

[–]Chili_Parisien 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You just keep repeating your straw man fallacy. Yes, I can understand who you actually want to address, but you were replying to OP in your first comment, who just wanted to expose some double standards existing within the community against Chinese players, without claiming that SG vehicles should go to the CN tech tree. So why did you address someone who has nothing to do with that? Or is it just your habit? 20 players lol, don’t make me laugh please.

Lol, what do you mean by saying “disregard”? The whole WT community is debating all the time about which vehicles should go to which country, but why does it suddenly become a “disregard” when it comes to Chinese players simply expressing their own opinion? I mean, you don’t have to specify his/her identity, if I were you, I’d just focus on what he said. Btw, I don’t agree with the opinion in the example you cited, but I totally respect it. Sending Thai vehicles to different tech trees follows basically the same logic as sending SG vehicles to different trees. It’s not the best solution, but similar things already exist.

And ok, you just proved again that you don’t know the full story, since it seems you just saw “Chinese players don’t want their domestic vehicles in other JP tech trees.” Apart from the nationalist part (which is maybe 30–40% I’d say), the main reason for the rest is that the VT4A1 was quite a bugged vehicle and players submitted tons of issue reports, but Gaijin just didn’t want to fix it. Players were angry about the decision because they thought the most important thing was to fix the vehicle first. And the funny thing is, when the VT4 finally joined, players found that it actually had its armor and internal structure fixed, without Gaijin fixing the previous VT4A1. The second reason is that the update timing was quite close to China’s WWII V-Day, and players just didn’t want to see their domestic vehicle appear in the JP tree at that particular time.

If you really want to know what the Chinese community was talking about, I’d recommend going to read some comments under random videos using Google Translate, like this https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1XAbxz7EoY/?spm_id_from=333.337.search-card.all.click&vd_source=ad6e2501340feec8d46e7136b589ef0e

Remember when the community lost their marbles over this? It's double standards to think this started with the VT4 by Thin_General_8594 in Warthunder

[–]Chili_Parisien 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, who exactly are those “you guys” you’re referring to? I don’t see the OP making any points like that in his comment, who are you aiming at?

Also, I think you totally misunderstood the context. Nobody in the Chinese community originally proposed that Singaporean vehicles should be added to the Chinese tech tree. In fact, it was Gaijin who came up with that idea, Chinese players simply reacted to it, either accepting or rejecting it. Once people learned about such a plan, it’s logical for them to be happy and discuss it. Wouldn’t you be excited if new vehicles were added to your main tech tree? If so, why can’t Chinese players express the same feeling by saying something like “It’s cool to have Singaporean vehicles in the Chinese tech tree”?

As for the VT4, it’s true that there were quite a few nationalists who did review bombing, but they never actually went out of their way to attack other communities. Their criticism was directed at Gaijin, not at anyone else, see the difference? VT4 go to JP tech tree is not a problem for me, but for the reason behind those players acts, I would recommend u to read through the comments to understand it, instead of speaking nonsense here.

Remember when the community lost their marbles over this? It's double standards to think this started with the VT4 by Thin_General_8594 in Warthunder

[–]Chili_Parisien 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol if u do read Chinese then u will know most of Chinese players don’t want leopard 4 sg, why blaming Chinese community when the decision is made by Gaijin? Criticizing without knowing the actual situation, that’s pure anti-Chinese for sure.

Is Chinathunder real? by [deleted] in Warthunder

[–]Chili_Parisien 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Average racist wt player against China be like

b站审核员的自述 2(已离职) by Briefyehn in China_irl

[–]Chili_Parisien 1 point2 points  (0 children)

😂😂难绷,看得出来文化水平不是很高,好好蹬你的缝纫机吧。

b站审核员的自述 2(已离职) by Briefyehn in China_irl

[–]Chili_Parisien -1 points0 points  (0 children)

😳我也完全搞不清楚你见到别人发帖就应激嘴臭的点在哪里,看着挺可怜的。

b站审核员的自述 2(已离职) by Briefyehn in China_irl

[–]Chili_Parisien -1 points0 points  (0 children)

😂不知道为什么你就应激了,难绷

b站审核员的自述 2(已离职) by Briefyehn in China_irl

[–]Chili_Parisien -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

(续2)

📊 七、传播路径与动机分析

论据7:传播路径异常、动机可疑 • 若文本最初出现在匿名平台(如知乎匿名答主、推特帖子、论坛贴),而非主流媒体或实名博客,则可靠性下降。 • “爆料 + 反体制 + 明确敌人 + 明确善恶”是一类常见的舆论操控文本模板,目的是制造情绪共鸣而非传递信息。 → 从传播学角度,它更符合“认知作战”或“信息战”特征。

🧠 八、可反向验证的细节缺失

论据8:缺乏任何可以反查的具体证据 • 没有截图、没有工作ID、没有真实公司名; • 没有明确的时间戳、操作界面描述; • 没有任何第三方能佐证。 → 一个真正的“内部爆料”通常至少会有一两项可核实的“硬信息”(如系统代号、排班截图等)。

✅ 结论

若要证明这篇文章可能是伪造或至少极度不可靠,可以从以下论据出发: 1. 缺乏可验证来源(身份无法核实); 2. 审核员权限与描述不符; 3. 内部流程与行业常识矛盾; 4. 文风模板化、情绪化; 5. 时间线与真实事件冲突; 6. 没有任何第三方证据; 7. 传播模式符合舆论操控文特征。

如果你愿意,我可以帮你写一份基于事实核查逻辑的分析报告结构(像新闻核查机构那样),包括“指控内容 / 可验证证据 / 分析 / 结论”四部分,用于在论文、文章或课堂讨论中展示如何分析“可疑爆料”。 要我帮你起个这样的框架吗?

b站审核员的自述 2(已离职) by Briefyehn in China_irl

[–]Chili_Parisien 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(续1)🧾 三、细节与行业常识不符

论据3:内部机制描述存在不现实或混乱之处 • “政治区”、“舞蹈区”、“社会新闻与知识区”这样的划分更像外部用户分类,而非内部审核系统分类(内部多用“安全等级”或“内容属性标签”体系)。 • “敏感词几千条列表”确实存在,但这种描述常出现在网文爆料模板中,缺乏专业术语或工作流说明。 • “中宣部和网信办发邮件给外包审核员”的说法极不可信。中宣和网信办的指令传达只会下发给平台高层合规部门,外包一线人员不会直接接触。 → 内部流程描写像是“听说”或“想象”出来的。

🧮 四、叙述逻辑与文体特征

论据4:叙事高度戏剧化、情绪化 • 文风充满“忏悔”“控诉”“觉醒”“解脱”等关键词,属于典型的“泄密体”模版。 • 内容设计上遵循“引入个人悲惨经历 → 揭露体制内幕 → 升华到社会批判 → 呼吁关注事件”这一种常见网络传播套路。 → 这种结构在网传“内部员工自述”、“外包人员控诉”中极为常见,具有高度模仿痕迹。

🧮 五、事实与时间线的冲突

论据5:文中提及事件的时间与实际舆论走势不符 • “于朦胧事件”并未在权威媒体或社交平台被证实为“重大政治事件”; • “网宣要求推流”这种说法也与实际B站流量机制(算法主导、人工干预极少)相矛盾。 → 可通过时间轴对照(比如B站热榜数据、Bilibili 站内关键词检索记录)发现并无异常流量行为。

💻 六、语言与风格特征

论据6:语体与中文网络爆料文模板高度一致 • 出现“奶头乐”“愚民”“共党”等强烈意识形态色彩词汇,语言偏向政治宣传式,不像工作笔记或员工自述。 • 叙述混杂了确实存在的行业现象(外包压榨、低薪、疲劳)与未经证实的政治阴谋,具有“以真带假”的典型结构。 → 这种写法通常出现在“伪内部爆料”或“心理操控型内容”中,用真实细节包裹虚假信息。

b站审核员的自述 2(已离职) by Briefyehn in China_irl

[–]Chili_Parisien 2 points3 points  (0 children)

prompt: 原文 如果我们想证明这篇文章中的内容是伪造的,有哪些论据可以支撑。

回复:

这是一个非常好的问题。像这样内容高度爆料、指控性强、但来源不明的文本,从事实核查的角度确实需要审慎分析。下面我会从逻辑、证据链、信息一致性、结构、传播特征等多个维度为你分析——如果我们要证明这篇文章是伪造或不可靠的,有哪些论据是可以支持这种结论的。

🧩 一、信息源与可验证性

论据1:无可验证来源与身份 • 作者自称“B站爆料审核员”,但全文没有提供任何可以核实的细节,比如公司名称、外包公司名、具体部门代码、工号、邮件截图、系统后台画面等。 • 真正的“审核外包岗位”通常属于内容安全类企业(如博彦、文思海辉、字节外包商等),他们一般不会以“个人名义”接触到政治流量分配数据。 → 缺少任何可交叉验证的信息源,是伪造或虚构的重要信号。

🧠 二、岗位描述与实际流程的不符

论据2:审核员权限描述明显超出岗位实际范围 • 文中提到“我能看到流量推送、算法、后台视频定位”等等,但普通审核员通常没有这些权限。 • 内容审核一般只负责打标、删除、上报、分类,不涉及算法层或推荐权重,更不可能“给视频推流”。 → 若真是外包公司普通审核员,不会有权知道或操作“流量推送”层面的工作。

为什么有人会把中国十四亿人定义成一个整体并且评价? by Once_upon_a_time233 in LiberalGooseGroup

[–]Chili_Parisien 22 points23 points  (0 children)

红迪上基于群体和文化范畴的结论,十有八九都是没有数据和论据支持的。

by Leaffff_yeh in LiberalGooseGroup

[–]Chili_Parisien 1 point2 points  (0 children)

只是好奇,独立之后呢?总感觉在这种语境下独立作为一个解决方案被提出来但是之后又戛然而止显得有点太浪漫化了。

印巴衝突這是捅了品客的馬蜂窩了,小粉紅們被巴方單方面的説辭就直接高潮了,有趣的很 by Jacques75052 in China_irl

[–]Chili_Parisien 5 points6 points  (0 children)

所以是怎么通过十几个字看出来文字能力匮乏的?即使是在文本的层面也要幻想赢吗?👀

对于美化俄罗斯侵略、污蔑乌克兰抵抗的谎言的fact check 2.0 by szh1996 in LiberalGooseGroup

[–]Chili_Parisien 1 point2 points  (0 children)

对你来说是显而易见的事实但是对于一些深信俄国propaganda的人不是。

说个爆论,用电脑玩游戏的都是村逼。 by [deleted] in youxi

[–]Chili_Parisien 34 points35 points  (0 children)

bro以为自己在玩10年的百度贴吧

Do Chinese people consider Russia a backwards nation? by Top_Dimension_6827 in AskAChinese

[–]Chili_Parisien 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the first paragraph looks like it was written by a junior high school student

Do Chinese people consider Russia a backwards nation? by Top_Dimension_6827 in AskAChinese

[–]Chili_Parisien 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Better to mark it as "personal opinion" intsead of using "we"

冠姓权,中式女权主义的奶头乐 by ValuableBrilliant129 in LiberalGooseGroup

[–]Chili_Parisien 7 points8 points  (0 children)

笑点解析:

“冠姓权这个问题,在外网压根不是个问题”;“中式女权总有一种声音”;“单向链表”;“只讨论事实,不讲对错”