A suggestion for improving this sub-forum

Landon Caeli said:

The way no moderator can explain the reasoning behind this rule, reminds me of this experiment:

Click to expand...

Rival said:

Except it has been explained.

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

The way no moderator can explain the reasoning behind this rule, reminds me of this experiment:

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

I disagree. Sometimes people want to discuss a current event, perhaps something picked up by mainstream media, and that's neither Spam nor plagiarism.

...There's nothing sinister about that.

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

What's wrong with providing a link and a section of material from it? What's the problem..?

You needing to be able to put a poster on blast rather than the content provided, and can't do so if it's from someone else?

Click to expand...

exchemist said:

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.

Click to expand...

Evangelicalhumanist said:

Yes, but post your event, post your link -- and then make it yours. Simply saying, "here's a link, what do you think" puts the onus on others to help you frame your own opinion. Much better to post your link, then make the issue yours by saying, "I agree/disagree with this for the following reasons. I wonder what other members think."

Click to expand...

blü 2 said:

The problem is very simple.
In the debate forums of this site, the reader isn't here to argue with some quote over 20 words from elsewhere, or some video over 60 seconds long from elsewhere ─ the only relevant debate is between the poster/ proponent and the reader. In other words, it's up to the poster to specify what her or his point is, and to defend it on that basis.

Or to paraphrase that, why should I have to bog through some or other video to find out WTF the poster's talking about that he or she can't put in his own words?

Obviously, incidental links are okay if they're short, factual and sharply relevant ─ rather than polemical ─ but that's not the issue here.

Click to expand...

Jaiket said:

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?

Click to expand...

(All about Plato's Cave)

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

But why it ever became a rule in the first place, I don't recall being explained by any moderator. Whether it's actually for bots or to protect annoyed posters looking for a quick glimpse at what a thread is all about.

Click to expand...

Jaiket said:

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?

Click to expand...

dianaiad said:

I don't see that such posts violate rules 4 and 7, if the posts are properly cited...well, perhaps not 7. The 'Spam' thing? Oh, yeah.

It is my personal, very unofficial (since I am not a moderator or associated with the team) opinion that such long winded quotes from elsewhere are exactly that. Spam. I hate 'em.

If the poster can't express his or her opinions in his or her own words, there's nothing to discuss. IMO (again, personal, unofficial and extremely didactic), the ratio of quote to personal comment should be AT LEAST three to one. That is, one part quote, three parts commentary.

Now I can't complain about being longwinded, of course...that would be incredibly hypocritical...but I CAN say that I refuse to comment on quotes that take up two or three posts with no commentary. I mean....sheesh...don't you guys ever think for yourselves?

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

What's wrong with providing a link and a section of material from it? What's the problem..?

Click to expand...

Samantha Rinne said:

Possible, but not desirable.

You see, this is called "source material" not "pollution". Whereas I often see insufferable people flap off their gums about what are essentially unsourced opinions, and not even very good ones.

Suppose for a second, you start a thread about global warming. Which looks better? "I think global warming is real/fake because it just makes sense, you know?" or two to five paragraphs of well-thought out ideas, supported by links?

Now arguably, all this sourcing could turn into a kind of appeal to authority. But the opposite extreme is kinda just like "Well, I think God is a woman", "well I think he's an eagle". Do you now? But do you actually have anything to back this up?

I believe this to be a thinly disguised way to censor ppl who have a different writing style than you. Remember the maxim, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That is, if you aren't comfortable with other people saying "I think we should make all threads without any links or pictures or sources get tossed," then don't try to push for the inverse.

Also, 20 words? If you don't have the time to read something, why not go to Facebook instead? This is a debate forum with intelligent posters. Suppose I quoted Plato's Cave to people who haven't heard of it? Nope, you don't have the patience for that? In such a thread, I would very much be relying on the quote to convey the concept. Though I could personally talk about it myself, the first post would be something like:



And then asking, something about reality and how we assume the things we see are real. Or comparing it to the Matrix. Or whatever.

So no, I think this is a terrible idea. And if you haven't the patience to watch a video over 60 seconds, you have worse ADD than I do, and probably shouldn't be dictating what can and can't go on the forum. If something is interesting, a minimum of respect dictates allowing 15 minutes of watching, though most people won't watch Spirit Science and its hour long Human History Movie, or Happy Science movies like this one.

Maybe I object Sunstone adding music videos to the end of their threads. Do I try to change the entire forum? No, I mind my own business!

Click to expand...