Links and quotes in OPs, and shit

[Meister]

Just wanted to get a few voices on our policy of having to have full quotes in OPs, and also elaborate on the reasons for it a little more in-depth than is possible in the actual rules threads. Seems pretty clear it's not exactly a point everyone's in agreement on.

(And incidentally guys, it's not a little frustrating when you're unable to point out really minor things like this one without people being all like "that rule is useless anyway, you know we wouldn't have listened so what's the point" pretty much immediately. Thought we were past that kind of antagonism as a whole. This forum runs incredibly well day to day because everyone gets along, it's gotta be possible for a guy to point out the bits where it doesn't.)

So the policy is pretty much: when you start a thread based on something you found on the net, don't just put a link in a new thread and call it a day. Little more specific and strict in the news forum, but that's the basics. Effects, from where I stand, include:

- it keeps us a forum where people go to share their own thoughts and ideas, and not just stuff they found. Or basically, keeps us from being reddit. We don't need to be reddit 'cause there already is one. Really this is the big one as far as I'm concerned.

- it ensures that when something that's linked goes down, everyone reading the thread can still get the same idea as everyone else what the original topic is.

- keeps people from having to visit sites they don't wanna, or from having to watch a long video just to learn the point of the thread is actually a side remark at 7:10. Slight exaggeration for effect, of course.

- in the case of News, it gives that forum something to set it apart from General. Higher standards, if you will.

- it's just basically polite, when you want to talk to people about something, not to thrust it in their face and go "isn't this the worst thing you've ever seen, I'm so goddamn mad about the part in the middle" before they've had a chance to look at it, but to say "hey, I found this, take a look, what do you think? The part in the middle is pretty terrible, isn't it?"

Buuuut that's my take on the subject of Discussing Things on the Internet. So let's hear yours.

[McTahr]

I think my opinion on this is Non shouldn't have been caustic about it. We are kind of supposed to hopefully maybe be remotely civil at times to each other.

But more to the point: If all we're posting is a link, why aren't they just posting in the interesting internet crap thread and calling it a day? Put your own opinion/take/etc. Don't let the link be the entire basis of discussion.

[Terex4]

I like having entire articles (or at least the key points that the thread was opened to discuss) quoted. Naturally, there are exceptions to every rule like the monster article Non just posted where it would have been ridiculous to double-post in order to get around the character limit.

In cases like that, *link* "Too large to fit in a single post" is sufficient for my tastes.
- keeps people from having to visit sites they don't wanna, or from having to watch a long video just to learn the point of the thread is actually a side remark at 7:10. Slight exaggeration for effect, of course.
This is why I'm not opposed to pieces of an article being posted if the point is to discuss that/those particular part(s).

My opinion is that discussing your thoughts more completely in the OP is a more important issue as long as there is at least a link or relevant snippet of article to go with it. A matter of picking battles if you will.

[Kim]

- it keeps us a forum where people go to share their own thoughts and ideas, and not just stuff they found. Or basically, keeps us from being reddit. We don't need to be reddit 'cause there already is one. Really this is the big one as far as I'm concerned.

Put simply, maybe I want to discuss something I find on the internet with this forum specifically rather than every douchebag on Reddit. It happens.

- it ensures that when something that's linked goes down, everyone reading the thread can still get the same idea as everyone else what the original topic is.

Not really expecting this article to go down before the thread dies or is locked but hey what do I know.

- keeps people from having to visit sites they don't wanna, or from having to watch a long video just to learn the point of the thread is actually a side remark at 7:10. Slight exaggeration for effect, of course.

Which would be great if I didn't want to discuss the entire article as opposed to one paragraph, because if I wanted to discuss one paragraph I would have quoted that one paragraph.

And hey maybe I want people to support a site that posted a pretty ace article.

- in the case of News, it gives that forum something to set it apart from General. Higher standards, if you will.

Because generally speaking people like having a subforum for all the political discussions because when it leaks out other areas get caustic and people throw fits and talk about how NPF is ruined forever. Slight exaggeration for effect, of course.

- it's just basically polite, when you want to talk to people about something, not to thrust it in their face and go "isn't this the worst thing you've ever seen, I'm so goddamn mad about the part in the middle" before they've had a chance to look at it, but to say "hey, I found this, take a look, what do you think? The part in the middle is pretty terrible, isn't it?"

Totally what I did.

Buuuut that's my take on the subject of Discussing Things on the Internet. So let's hear yours.

My take is that none of these have the slightest bearing one what I posted so I don't even get posting this in response to what happened. And it's all well and nice to have rules but it's also nice to be able to use your judgement and decide things on a case by case basis.

Looking at the last few threads I've started in news, I've generally been pretty good about following that particular rule, and it's not like I start threads there on a regular basis so it wouldn't exactly kill anyone to at least consider that maybe I might possibly have some sort of reasoning capabilities that lead me to behave differently in this specific instance.


I think my opinion on this is Non shouldn't have been caustic about it. We are kind of supposed to hopefully maybe be remotely civil at times to each other.

Yeah I was unnecessarily irritable and I'm sorry. I made an apology in the thread.

If all we're posting is a link, why aren't they just posting in the interesting internet crap thread and calling it a day? Put your own opinion/take/etc. Don't let the link be the entire basis of discussion.

- at least every third post has to have links! Tangential discussions about a particularly interesting one are still fine, just throw in some links for content too, and if your tangential discussion becomes longer than 10 posts or so you might want to consider starting a thread. Honestly though this one's not so much an enforced rule as a guideline.

Either change that or don't complain about me following it.

[synkr0nized]

Wait.
Are you using the random link dump thread as validation for making a separate thread to just dump a link and merely encourage others to read it?

I want to be clear on that instead of just making an assumption.

Because otherwise it looks like you and Meister more or less agree about the News subforum.

[McTahr]

Well, I guess those are all good points. The only thing is that we're not mind-readers. Reaching some kind of agreeable consensus is easier when we know the motivations beyond a three-sentence summary that is more you explaining it than why you brought it up or your particular opinion.

Like, supporting the hosting site is totes chic, and now that we know that 1) you couldn't actually quote the entire article, and 2) wanted to discuss it in its entirety, things are a mite more sensible.

Just you know, understand that the moderating team/userbase doesn't know those things off-hand, so we're trying to pro-actively create an environment where everyone is on the same page.

[Grimpond]

I blame jagos for the perpetuation of this unwholesome and totally terrible trend that has plagued our beloved interbuttz haven of giggles.

[Menarker]

- it ensures that when something that's linked goes down, everyone reading the thread can still get the same idea as everyone else what the original topic is.


In this line of topic, sometimes links gets blocked due to regional differences, especially if said links are videos.

Alternatively, sometimes members try to access this site from a public computer that has otherwise blocked some particular sites like Youtube (usually for productivity purpose) or if a particular region has banned the site in question due to whatever regulatory or political reason that isn't already covered by our rules.

I'm in favor of at least a short minor summary or at least a little depth into the line of topic so others can look it up on google on our own.

[Kim]

If the complaint were that I wasn't descriptive enough in my summary I probably would have fixed that without any grumpy antics. I probably would have rolled with a "Fair enough" and fixed that right up. I can't be sure, but as far as I can guess that would have been my behavior. Just throwing that out there.

[akaSM]

In this line of topic, sometimes links gets blocked due to regional differences, especially if said links are videos.

Alternatively, sometimes members try to access this site from a public computer that has otherwise blocked some particular sites like Youtube (usually for productivity purpose) or if a particular region has banned the site in question due to whatever regulatory or political reason that isn't already covered by our rules.

I'm in favor of at least a short minor summary or at least a little depth into the line of topic so others can look it up on google on our own.

^This

Sometimes I try to access stuff from my college and I can't because of some weird site blocking policies. Sometimes they block sites that could make us "waste our time" like those related to games (sites with games, game news, stores and others) or youtube, even though there's a great number of useful videos for a med student there...but yeah, I don't want to get a slow connection because of someone who wants to listen to Justine Beaver (sp? :D)

Other times they block sites in a way I don't understand, like megaupload while rapidshare is working just fine o_O

And, NPF isn't blocked, not that I'm complaining :3:

[rpgdemon]

Nonsy, I'm sorry, but I think that this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcz9xkb_Y3Q) aptly describes the thread, and your relationship to it.

The way I saw it, your thread was just the last one that made them go, "Okay, no one is doing this. Let's let them know."

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned Jagos is the main offender. No offense, but I haven't been reading any of his threads for months because they are just impossible.

When I saw the new rule (when it was actually new) that you can't just link youtube videos and go "HEY LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ONE THING THAT GUY SAYS AT THE 8 MINUTE MARK, YES THAT QUOTE I'M TOO LAZY TO TRANSCRIBE, FUCK YOU!!! AND NOW I'M QUOTING A ARTICLE THAT WAS LINKED IN THE VIDEO DESCPRITPION OF A VIDEO NO ONE WATCHED BUT WILL NOT INCLUDE A LINK JUST TO PISS YOU OFF HAHAHA" But no one seemed to care. I will also not interrupt my music for your shitty youtube videos. Never, law of the universe. Half of them aren't available to me anyway. Because I live in an oppresive dictatorship or something. (e: that last one mostly applies to music videos, though. But I will especially not interrupt my music for your shitty music, because my taste is better, objectively speaking)

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to quote an entire news article, I quite liked it when people just picked some relevant passages and linked the actual article. Please don't tell me that was only in my head.

[synkr0nized]

If someone just dumps the entire text of the article, I don't see the point of having the link. And I usually don't read it.

I prefer them to pick out the relevant parts/highlight what they want to discuss, unless the article is fairly brief itself.

But I am just one moderator, and we all had to agree on the rules.

[Jagos]

So in summation:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Gotcha.

-E- Just so everyone's clear on what I believe in a nutshell in regards to articles and links.

You can see the information for yourself usually. I try to keep a fairly neutral stance on the issue so that people can see it for themselves.

What actually angers me is how it's all my fault the interest level of an article to other people. Menarker, Insane, if you had a problem with how I posted, it would have done a helluva lot better to let me know. Same to anyone else that's had a problem with how I posted. Admittedly, I did not give summaries in the past and didn't know about how it was a problem for some people (akaSM) from being blocked from youtube. My entire thought train is based on allowing people to gauge their own interest from the header, reading the link, then discussing it as seeing fit. And under that impression, I write my text because that's how I'm used to writing and debating. Sorry for that.

Hell, Aero's one of the first to actually say what was wrong with my post instead of becoming a silent sufferer and ignoring the contents because I posted it. So in summary, I'm working on changing to a better posting style.

Well, I guess those are all good points. The only thing is that we're not mind-readers. Reaching some kind of agreeable consensus is easier when we know the motivations beyond a three-sentence summary that is more you explaining it than why you brought it up or your particular opinion.

I'm not a mind reader either, and very few people have come forward to say anything. Then Non does the same thing and suddenly it's a larger problem. This is what I'm criticizing because it seems to come out of nowhere until it's addressed, then you have all of these people coming out of the woodwork to take potshots. Kind of frustrating...

[Meister]

That's not so much a summation as it is a radical reduction to a proverb that omits a lot of points and introduces inaccuracies.

A summation would be: it's very useful if you do, and while not the end of the world if you don't, it is a factor that keeps people from reading your (and, for that matter, specifically your) posts.

[Jagos]

As I said above, it would have been a lot better if people had said something before hand before having it that mods call me out specifically to let me know there's a problem. Not like I'm "Hulk angry" or anything, but it would have been a lot more courteous to let people know something on this occasion.

[Seil]

Dude, here's the thing: you do threads about news articles. You do a whole lot of threads about news articles. I sometimes dun read them all because I'm an idiot who lives in a fantasy world where everything is a rosé, but I sometimes do news threads.

Usually, I ramble. Fuck, I ramble even when I'm not drinking, but when I post news threads (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=38848&), I talk. (Like I said, I ramble) but the point is that you should be specific. You shouldn't just post a link and be like "Boy this is some crazy shit, huh?" you should take the time to make your point, write a counterpoint, and start an argument. 'Cause that's what every great thread aspires to - an argument. An exchange of ideas.

(Also, I've been repped by Meister (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?p=1054562#post1054562) on a overly-wordy news post, and I've been told off by Shiney for doing the same thing that you're feeling, it's not just you. It's prolly all about a few too many warnings to a few too many forumites, which is how I imagine most rules get started.)

[Meister]

Missed your edit! I agree actually, it would have been better if people had let you know earlier. I guess no one wants to risk being the guy who speaks up against something only to maybe learn no one else is bothered by it.

e: potentially even as a side effect of the rule about backseat modding. Hmmm.

Anyway right now I'm thinking, we could probably just as well drop the hard requirements in the news section and replace it with a more general, forum-wide "guideline to good OPs," which would go something like "link the stuff you're quoting, quote the stuff you link as far as it's relevant, remember not everyone wants to or is able to follow every link." That should be enough, really.

[Loyal]

e: potentially even as a side effect of the rule about backseat modding. Hmmm.Can't speak for others, but this is a factor, yes.

[Jagos]

Usually, I ramble. Fuck, I ramble even when I'm not drinking, but when I post news threads (http://nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=38848&), I talk. (Like I said, I ramble) but the point is that you should be specific. You shouldn't just post a link and be like "Boy this is some crazy shit, huh?" you should take the time to make your point, write a counterpoint, and start an argument. 'Cause that's what every great thread aspires to - an argument. An exchange of ideas.


It's actually easier to show you than continue on...

Look at the Current Events here (http://www.ninjavideoforum.net/forumdisplay.php?62-News-Current-Events)

The entire expectation is a quote and a discussion page. You can even embed a Youtube directly onto a page and discuss it at the bottom. But here's the background on NV.

These are the people that were taken down by the government in Operation In Our Sites over a year ago. They had movie downloads and that ability was taken away recently. Rather than give up on the news, they pass links to material since that seems "safe" compared to sharing copyrighted material. Most of the people on the site are from the UK and Germany, so it's a very diverse crowd.

The expectations of that community are different from this one, where people aren't as serious about certain political topics. You can look at most of the current news and you'll see a very similar posting style that gets people criticized here.

[Grimpond]

The expectations of that community are different from this one, where people aren't as serious about certain political topics. You can look at most of the current news and you'll see a very similar posting style that gets people criticized here.

That's cool and all, but that is a different community altogether, with different rules and regulations, not to mention the people who access it.

Or was there a different point you were going for?

[Jagos]

Where do you think I learned to post the way that I do? I'm showing the expectations of that community as compared to this one. It wasn't clear before how people had them here.

[rpgdemon]

Thread creation

Start your threads with good, informative, long posts. People should be able to open your thread and have all the material you want to present right there. If you link to an article, you must quote it in full in your OP; likewise, if you quote something you must include a link or cite a source. You should also provide your own take on the issue in more than two or three general sentences. If you don't make a serious effort starting a thread, no one else can be expected to make a serious effort in replying.


Yeah, that does make things pretty unclear. Mixed messages and such, since people were making a serious effort in responding, when you didn't make a serious effort starting it. It's understandable.

[Menarker]

What actually angers me is how it's all my fault the interest level of an article to other people. Menarker, Insane, if you had a problem with how I posted, it would have done a helluva lot better to let me know.

I never actually said anything about your posting style and I don't think I ever commented on your posting style in any of your threads. I was just stating why I consider summaries to be the more preferred option, without any regards to how anyone else do it.

When I made the post, I was using the Skin Gun thread as my point of reference, where the link to the very interesting video was blocked from the view of anyone who was Canadian.

[Jagos]

Sorry, didn't mean to put that on you. I was actually responding to Grim since he named me specifically.

[shiney]

You may be the catalyst but not the only perpetrator. Just relax and take this from the discussion:

Summarize and present an argument or spark a discussion. Don't link, blurb and run.

[Marc v4.0]

Can't speak for others, but this is a factor, yes.

This, p. much

[Fifthfiend]

HMM THAT'S RIGHT, THIS FORUM EXISTS

One thing I'd say is that "If you link to an article, you must quote it in full in your OP" should be amended purely on the basis that taking the entire article is basically copyright infringement or w/ev, you really aren't supposed to take more than a couple of paragraphs or so as far as I understand it. Which is a shame because it would make for a nice check against linkrot and such but yeah it's not something you're supposed to do.

Aside from that IDK.

[shiney]

As long as the source is credited then the infringement is null and void as far as I understand. So if you're going to quote something, reference the author, periodical/news source and provide a link. This should help us overcome any question of infringement.

If I'm wrong then we'll amend the policy outright because the last thing I want is for some idiotic overzealous corp to get a bug up their ass about us stealing ideas and articles.

[Jagos]

This really isn't a huge issue in regards to copyright infringement. You can use the entire article. Not only does the fair use doctrine and its four tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_under_United_States_law) protect the user and the site, so does the DMCA and its safe harbors for third party liability. Granted, supposedly a takedown should be adhered, but the terms for the speed of the takedown is not defined in the DMCA. Should it be a week? A month? A few days? That's what's unclear.

However, the few places I will recommend avoiding to avoid this turn of events are:

Associated Press - Believes in copyright bullying

Las Vegas Review Journal - Began the copyright trolling in the news

------------------------------------

As other places become known for being copyright bullies with their news, I could add to this post. Otherwise, I've not heard of too many places that get uppity about news being spread. The main thing I've seen is people like to read a story at their own time so linking for that purpose would work better.

[Meister]

Anyway things seem to be going rather swimmingly well in this regard lately! I just put some updates into some rules threads that should reflect the current situation better, and I think we can very well carry on like this.

[Jagos]

So when did we get a news "sobforum?"

[Kim]

Aw, I liked it being a sobforum...

[POS Industries]

Awww, we lost the sobforum?

I quit.

[Meister]

Remember when we had you sign that thing in your own blood? Yeah the specifics are a little technical and very complex but it basically boils down to "no you don't."

[Meister]

Oh also guys: I'm taking everything you said about the backseat modding rule into account; basically it was never intended to keep you from asking people to, I dunno, write better or include more sources but I can also see how you took it that way, at the same time I want to both keep that rule in place and not make it too vague by including lots of situational qualifiers and examples. Sooo I dunno I guess that's gonna stay as it is for the moment but it's noted that there's an issue.

[synkr0nized]

It occurs to me that "sobforum" may have been intentional and not just an error.

Regardless... *whistles nonchalantly*