Dressing links in N&P

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2009-02-22 03:49pm

Rye wrote:To be honest, I don't really see the point in requiring link dressing for sources with the new auto-shortening. Putting your mouse pointer over the damn thing shows the full link, and unless you're doing some sort of blog post where words link to appropriate sources, it doesn't look unreadable to have "...bbc.co.uk/news/177878.htm" posted after an article.

Yeah, I was under the impression that dressed links were no longer required after the board upgrade.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2009-02-24 08:55pm

General Zod wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote: Maybe there's a different definition of "spam" over there in retard-land. Here in the real world it's what you call a zero effort post that contributes nothing to the discussion. Anything posted in an OP, especially news articles and op/ed pieces, by definition contribute to the discussion, and at least some effort goes into finding and deciding to post things.
I could post dozens of useless OP/ED pieces a day but that doesn't mean I'm actually contributing anything if I can't demonstrate I at least understand why the OP is correct instead of mindlessly agreeing with them.

Why do you need my explanation of why you should agree with it? Are you so stupid you can't read it and formulate your own opinions? Why do you need me to explain it to you?

No, in a debate you argue about things and in a discussion you discuss things. You really don't understand the difference between arguing and discussing? Is there a short bus driver frantically searching for you somewhere?
Unlike you, I apparently know how to use a dictionary.

You notice how debate doesn't just say "see discuss"? That's because a debate and a discussion are not the same thing.

So what do you people to do, post "I agree" or "I disagree" and the end of any op/eds we post? Most people can figure out which way someone stands on the issue by posting history, and I really don't think there's a big problem right now with people being confused about which way someone stands on an issue after they post an article about it. Especially one that requires a rule change.
I'm not going to take the time of digging through someone's posting history if they post an article that might be interesting but I otherwise never read what they write on the board. Based on this I take it you don't actually read a lot of threads here outside of the ones you post in, or you wouldn't have to ask what most people write.

Is your memory so bad you can't keep track of the handful of active N&P posters? The rest of us seem to remember everyone's political positions just fine. Here are some examples: CaptainChewbacca, out of work right-wing geologist who was one of the few board members who voted for McCain. Kamakazie Sith, Utahan police officer who likes to post in threads about some example of police brutality, usually to defend the police officers. Patrick Degan, liberal board member from New Orleans who seems to have one of the strongest loathings for any and all conservatives out of anyone on the board, right up there with Elfdart.

See? Anyone who has been here for more then a few months should be able to remember these things without needing everyone to mention it every time they post an article.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2009-02-24 09:38pm

Dominus Atheos wrote: Why do you need my explanation of why you should agree with it? Are you so stupid you can't read it and formulate your own opinions? Why do you need me to explain it to you?

If I want RSS feeds and an echo chamber I can go to CNN.

You notice how debate doesn't just say "see discuss"? That's because a debate and a discussion are not the same thing.

One is formalized, the other is not. The differences are trivial, if you'd actually bothered reading them.

Is your memory so bad you can't keep track of the handful of active N&P posters? The rest of us seem to remember everyone's political positions just fine. Here are some examples: CaptainChewbacca, out of work right-wing geologist who was one of the few board members who voted for McCain. Kamakazie Sith, Utahan police officer who likes to post in threads about some example of police brutality, usually to defend the police officers. Patrick Degan, liberal board member from New Orleans who seems to have one of the strongest loathings for any and all conservatives out of anyone on the board, right up there with Elfdart.

See? Anyone who has been here for more then a few months should be able to remember these things without needing everyone to mention it every time they post an article.

And for anyone posting anything resembling a real news article instead of mindlessly agreeing with one sided op/eds, those positions are not going to be immediately obvious.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2009-02-24 09:52pm

General Zod wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote: Why do you need my explanation of why you should agree with it? Are you so stupid you can't read it and formulate your own opinions? Why do you need me to explain it to you?
If I want RSS feeds and an echo chamber I can go to CNN.

Have you read the comments on the average CNN article? The reason I read and post articles on this forum is so I can hear some opinions that aren't completely retarded.

Is your memory so bad you can't keep track of the handful of active N&P posters? The rest of us seem to remember everyone's political positions just fine. Here are some examples: CaptainChewbacca, out of work right-wing geologist who was one of the few board members who voted for McCain. Kamakazie Sith, Utahan police officer who likes to post in threads about some example of police brutality, usually to defend the police officers. Patrick Degan, liberal board member from New Orleans who seems to have one of the strongest loathings for any and all conservatives out of anyone on the board, right up there with Elfdart.

See? Anyone who has been here for more then a few months should be able to remember these things without needing everyone to mention it every time they post an article.
And for anyone posting anything resembling a real news article instead of mindlessly agreeing with one sided op/eds, those positions are not going to be immediately obvious.

Why do you assume everyone has to have an opinion on everything before they post it? And even if they do have an opinion, why should they be forced to post it. If the goal is to increase the quality of discourse in N&P, it seems to me like forcing people to post their opinions even when they may not have one or know their opinion isn't worth posing is going to accomplish the opposite of that.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2009-02-24 10:01pm

Dominus Atheos wrote: Why do you assume everyone has to have an opinion on everything before they post it? And even if they do have an opinion, why should they be forced to post it. If the goal is to increase the quality of discourse in N&P, it seems to me like forcing people to post their opinions even when they may not have one or know their opinion isn't worth posing is going to accomplish the opposite of that.

I think this brings things back to some points that were mentioned earlier. If someone really doesn't have an opinion on an article they're posting, then why is it even being posted? If they just want other people's opinions, it'd be hypocritical of me to object to it, but at the very least they could post a quick blurb asking what other people's thoughts were instead of either posting nothing or saying something brain dead like "posted without comment".

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2009-02-24 10:15pm

General Zod wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote: Why do you assume everyone has to have an opinion on everything before they post it? And even if they do have an opinion, why should they be forced to post it. If the goal is to increase the quality of discourse in N&P, it seems to me like forcing people to post their opinions even when they may not have one or know their opinion isn't worth posing is going to accomplish the opposite of that.
I think this brings things back to some points that were mentioned earlier. If someone really doesn't have an opinion on an article they're posting, then why is it even being posted? If they just want other people's opinions, it'd be hypocritical of me to object to it, but at the very least they could post a quick blurb asking what other people's thoughts were instead of either posting nothing or saying something brain dead like "posted without comment".

Fine, from now on everyone should be sure to always post "Thoughts?" after every article they post.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2009-02-24 11:05pm

Dominus Atheos wrote:Fine, from now on everyone should be sure to always post "Thoughts?" after every article they post.

As Zod mentioned above, this skips right back into the "being an overcomplicated RSS feed" problem of earlier, as this doesn't engender any discussion.

If you're posting an article you don't understand all the finer points of, then say so and give the topic of discussion or debate.
If you do understand the finer points of the article being quoted, then the question or topic posited should be all the more compelling for discussion or debate.

Quite honestly, I've read through all your objections to this point, and I don't understand them. As best I interpret, your position is "I don't think we should have to post a question or topic of discussion related to the article quoted because..." and I don't see an underlying actual reason. If you did post it, please quote it or link it, since I don't understand your objection.

Post by **Coyote** » 2009-02-24 11:32pm

DA, what you're advocating is pretty much status quo.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2009-02-24 11:39pm

Coyote wrote:DA, what you're advocating is pretty much status quo.

I'm more then a little confused about what's wrong with the status quo. What are we hoping to accomplish here with this new rule? Is there a problem that it's going to be solving or do we just want to add another barrier to posting in N&P? Are we trying to increase the quality of discourse in N&P, and if so how is this rule supposed to help?

I don't see any problems with the status quo and i don't think this rule is going to do anything but present more barriers to making new threads and so reduce the amount of news that gets posted.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2009-02-24 11:48pm

Dominus Atheos wrote:I'm more then a little confused about what's wrong with the status quo. What are we hoping to accomplish here with this new rule? Is there a problem that it's going to be solving or do we just want to add another barrier to posting in N&P? Are we trying to increase the quality of discourse in N&P, and if so how is this rule supposed to help?

I don't see any problems with the status quo and i don't think this rule is going to do anything but present more barriers to making new threads and so reduce the amount of news that gets posted.

Here's my interpretation - take it for what its worth.

Yes, the mods are trying to improve the quality of discourse in the N&P forum, part of which includes cutting down on "run-away" posts, making news posting more consistent (though personally, I'll still link the URL from within the quote code, but that's just because I type it all by hand), and making news posting of higher quality as well.

The status quo has not been working, as it more often than not led to fights about who was right, rather than what was more correct. With the above rules in place, the hope (and the anticipation) is that N&P will be more biased toward better discussion and debate, which in turn helps everyone learn more.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2009-02-25 12:04am

Here's a good example. It's an article I'm considering posting about the bullshit idea advanced by most of the mainstream media that Obama needs to concentrate on Bipartisanship. It cites several polls done recently showing that the majority of America want Obama to eschew bipartisanship and just go with his own ideas. It then proceeds to explain why America feels that way and links to several mainstream media sources to show that they don't get it and are a bunch if idiots. I can't think of anything I'd like to add to it, since it stands fine on it's own.

So my concerns are:

Under the proposed rule, what would someone have to add after it to not get it locked and punted to testing or HOSed?
How would adding it increase the quality of the thread compared to not posting it?
What would be the problem with just posting that article that requires a rule change?

Until someone can satisfactorily answer those concerns, I think this is a terrible idea. Under the new rule, I'd probably just not post the article since I can't think of anything to add that isn't already in the article. I'm sure there are other people with different articles who will do the same, and the end result is less articles being posted to N&P.

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2009-02-25 12:08am

rhoenix wrote:The status quo has not been working, as it more often than not led to fights about who was right, rather than what was more correct. With the above rules in place, the hope (and the anticipation) is that N&P will be more biased toward better discussion and debate, which in turn helps everyone learn more.

How is this new rule going to accomplish that?
Can you provide some examples of where not having any commentary at the end of the article led to a lower quality of debate compared to if the OP had included some?

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2009-02-25 12:34am

Dominus Atheos wrote:Here's a good example. It's an article I'm considering posting about the bullshit idea advanced by most of the mainstream media that Obama needs to concentrate on Bipartisanship. It cites several polls done recently showing that the majority of America want Obama to eschew bipartisanship and just go with his own ideas. It then proceeds to explain why America feels that way and links to several mainstream media sources to show that they don't get it and are a bunch if idiots. I can't think of anything I'd like to add to it, since it stands fine on it's own.

So my concerns are:

Under the proposed rule, what would someone have to add after it to not get it locked and punted to testing or HOSed?

How would adding it increase the quality of the thread compared to not posting it?

What would be the problem with just posting that article that requires a rule change?
Until someone can satisfactorily answer those concerns, I think this is a terrible idea. Under the new rule, I'd probably just not post the article since I can't think of anything to add that isn't already in the article. I'm sure there are other people with different articles who will do the same, and the end result is less articles being posted to N&P.

First, the caveat - I'm not a mod, nor am I in any way involved with the new rule changes, apart from my posts in this particular forum.

With that said however, I just finished reading the article. And continuing your example, you want to post this in N&P. Ok. Why do you want to post this article? What sort of discussion are you hoping to see or inspire? What debate would you like to see occur as a result of this article being posted at SD.Net's N&P forum?

Dominus Atheos wrote:
rhoenix wrote:The status quo has not been working, as it more often than not led to fights about who was right, rather than what was more correct. With the above rules in place, the hope (and the anticipation) is that N&P will be more biased toward better discussion and debate, which in turn helps everyone learn more.

How is this new rule going to accomplish that?

One of the discussions in the Senate revolved around examples, and the long-time users setting a proper one, even if they're not mods. The idea was to dial down the flamethrowers so that a good grasp of the issue and discussion at hand are gained. If someone decides to parade logical fallacies after or during that, then fine - bring out the bar & grill.

Now, your question was unclear, so I'll answer it with all points I raised in the OP of this topic.

Concerning link dressing: nearly irrelevant with the new forum software, but still a point of courtesy.
Concerning topic content: It would require a valid topic of discussion for each article posted, therefore more naturally inspiring debate and discussion.
Concerning article quoting: This is a purely visual choice; some people find reading an article in a quoted block easier, as they are able to separate consciously the contents of the article from the user here who posted it and added their comments.

[/list]

Dominus Atheos wrote:Can you provide some examples of where not having any commentary at the end of the article led to a lower quality of debate compared to if the OP had included some?

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2009-02-25 01:07am

rhoenix wrote:With that said however, I just finished reading the article. And continuing your example, you want to post this in N&P. Ok. Why do you want to post this article? What sort of discussion are you hoping to see or inspire? What debate would you like to see occur as a result of this article being posted at SD.Net's N&P forum?

There are people on here who still think Obama should pursue bipartisanship. I'd like to convince them otherwise. The more people who think that Obama should reject the republicans, the more likely it is that he will. It may be only a few people, but just like canvasing and voting, every little bit helps. I don't think there's anything I can add to the article that will do that any more then the article itself.

Dominus Atheos wrote:
How is this new rule going to accomplish that?
Concerning topic content: It would require a valid topic of discussion for each article posted, therefore more naturally inspiring debate and discussion.

How? Why would adding my opinion to the end of the article "inspire debate and discussion" versus now? What's wrong with just presenting the article for discussion?

Dominus Atheos wrote:Can you provide some examples of where not having any commentary at the end of the article led to a lower quality of debate compared to if the OP had included some?
...Okay. I clicked on page 5 of N&P to get these. Quite honestly, looking through N&P at the topics with few to no replies reveals about 90% of the posts that lack a topic of discussion.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130983
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130880
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130788
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130593
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130591

Conversely, here are five posts which did have a topic of discussion given (the first three are from page 1, the last two are from page 2):

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=131995
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=131955
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=131857
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=131790
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=131683

Here are 5 topics from page 7 with 5 or less replies that had some form of commentary provided by the poster:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130250
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130140
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130124
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=129989
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130012

So obviously just providing commentary isn't going to magically generate more replies. People respond to topics that interest them. Topics only a few people find interesting aren't going to generate much discussion no matter how much commentary is provided in the OP. Anyway I thought the goal here was to increase the quality of the discussion, not the quantity.

Questor · Post by **Questor** » 2009-02-25 01:11am

Dominus Atheos wrote: There are people on here who still think Obama should pursue bipartisanship. I'd like to convince them otherwise. The more people who think that Obama should reject the republicans, the more likely it is that he will. It may be only a few people, but just like canvasing and voting, every little bit helps. I don't think there's anything I can add to the article that will do that any more then the article itself.

This is exactly what they are saying that you should put in the post. (Well not the last sentence, but the rest.)

Dominus Atheos · Post by **Dominus Atheos** » 2009-02-25 01:18am

Jason L. Miles wrote:
Dominus Atheos wrote: There are people on here who still think Obama should pursue bipartisanship. I'd like to convince them otherwise. The more people who think that Obama should reject the republicans, the more likely it is that he will. It may be only a few people, but just like canvasing and voting, every little bit helps. I don't think there's anything I can add to the article that will do that any more then the article itself.
This is exactly what they are saying that you should put in the post. (Well not the last sentence, but the rest.)

But that's basically just restating the conclusion of the article.

rhoenix · Post by **rhoenix** » 2009-02-25 01:22am

Dominus Atheos wrote:
rhoenix wrote:With that said however, I just finished reading the article. And continuing your example, you want to post this in N&P. Ok. Why do you want to post this article? What sort of discussion are you hoping to see or inspire? What debate would you like to see occur as a result of this article being posted at SD.Net's N&P forum?
There are people on here who still think Obama should pursue bipartisanship. I'd like to convince them otherwise. The more people who think that Obama should reject the republicans, the more likely it is that he will. It may be only a few people, but just like canvasing and voting, every little bit helps. I don't think there's anything I can add to the article that will do that any more then the article itself.

If that's your aim, then simply adding that (or something like it) as commentary toward the end would serve your purposes excellently for the purposes of posting that particular article, and engendering discussion. If the conclusion of the article is what you want to discuss, then say so, and frame the discussion around those lines.

Dominus Atheos wrote:How? Why would adding my opinion to the end of the article "inspire debate and discussion" versus now? What's wrong with just presenting the article for discussion?

Those more closely affiliated with the running of the N&P forum could perhaps give a better answer, but the aim is to give a particular point of an article being posted, to help a discussion begin out of the gate as it were, rather than by happenstance (usually according to whether or not someone posts a poignant point or question regarding said article).

Dominus Atheos wrote:Here are 5 topics from page 7 with 5 or less replies that had some form of commentary provided by the poster:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130250
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130140
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130124
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=129989
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130012

So obviously just providing commentary isn't going to magically generate more replies. People respond to topics that interest them. Topics only a few people find interesting aren't going to generate much discussion no matter how much commentary is provided in the OP. Anyway I thought the goal here was to increase the quality of the discussion, not the quantity.

As for the threads you linked to, only the third doesn't really have any discussion. The others you posted had at least some discussion and content, rather than pithy one-liners.

As I understood it, the idea was to increase the quantity as a result of increasing the quality of posting with these new proposed rules.

You are also correct in that people won't read or post in articles that don't scratch their particular intellectual itch, and that's going to be true no matter what the rules are.

However, for the posts that will engender a discussion, adding a topic of discussion will usually begin one more immediately than waiting for another user to do so, no matter the interest level. It also shows an intrinsic interest of the subject matter by the user posting it, and if the OP shows more interest in the subject, then it'll therefore be more likely to generate replies. And this was the main point of the proposed rules in N&P going into effect.

Post by **Simplicius** » 2009-02-25 11:52am

Dominus Atheos wrote:But that's basically just restating the conclusion of the article.

Right. However, people can't engage the article here, nor its author. By explicitly taking on the article's opinion as your own and stating your reasons why, you become the proxy that others can engage if they have points of disagreement, and you can respond. Simply posting the article sans comment removes an easy toehold for discussion or debate because they have no-one to directly address on the issue. "Here's an op/ed; the ball is in your court to make something of it" is less conducive to debate than "This op/ed reflects my opinion and I mean to make it your opinion as well."

Post by **Coyote** » 2009-02-25 12:42pm

There are all sorts of ways a piece can be relevent-- after all, if someone is going to post something, and draw our time & attention to something, it is useful to know why.

You may post something you disagree with and point it out as an alarming trend. For better or worse, the "Obama Monkey cartoon" did that, and certainly engendered some discussion.

Or you may see a news item that strikes you as interesting, but you're not sure what to make of it and ask others for insight, or if they know something about it that your news source isn't covering. Recent Israeli elections, for example. Or foreigners asking about the recent US elections as they were going on.

You can post something and say "I'm not sure about this, is it stupid or is there a good reason to it I'm just not seeing?" Give us a reason why it is worth our attention-- and commentary.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2009-02-28 06:01am

I suggest in light of the sample "commentary" offered in this thread by supporters that this be named the "mandatory one liner ending" rule for N&P posts...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2009-03-16 06:14pm

Honestly, one of the main reasons I come to SD.net is because I can count on N&P serving as an RSS feed for me for all the interesting articles I'd actually want to read with very few I don't care about.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P

Re: Dressing links in N&P