Links and quotes in OPs, and shit

[rpgdemon]

Nonsy, I'm sorry, but I think that this 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, 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 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]

Originally Posted by Seil

Usually, I ramble. Fuck, I ramble even when I'm not drinking, but when I post news threads, 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

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.