Dressing links in N&P

[rhoenix]

Since I saw this discussion going on in the Senate, I wanted to add a few thoughts to this, on both sides of this debate, and then give my opinion on this whole thing, for what its worth.

Quotes:
+ Enclosing a news posting in quote tags allows the article to be read more easily and more distinctly from any commentary a user might leave.
- Any links within the article quoted will not show up easily in quoted text.

Commentary:
+ Requiring a user to add a question for purposes of discussion, or a comment with their thoughts for the same purposes both help start a good discussion or debate, which then helps everyone learn more about the subjects at hand.
- There have been many instances where no commentary was made, but a good discussion arose nonetheless.

Basically, as I see it, the main idea behind both of the ideas above is making sure news articles posted are easy to read, while still making sure that users don't simply act as RSS feeds for the forum. However, given that there are valid exceptions to both of the above, and requiring one or the other seems overly draconian to me with little benefit.

What do you think?

[Phantasee]

I say make them requirements. Three things piss me off when I read N&P: Not quoting the article, putting the article in italics (fuck you Degan ), and not making a comment other than "Posted without comment".

I notice a lot of users seem to be just what you said, RSS feeds for the forum. I don't like that, if you think it's important enough to share, at least state the reason why. Saying you don't have time to post more at the moment is perfectly acceptable, as long as it doesn't turn into a habit of hit-and-run posting, where the user doesn't even go back.

But that's breaking the spirit of the rule, and could be judged as such.

[Havok]

First, this was some what discussed in this thread, http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 24&start=0, initially as a joke but then somewhat seriously.

As far as dressing links and sources, it should be obvious that the links are going to be about the story, but just to keep things uniform and tight, I would agree with it. Quoting the article... I have been under the impression that you were already supposed to do that, and I think that if that is not the case, it should be the rule.

As for the "Posted without comment". That is bullshit. You must have some comment or you wouldn't have found it interesting enough to post. If you really have no comment, then why post at all. Let someone with a comment start the thread. And as far as running out the door posting, this is not a race. Post it when you have time to comment. If it is truly a story that warrants discussion, someone else will post it. You aren't scoring brownie points for doing this, although I think some people think they are.

N&P is constantly being brought up as a forum that needs change, but little seems to get done. Having some rules that don't apply to other forums, (dressing links, required comment) may help enact some of that change and keep the lazier and poorer posters out.

LOL! I didn't dress my link. Irony.

[Stark]

As is obvious, I'm against what Hav calls 'running out the door posting', where someone posts a news story quickly, without any attempt to analyse it, synthesize it with it's context or other news, or even provide context for others. It really seems like people are motivated to 'start the thread' even if they have no thoughts to contribute at all; often the original poster never posts in the thread again. Even worse are the news stories that are very political, which often appear to be posted simply to 'score points' with the appropriate political group here.

The link-dressing is in the FAQ as something that's 'recommended' (or something) but frankly I think it should be a rule, since there's a URL tool in the post window.

If I want meaningless news streamed from cnn.com, I'll start up an RSS client.

[rhoenix]

The "RSS-feed users" have been remarked upon often in the replies so far (and thank you for the replies), so it seems the issues are as follows:

1. People posting "posted without comment" as a post-and-run sort of thing, often never replying again in the thread.
2. Link-dressing.
3. Proper quoting of the article.

My initial disagreement with #1 was because I myself have posted a news article and not posted again in the thread, but in those cases, I was following the subsequent discussion, and didn't see a need to post. However, in those cases, I did include some sort of article commentary.

Thank you for the replies, I withdraw my earlier objections.

[Phantasee]

It's not a problem if the user never posts in the article again, as long as he provided something in his/her OP. That's the minimum we ask for participation in N&P, useless one-liners are split all the time. Posting an article doesn't count as a contribution, you need to write something of your own in it. Otherwise it's a one-liner with a quoted news story attached, nothing else.

[Dominus Atheos]

As is obvious, I'm against what Hav calls 'running out the door posting', where someone posts a news story quickly, without any attempt to analyse it, synthesize it with it's context or other news, or even provide context for others. It really seems like people are motivated to 'start the thread' even if they have no thoughts to contribute at all; often the original poster never posts in the thread again. Even worse are the news stories that are very political, which often appear to be posted simply to 'score points' with the appropriate political group here.

The news stories I post tend to be mostly op/ed pieces, and there's no need for two opinions in one post. If I'm posting it, obviously it matches what I think. Also most of the op/ed pieces I've been posting recently have been pretty unpopular and cause most people to think I'm completely crazy.

But the biggest problem I have with requiring all news stories to have an opinion at the end is: I don't want to see most people's opinions. Most people's opinions are either A: stupid, B: Not well thought out, or C: don't really contribute anything to the discussion. There are already too many people who post their stupid, poorly thought out, me-tooing opinions and I don't want to have to read any more of them then I already do. There are people who realize their opinions won't contribute anything significant to the discussion (myself included) so don't post and just lurk. If you're trying to increase the quality of dialog around here, forcing us to post our opinions probably isn't going to help.

[General Zod]

The news stories I post tend to be mostly op/ed pieces, and there's no need for two opinions in one post. If I'm posting it, obviously it matches what I think. Also most of the op/ed pieces I've been posting recently have been pretty unpopular and cause most people to think I'm completely crazy.

Most op/ed pieces are horribly one-sided. For anyone posting articles that actually have points of contention, having "no comment" equalling "I agree" does not work.

[Dominus Atheos]

The news stories I post tend to be mostly op/ed pieces, and there's no need for two opinions in one post. If I'm posting it, obviously it matches what I think. Also most of the op/ed pieces I've been posting recently have been pretty unpopular and cause most people to think I'm completely crazy.

Most op/ed pieces are horribly one-sided. For anyone posting articles that actually have points of contention, having "no comment" equalling "I agree" does not work.

Often enough, when someone disagrees with the op/ed I post I debate them. What's wrong with that?

[General Zod]

Often enough, when someone disagrees with the op/ed I post I debate them. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with explaining why you agree with them in the opening post instead of hoping people are psychic and somehow manage to guess your reasons for posting the article? It comes off as lazy to not do at least that much.

[Dominus Atheos]

Often enough, when someone disagrees with the op/ed I post I debate them. What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with explaining why you agree with them in the opening post instead of hoping people are psychic and somehow manage to guess your reasons for posting the article? It comes off as lazy to not do at least that much.

What the hell do you mean "why I agree with it"? Obviously I agree with it because I think the facts, explanations, and conclusions are well thought out and all follow logically. Why else would I agree with something?

So what is it you think I should have to do, rewrite the entire article in my own words?

[General Zod]

What the hell do you mean "why I agree with it"? Obviously I agree with it because I think the facts, explanations, and conclusions are well thought out and all follow logically. Why else would I agree with something?

So what is it you think I should have to do, rewrite the entire article in my own words?

Stop being so defensive. Generally, when people want to discuss something they're capable of identifying points of contention within an article that someone might disagree on and explain their reasoning for supporting it; it's hardly asking a huge deal to identify points of contention in order to get a discussion going instead of acting like an echo-chamber for the author. If there are no points of contention then why is the article worth posting at all?

[Dominus Atheos]

What the hell do you mean "why I agree with it"? Obviously I agree with it because I think the facts, explanations, and conclusions are well thought out and all follow logically. Why else would I agree with something?

So what is it you think I should have to do, rewrite the entire article in my own words?

Stop being so defensive. Generally, when people want to discuss something they're capable of identifying points of contention within an article that someone might disagree on and explain their reasoning for supporting it; it's hardly asking a huge deal to identify points of contention in order to get a discussion going instead of acting like an echo-chamber for the author. If there are no points of contention then why is the article worth posting at all?

Because it's interesting and if people read it, they might come to the same conclusions the author came to? That's the reason why I post op/eds, anyway. Starting a discussion is nice, but those usually seems to usually be filled with a bunch of spammy me-to posts and just turn into a circle-jerk. Convincing the reader that the opinion the article is supporting is the right one is much better. Or the result I prefer: Starting a debate about it.

[General Zod]

Because it's interesting and if people read it, they might come to the same conclusions the author came to? That's the reason why I post op/eds, anyway. Starting a discussion is nice, but those usually seems to usually be filled with a bunch of spammy me-to posts and just turn into a circle-jerk.

Posting an article with no opinion except an effective "no comment" is pretty spammy too.

Convincing the reader that the opinion the article is supporting is the right one is much better. Or the result I prefer: Starting a debate about it.

Now you're just splitting hairs. A debate is a discussion according to every reasonable definition of the word.

[Dominus Atheos]

Because it's interesting and if people read it, they might come to the same conclusions the author came to? That's the reason why I post op/eds, anyway. Starting a discussion is nice, but those usually seems to usually be filled with a bunch of spammy me-to posts and just turn into a circle-jerk.

Posting an article with no opinion except an effective "no comment" is pretty spammy too.

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.

Convincing the reader that the opinion the article is supporting is the right one is much better. Or the result I prefer: Starting a debate about it.

Now you're just splitting hairs. A debate is a discussion according to every reasonable definition of the word.

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?

[Havok]

Hey DA, just because you post Op/Eds that you agree with, doesn't mean everyone does. In fact, some people post them because they are exactly the opposite of what they think. However, if you don't post your stance on the article, how the fuck is anyone supposed to know? No one here is a mind reader.

Posting articles with no comment is just fucking lazy. That, or you are afraid to put your own opinion out there because you aren't sure how every one else might feel on the subject, which is just chicken shit.

And this...

But the biggest problem I have with requiring all news stories to have an opinion at the end is: I don't want to see most people's opinions. Most people's opinions are either A: stupid, B: Not well thought out, or C: don't really contribute anything to the discussion. There are already too many people who post their stupid, poorly thought out, me-tooing opinions and I don't want to have to read any more of them then I already do. There are people who realize their opinions won't contribute anything significant to the discussion (myself included) so don't post and just lurk. If you're trying to increase the quality of dialog around here, forcing us to post our opinions probably isn't going to help.

What the fuck are you doing here? Just lurk and contribute nothing then.

[Dominus Atheos]

Hey DA, just because you post Op/Eds that you agree with, doesn't mean everyone does. In fact, some people post them because they are exactly the opposite of what they think. However, if you don't post your stance on the article, how the fuck is anyone supposed to know? No one here is a mind reader.

Posting articles with no comment is just fucking lazy. That, or you are afraid to put your own opinion out there because you aren't sure how every one else might feel on the subject, which is just chicken shit.

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.

And this...

But the biggest problem I have with requiring all news stories to have an opinion at the end is: I don't want to see most people's opinions. Most people's opinions are either A: stupid, B: Not well thought out, or C: don't really contribute anything to the discussion. There are already too many people who post their stupid, poorly thought out, me-tooing opinions and I don't want to have to read any more of them then I already do. There are people who realize their opinions won't contribute anything significant to the discussion (myself included) so don't post and just lurk. If you're trying to increase the quality of dialog around here, forcing us to post our opinions probably isn't going to help.

What the fuck are you doing here? Just lurk and contribute nothing then.

That's pretty much what I do, which is probably my post-rate currently stands at 1.29/day.

[General Zod]

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.

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.

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.

[Rye]

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.

I'd also dispute the requirement to have some banal commentary to post an article. You may have not decided a position on the contents (other than they might be worth knowing) and just want to share with other, more rhetorically adept individuals who want to argue. Is that so bad?

[Stark]

Unless you're the sort of person who reads nothing but SDN, why would you care for someone repeating something from the BBC without even taking five seconds to exert year 3 English stills to create a new thought? As I've said in the Senate thread, there are probably times when this is okay, but blanket acceptance of it flies in the face of the 'mockery of stupid people'. Honestly, it's absolutely nothing but laziness, because even without 'deciding a position' you can with trivial ease either summarise the content, provide brief context (even more relevant on tabloid nonsense) or even rephrase an interesting segment. My real issue with this is simply people taking 'no comment' or other lazy options to avoid demonstrating an opinion they might have to defend, which is most common in political threads (or IvP threads or other contraversial ones).

[Mr Bean]

Also I add to what Stark posted here. If I really wanted to I could build a macro in about two days work that would dig through my RSS feeds and randomly the number one or number four or whatever number story off Google news in about two days work. There already exists such bots who do this with advertisements. I know this because we still ban about two of them a month(On average).

Posting a story with no feedback or comment what-so-ever in my eyes is spam level posting. I'd rather have lets say Patrick Degan post a news piece because I know I'm going to get two or three paragraphs worth of comments on that bit of news minimum VS random poster posting the same bit of news with a no comment throw on. The dressing and the mandatory style changes all feed the same effort. I want to know when I see a new News related post in N&P, that someone took time and effort to write it up and did not simply do a two step copy-paste, copy the body, copy the link from the address bar, boom free +1 post that looks like I give a damn.

[Havok]

On top of that, like I said, we are trying to hold N&P to a higher standard than the rest of the forums. Enacting these changes will make people take it more seriously. That is a step in the right direction.

[rhoenix]

On top of that, like I said, we are trying to hold N&P to a higher standard than the rest of the forums. Enacting these changes will make people take it more seriously. That is a step in the right direction.

This is the point that made me retract my objections above. By requiring a topic of discussion for a posted article, it also forces a discussion to begin in a given thread, rather than allowing one to occur through serendipity. Half the reason I enjoy reading the N&P forum is because of the discussions and debates engendered there.

[RedImperator]

As is obvious, I'm against what Hav calls 'running out the door posting', where someone posts a news story quickly, without any attempt to analyse it, synthesize it with it's context or other news, or even provide context for others.

I'd like this too, but are we actually going to get anything like that, or are we just going to get, "LOL, I agree" and "RARGH! This makes me mad! "? There's nothing in this proposed rule/guideline that I've seen that discourages that.

[Simplicius]

I'd like this too, but are we actually going to get anything like that, or are we just going to get, "LOL, I agree" and "RARGH! This makes me mad! "? There's nothing in this proposed rule/guideline that I've seen that discourages that.

Hence my proposal:

All articles posted must be accompanied, at minimum, by an explanation of why the article was brought to the board's notice. Articles with inadequate explanation will be locked. Repeat offenders may be subject to administrative action.

If you force people to have some sort of opinion when they don't know or can't be arsed to have one, you'll get a lot of shitty opinions just to fill the space. If you force people to justify posting the article in the first place, you'll cut down on actual pointlessness and non-contribution.