|
On August 14 2018 13:37 xM(Z wrote:also, this Show nested quote +a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious explicitly says to me: give your own opinion about the article you quoted.
A very brief summary on what it's about points to something very different than a simple opinion of any character. "[It] seems more than a little spicy" is giving your own opinion. "This sudden allegation late in the campaign took Ellison from somewhat favored to very doubtful. The accusers appear to have evidence." That's one possible summary or what somebody might find salient about the current event, including opinion of course.
What purpose it adds to the discussion could be whether you think the accusations are likely true, or what this means to the state, or what it means to the national party. You know ... connect it to something more than "haha Trump so stupid" or "Every time this woman speak or appears on TV it just becomes rage inducing" or "We have a child in control of the nuclear arsenal... whose temper tantrums now involves throwing things."
Obviously both are going to involve your own opinion, but it helps to focus it around areas more fruitful to group discussion.
|
I personally think people stopped posting articles or tweets in fear of getting banned. Because as soon as less articles was added into the thread, the more people started to personally attack each other since at that point there’s nothing to really talk about.
I’ve been trying to post articles here and there to keep some convos going but I know I’m not the only one that feels this way.
|
Is it really that hard to add a bit of context? What is so hard about writing a sentence saying who this person is? And why do you think you need to post articles to keep some conversations going? If a conversation stopped died out, it's because the people involved don't want to talk about it anymore. If you want to keep a covnersation going, instead of posting a tweet, go and be an active participant in the conversation instead.
|
@Danglars: the way i see it, your whole argument/explanation pertains to gossip only else again, it makes no sense.
when linking a source which presents facts/documents/statements, the "A very brief summary on what it's about" is presented in the article itself so why would one need to re-explain a fact?.
and "What purpose it adds to the discussion" is subjective and people could care less about a subject even when it has a purpose/a purpose is presented. that whole part is a non-issue.
attributing weight to both gossip and fact based on the same rules is way to neo-<something>.
|
On August 14 2018 20:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Is it really that hard to add a bit of context? What is so hard about writing a sentence saying who this person is? And why do you think you need to post articles to keep some conversations going? If a conversation stopped died out, it's because the people involved don't want to talk about it anymore. If you want to keep a covnersation going, instead of posting a tweet, go and be an active participant in the conversation instead.
or alternatively begin a new discussion with a new basis for conversation?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On August 14 2018 20:24 xM(Z wrote:
@Danglars: the way i see it, your whole argument/explanation pertains to gossip only else again, it makes no sense.
when linking a source which presents facts/documents/statements, the "A very brief summary on what it's about" is presented in the article itself so why would one need to re-explain a fact?.
and "What purpose it adds to the discussion" is subjective and people could care less about a subject even when it has a purpose/a purpose is presented. that whole part is a non-issue.
attributing weight to both gossip and fact based on the same rules is way to neo-.
As I've already stated before:
The biggest issue the USPMT had before these new guidelines came along was that people were posting articles links and tweets without giving any context whatsoever. That is unacceptable because it's just lazy posting. If you can't even bother to explain why you're linking what you're linking and why it's relevant, then why should people even bother to read what you link?
|
On August 14 2018 21:06 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2018 20:24 xM(Z wrote:
@Danglars: the way i see it, your whole argument/explanation pertains to gossip only else again, it makes no sense.
when linking a source which presents facts/documents/statements, the "A very brief summary on what it's about" is presented in the article itself so why would one need to re-explain a fact?.
and "What purpose it adds to the discussion" is subjective and people could care less about a subject even when it has a purpose/a purpose is presented. that whole part is a non-issue.
attributing weight to both gossip and fact based on the same rules is way to neo-<something>. As I've already stated before: Show nested quote +The biggest issue the USPMT had before these new guidelines came along was that people were posting articles links and tweets without giving any context whatsoever. That is unacceptable because it's just lazy posting. If you can't even bother to explain why you're linking what you're linking and why it's relevant, then why should people even bother to read what you link? the context is given by the thread title: politics in the US; it's self evident. when someone posts outside that context you could ban/warn him because he posted the wrong thing in the wrong place.
anything related to US politics would need no additional context because:
1)if any additional context(i don't even know what that could mean because if one is not familiar with an issue, will either not even get involved in the discussion or explaining it to him from god-knows what beginning wont be worth anyone's time and will probably be superficial at best which prevents a meaningful discussion from the get go) is required, it could be gleaned from the link title in couple seconds;
2)i'm assuming you're not expecting that all links/quoted articles posted to trigger discussions(that would be pretty extremist)... and that, makes the last part of your issue redundant. a link would not force people to read it and the one posting that link does not(or shouldn't) expect people to read it; no harm no foul.
the problem here is when one is engaging/arguing on an issue from a posted link without reading it but that's on him not on the one posting the link. the purposely clueless one should get warned/banned not the one that posted the link.
Edit: if your problem is clutter, you could impose a standard structure for posts containing only news/links/tweets etc; all in spoilers or something.
|
Links to articles and tweets are not self evident. We had people posting rando tweets from people no one knew and posting entire articles with nothing more then the source (as if that was necessary after you just copy pasted the entire thing).
The problem is the context US politics is so entirely broad that its self evident that euros need to post in the thread as if they understand intimately about it because they more then likely do despite not living here.
Edit: Just to elaborate on the warning that just happened. The problem is inherently the context. People posting an article and acting like thats all the arguing they need to do on a subject before proving commentary on a reaction to what they just posted. Then when someone responds to it disagreeing with said commentary they say "you didn't read the article did you" responding with "I read what you posted" which is when the argument devolves past what the article was about in the first place. The articles don't provide a good foundation unless the person posting them does the bare minimum to ensure that what they posted isn't just mindless filler.
|
On August 14 2018 20:52 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2018 20:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Is it really that hard to add a bit of context? What is so hard about writing a sentence saying who this person is? And why do you think you need to post articles to keep some conversations going? If a conversation stopped died out, it's because the people involved don't want to talk about it anymore. If you want to keep a covnersation going, instead of posting a tweet, go and be an active participant in the conversation instead. or alternatively begin a new discussion with a new basis for conversation?
That's perfectly acceptable, but that wasn't what schokkey wrote.
|
removing the "if it's not obvious" clause might make for a better rule. as then it's strictly clear, and there's no debate about obviousness.
personally, I think articles are less of an issue than tweets. (though it gets complicated by tweets which link to articles, still better to link the original article imho); the bigger problem was tweets from randos that don't matter.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36921 Posts
On August 15 2018 02:04 zlefin wrote:
removing the "if it's not obvious" clause might make for a better rule. as then it's strictly clear, and there's no debate about obviousness.
personally, I think articles are less of an issue than tweets. (though it gets complicated by tweets which link to articles, still better to link the original article imho); the bigger problem was tweets from randos that don't matter.
True. I'm not even sure who added the "if it's not obvious" part. That sure as hell wasn't me.
|
On August 15 2018 00:51 Sermokala wrote:
Links to articles and tweets are not self evident. We had people posting rando tweets from people no one knew and posting entire articles with nothing more then the source (as if that was necessary after you just copy pasted the entire thing).
The problem is the context US politics is so entirely broad that its self evident that euros need to post in the thread as if they understand intimately about it because they more then likely do despite not living here.
Edit: Just to elaborate on the warning that just happened. The problem is inherently the context. People posting an article and acting like thats all the arguing they need to do on a subject before proving commentary on a reaction to what they just posted. Then when someone responds to it disagreeing with said commentary they say "you didn't read the article did you" responding with "I read what you posted" which is when the argument devolves past what the article was about in the first place. The articles don't provide a good foundation unless the person posting them does the bare minimum to ensure that what they posted isn't just mindless filler. to me, what you describe there looks like a problem with the source of information and not with the context.
non-government bodies(businesses, sites, etc)have the freedom to define what they consider to be "the press". they can accept for ex. just tv, radio, newspapers, or they can include news web sites, blogs, opinion pieces(or other variations).
looking around at UN, WTO, ec.europa.eu accreditation rules, they all have this line in there:Online publications which are communications outreach or advocacy publications of non-governmental or non-profit organizations do not qualify for media accreditation. that would boot most of the spam from US thread i think and the vultures reporting posts could report shady news sources instead.
|
Yes but what you have is useualy people posting the snippets of the article that they want to post. They don't include and probably shouldn't include the context generating part of the article. What people are asking for is a simple introduction to the article ala "A business news website ranked Vienna ahead of Melborne *(quote) I thought it was interesting that they've downgraded the terror threat in the area as an important factor in the ranking for the city.
Instead of a pair of sentences people would rather complain and snark about how hard it is, putting in way more effort then the bare minimum people are asking for.
|
this is why communism failed in russia. endless committees nitpicking over rules
|
I don't see any nitpicking going on. One side is asking for a basic level of effort into peoples posts and the other side is complaining that they have to provide that level of effort.
|
On August 15 2018 05:38 Sermokala wrote:
Yes but what you have is useualy people posting the snippets of the article that they want to post. They don't include and probably shouldn't include the context generating part of the article. What people are asking for is a simple introduction to the article ala "A business news website ranked Vienna ahead of Melborne *(quote) I thought it was interesting that they've downgraded the terror threat in the area as an important factor in the ranking for the city.
Instead of a pair of sentences people would rather complain and snark about how hard it is, putting in way more effort then the bare minimum people are asking for.
Some news articles have titles good enough to function as such simple introduction. I think articles like that shouldn't need any additional context or supporting statements because their context is obvious and they provide discussable content. The problems start when instead of short to medium length news articles we get walls of text, random tweets, unsourced stories or articles only pretending to be news. Those were harmful to the thread and I'm glad they're mostly gone.
|
On August 15 2018 05:38 Sermokala wrote:
Yes but what you have is useualy people posting the snippets of the article that they want to post. They don't include and probably shouldn't include the context generating part of the article. What people are asking for is a simple introduction to the article ala "A business news website ranked Vienna ahead of Melborne *(quote) I thought it was interesting that they've downgraded the terror threat in the area as an important factor in the ranking for the city.
Instead of a pair of sentences people would rather complain and snark about how hard it is, putting in way more effort then the bare minimum people are asking for. first, i wouldn't call that a news article but an opinion piece(subjective ranking of ...) so i'd forbid it from the beginning or have another place for it to be posted/discussed(something like a gossips/opinions thread) and second, if i assume(for the sake of the argument) that your example is news, i'd conclude that your problem is with advocacy: using specific snippets from an article to stir it whichever way the quoter desired.
since i don't believe that can be done with a news article, i can't see your point as an actual issue but more as a nuisance/annoyance that appeared because the base/foundation/setting for a proper discussion was lacking.
|
On August 15 2018 07:49 Sermokala wrote:
I don't see any nitpicking going on. One side is asking for a basic level of effort into peoples posts and the other side is complaining that they have to provide that level of effort.
I have never felt the rule was that burdensome. It only takes takes longer to edit out the ad links in the article, tbh.
|
I wish there was a better way to deal with people who show up, post some nonsense for a short bit, fail to address the counterarguments, then just wander off, and will periodically come back in and do it again, possibly on the very same topics.
Not that I can really think of a better way to deal with such.
(this was in response to gotunk that my ire was raised, for reference, though i've seen it occur with several other users over time)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
