Yeah, discussion FROM THE LINK....
Nowhere does it say it has to be your own.
By definition, that's what commentary is...an expression of opinion.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yeah, discussion FROM THE LINK....
Nowhere does it say it has to be your own.
By definition, that's what commentary is. An expression of opinion.
And that can be found in quoted paragraphs from a link. Nowhere do the rules say it has to come personally from the poster.
You're right. It doesn't. And ignorance to the definition of "commentary" will not protect you from moderation should you not adhere to said rule. It's been explained and elaborated upon, so now you understand.
The choice is now yours to follow it or don't.
The choice is now yours to follow it or don't.
Blessed be the one who follows it.
Cursed be the one who does not.
Fair enough, you're the arbitrators. I don't know why, it has to be interpreted that way, but I'm sure there's some reason, somewhere, by someone who knows... Maybe.
I agree. Another forum I used to belong to referred to it as "argument via footnote".Would it be possible to enforce a rule/policy where threads containing copy/paste OPs are removed?
A lot of new threads start with someone pasting lengthy sections of material from elsewhere and little to no contribution from themselves. Or a single sentence with an accompanying video. It's pollution. A moderator could be cleaning it up and pointing those who violate the rule towards a sticky thread that explains what is acceptable.
I'm all for debating and dicsussing the many points where evolution and creationism collide but trying to read this stuff is hard work and it often seems that the OP masks the same set of misunderstandings behind a wall of junk that isn't even their own. There should be some responsibility on the poster to have some idea of what they want to debate or assert.
Is this possible/desirable?
I agree. Another forum I used to belong to referred to it as "argument via footnote".
Would it be possible to enforce a rule/policy where threads containing copy/paste OPs are removed?
A lot of new threads start with someone pasting lengthy sections of material from elsewhere and little to no contribution from themselves. Or a single sentence with an accompanying video. It's pollution. A moderator could be cleaning it up and pointing those who violate the rule towards a sticky thread that explains what is acceptable.
I'm all for debating and dicsussing the many points where evolution and creationism collide but trying to read this stuff is hard work and it often seems that the OP masks the same set of misunderstandings behind a wall of junk that isn't even their own. There should be some responsibility on the poster to have some idea of what they want to debate or assert.
Is this possible/desirable?
Well, that's the problem with this forum -people offering opinions without any verifiable, credible evidence or facts.
...The popular trend is to scoff at the idea of providing links and quotes.
Essentially the atmosphere this rule leads to is opinion vs. opinion.
Also, you might want to check...I think you may have left the irony on.
You do realize there is middle ground between "offering opinions without verification" and posting copied material only, right? It is possible to offer one's opinions, support them with verifiable facts and citations, but not rely exclusively on copied material.Well, that's the problem with this forum -people offering opinions without any verifiable, credible evidence or facts.
...The popular trend is to scoff at the idea of providing links and quotes.
Essentially the atmosphere this rule leads to is opinion vs. opinion.
The rule used to say, "In your own words". Maybe we need to put that back in.By definition, that's what commentary is...an expression of opinion.
You do realize there is middle ground between "offering opinions without verification" and posting copied material only, right? It is possible to offer one's opinions, support them with verifiable facts and citations, but not rely exclusively on copied material.
That's already against rules 4 and 7, so if you see it report it.
By definition, that's what commentary is...an expression of opinion.
That is also true on a number of other forums I belong to. The reason is that lazy posters sometimes post a link without making it clear what, about the linked material, they want to discuss and why. That is both lazy and rude, because it makes readers do all the work and forces them to guess what the point of interest is.I think this is probably the only forum in the world that does that.
...How it ever came to be, seems mysterious to me.
That is also true on a number of other forums I belong to. The reason is that lazy posters sometimes post a link without making it clear what, about the linked material, they want to discuss and why. That is both lazy and rude, because it makes readers do all the work and forces them to guess what the point of interest is.
The worst practice is linking videos. A video typically takes about ten minutes to convey information that can be read in two minutes or less in printed form.
People should have an obligation to make clear what they want to discuss and why, and then by all means support it with linked material. It's not exactly onerous, since presumably they must have a rationale for creating the thread in the first place.
Interesting point. I had not thought of that. I suppose it may have something to do with that too.That kind of makes sense.
...So it doesn't actually have to do with preventing bots then?