N&P Rules change purposal.

[Mr Bean]

This has been a long time sticking point for me but it's plain and simple request.

News & Politics is a Forum for discussion, most of that discussion is generated based on news story's posted.
Not all opening posts are created equal.
I will use the following two posts to compare

First here's KrauserKrauser post about the Late Night Stimulus discussions where he not only dressed his links, he put in a few words on where he was on the issue, posted two sources in case people thought Human Events was to biased. The only thing I'd say would get better is instead of dressing your links with "Link" dressing them with name of the Source your quoting(Human events and Slate respectively)

On the flip side we have the near worst of the lot Kanastrous post about Martyr posters Link is not dressed, no comments to lead into discussion the story is not quoted. About the only good thing Kanastrous did he was include the picture so we could see the posters the story refers to.

As you might note, one story went nowhere and one story lead into fiery debate. One might argue one story was much more interesting then the other but I think it goes deeper to the fact that simply put a story "posted without comment" has no purposes, in our secondary example did not even have words t that affect. I hasten to aid I'm not picking out Kanastrous for special treatment here as there are half a dozen people who do this such as MKSheppard and people who used to do it like Ray245 and Shroom.

It is expected but its not a requirement.


I would like to make it a requirement.

[Mr Bean]

Here is what I purpose is "required" for posting stories in N&P

------------------------
BBC

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has arrived in Beijing for wide-ranging talks with China's leaders.

Topics for discussion are expected to include the economy, human rights, climate change and North Korea.

Mrs Clinton is on the final leg of her inaugural Asian tour, which has included visits to Indonesia, Japan and South Korea.

Speaking earlier in Seoul, she urged North Korea to holds talks with the South and end its nuclear ambitions.

The BBC's James Reynolds, in Beijing, says people are waiting to see if Mrs Clinton will publicly raise the thorny issue of human rights.


Reynolds' blog: Clinton's agenda
In the past, US officials have kept discussions on the topic behind closed doors, for fear of embarrassing their hosts.

However, Mrs Clinton openly criticised Beijing's record on women's rights when she visited China in 1995, during the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton.

Our correspondent says it remains to be seen if her new role will mean a change of tone.

Exports concern

On the economy, Mrs Clinton is expected to raise US concerns that China has artificially lowered the value of its currency to gain an advantage in exports to the US - its biggest market.

Also of concern to the new US administration of President Barack Obama are figures showing that China has become the world's largest single producer of carbon emissions.

Beijing says that as a developing nation, it cannot accept a cap on its emissions.

The outcome of talks between Chinese leaders on one hand and Mrs Clinton and US Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern on the other, could affect the outcome of December's UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

An undated North Korean missile test (image released 5 January)
The visit comes amid speculation North Korea is to test-fire another missile
Mrs Clinton is also due to discuss North Korea and attempts to get six-party talks on the North's nuclear programme back on track.

China is seen as Pyongyang's closest ally and the country most likely to influence the hard-line communist country's rulers.

Speaking in the South Korean capital, Seoul, she said the North should follow through on its commitment to get rid of its nuclear programme.

She said that South Korea's prosperity and democracy stood in stark contrast to "the tyranny and poverty across the border to the North".

"North Korea is not going to get a different relationship with the United States while insulting and refusing dialogue with the Republic of Korea," she said.

Shi Yinhong, Professor of International Relations at the People's University in Beijing, said that the two sides won't make demands on the other over conflicting issues but there will be discussions on differences.

"Both sides are prepared for this," he said. "The US's eager attitude to reduce the global economic difficulties and tackle global climate change issues will leave an impression on China but as to what measures China will take, that cannot be decided in one meeting."

Secretary of State Clinton is already on the record for saying that China's human rights violations are "not worth talking about". Cynics question, is this a new period of openness between America and China? Or the simple acceptance that China holds an economic gun to our heads thanks to massive amount of borrowing from them?
------------------------------------------

The requirements are thus, the Story itself be put in quote tags, the Link to the story source be dressed and have an identifier as which news service or blog or plumber is reporting the news, and the thread itself contain some sort of leading question or at very least comment on the news story itself.

[Coyote]

If it's interesting enough to post, then it should be interesting enough to have an opinion on.

Even saying "I'm not sure how to feel about this issue; on one there's X and on the other hand there's Y" which doesn't commit one to a course of action, but at least gets a ball rolling.

Otherwise, we're just mirroring any random news site or blog.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I agree with the thought that we ought to add a requirement that stories in N&P be posted with some sort of meaningful commentary. "Posted without comment" strikes me as either being intellectually lazy at the absolute best, and an attempt at dishonesty or a downright troll at the worst.

[RedImperator]

I agree with the thought that we ought to add a requirement that stories in N&P be posted with some sort of meaningful commentary. "Posted without comment" strikes me as either being intellectually lazy at the absolute best, and an attempt at dishonesty or a downright troll at the worst.

Um...couldn't it also mean, "I found this article interesting, but at the moment I have no comment that adds anything in particular?" I don't see how "I agree with this article" or "I thought this article was interesting" adds that much more than "posted without comment". And that's mostly what you'd get.

On the other hand, I agree with the suggested format and the dressed link requirement.

[Surlethe]

"Posted without comment" strikes me as either being intellectually lazy at the absolute best, and an attempt at dishonesty or a downright troll at the worst.

I'm with RedImperator here. I really don't see how "posted without comment" by itself smacks of dishonesty or trolling. At worst, it's intellectual laziness; at best, it's simply an article posted right before running out the door.

[Mr Bean]

"Posted without comment" strikes me as either being intellectually lazy at the absolute best, and an attempt at dishonesty or a downright troll at the worst.

I'm with RedImperator here. I really don't see how "posted without comment" by itself smacks of dishonesty or trolling. At worst, it's intellectual laziness; at best, it's simply an article posted right before running out the door.

Why post at all then? Why not wait till you get back? Why not say "I'm running out the door, more when I get back"?

Posts to N&P are for the purposes of discussion not unofficial post count inflation.

[Simplicius]

I am in favor of codifying the N&P style as far as citing and formatting are concerned.

I'm against "Posted without comment," whether it is replaced by mandatory commenting or article-only posts. As is see it, saying "posted without comment" happens for one of four reasons:

1.) The poster has no opinion or question.
2.) The poster has opinions on the article but can't state them for reasons of professional conflict or obligation (anyone on active duty in the US military springs to mind).
3.) The poster has no opinion but wants to cloak this fact in an air of mystery.
4.) The poster doesn't want to make his opinion known until the tenor of the discussion is determined, and then jump on a bandwagon.

That gives us redundancy, necessity, posturing, and wussiness respectively. Of them, only #2 can be said to make a contribution in any way, and even then only as a hint that the article is important enough to read even if the poster isn't allowed to say why. In all other cases, "Posted without comment" might as well be excised.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Well that would definatly put a damper on people posting Onion articles in N&P. Which would be a good thing. Personally I'm tired of folks posting Lil Green Fascists or Faux as an acceptable news source....

[CmdrWilkens]

1.) The poster has no opinion or question.
2.) The poster has opinions on the article but can't state them for reasons of professional conflict or obligation (anyone on active duty in the US military springs to mind).
3.) The poster has no opinion but wants to cloak this fact in an air of mystery.
4.) The poster doesn't want to make his opinion known until the tenor of the discussion is determined, and then jump on a bandwagon.

Amongst that group I would hold that #1 and #2 can be valid. A person is certianly free to find an article of interest, or thinks that an article woudl be of interest to the baord without neccesarrily having an opinion or comment about it. I'm just not sure how many 1s and 2s there are versus 3s and 4s.

I would concur about setting a standard for formatting news stories because when they are not quoted or when they are presented wall of text style it just hurts my eyeballs.

[Stark]

I feel pretty strongly on this issue, but others have raised fair criticisms regarding enforcement practicality. Thus, if not a rule that is in force all the time, perhaps as the 'dressing links' etc is moved from FAQ to rules the issue of actually having a goddamn thought in your head should make it's way to the FAQ. In this way it's considered positive and important without entailing punishment for the scenarios where it really isn't a problem. I feel the situations where people are egregiously slacking in this area are very obvious and a simple mention in the FAQ of this level of discourse would be helpful.

Trying to 'clean up' N&P and raise the level of discussion and reduce spam would seem to be served by all of these changes. Perhaps we should vote on the style-based changes separately?

[Mr Bean]

Aside
As far as enforcement goes I see it handled the same way a VS is handled if no information or conditions are provided, X VS Y and no one has any idea who X are Y are. A simple lock to the N&P post with a "try again" message.

[Simplicius]

Amongst that group I would hold that #1 and #2 can be valid. A person is certianly free to find an article of interest, or thinks that an article woudl be of interest to the baord without neccesarrily having an opinion or comment about it. I'm just not sure how many 1s and 2s there are versus 3s and 4s.

Hence why I described #1 as merely redundant. I suppose a comment along the lines of "This is about an issue of interest to the board, even though it is one I don't personally follow" would make it clear that we're not dealing with drive-by posts or RSS spambot types. However, that takes us back to asking for something of more substance than just "Posted without comment."

I feel pretty strongly on this issue, but others have raised fair criticisms regarding enforcement practicality. Thus, if not a rule that is in force all the time [etc.]

I propose the following rule:

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.

It requires posters to 1.) Be able to read and synthesize news articles; 2.) Be N&P-savvy enough to know what is on the radar, or ought to be; 3.) Be able to make the basic connection between the article and the forum. It also gives moderators the discretion to determine adequacy, and gives full flexibility when it comes to applying discipline. It is also a clear, enforceable standard that holds people to a basic level of thoughtfulness without barring people who follow the news but don't closely follow some issues from contributing.

A note in the FAQ about standards of quality would also be a good thing, but if we want to give the moderators a way to nudge us closer to that quality, I suggest this is it. What say ye?

Perhaps we should vote on the style-based changes separately?

I think this is a good idea, especially since if we do generate a rule about article-posting, it might as well be a board rule to keep the standards consistent and to keep the careless article-posters from sneaking off into OT. That should naturally have its own discussion and vote.

[CmdrWilkens]

If we are making rules then we need a vote. For style based changes I would tend to defer to the forum mods. They retain a great deal of leeway in determining style within their scope of moderation. In other words if we are going to make "post with a comment" a rule that can resutl in administrative action then I think we need a vote. If we are talking abotu proper quoting and dressing of links then I think that is something which the forum mods should handle without the Senate being anything other than advisory.

[Stark]

Can we update the rules/FAQs without a vote? Leaving it to the mods is probably best, but the changes need to be communicated and placed in a public area.

[CmdrWilkens]

Can we update the rules/FAQs without a vote? Leaving it to the mods is probably best, but the changes need to be communicated and placed in a public area.

Let me first be clear that this is as I understand things:

Board policy is subject to change at Imperial/Admin whim and vote of the Senate
Forum-specific rules are subject to change at the hand of the relevant Mods (or a vote of the Senate)

So yes the N&P FAQ/rules could be updated without a formal Senate vote but that would be for the 4 mods to decide.

[Stark]

Thank you, I'm not really clear on that myself. If it's possible to implement an N&P policy with the simple agreement of the mods involved, that's at absolute worst a useful trial run and potentially a great way to 'test' such changes.

[Alyeska]

Seeing as Mike himself commented the link dressing was no longer required with a board update.

Link

Long links are auto shrunk. I think that link dressing should be encouraged, but not mandated. Quoting the article and posting commentary is the most important improvement.

[Mr Bean]

Seeing as Mike himself commented the link dressing was no longer required with a board update.

Link

Long links are auto shrunk. I think that link dressing should be encouraged, but not mandated. Quoting the article and posting commentary is the most important improvement.

I intend and purpose to hold N&P to a higher standard. Link dressing is not required, Quoting the story is not required. Nothing is required except linking the original story.

But the entire point of this suggestion is to create a new higher N&P specific standard. Link dressing goes along with that.

[Coyote]

One thing I always try to do is put the title of the news source in the first sentence, or as part of the dressed link. Saying "it's here at MSNBC" or "I found this at CNN" tells people from the start that it's not just some dude's blog or an opportunist's rant or tabloid. Would requiring something like that be too 'down in the weeds' and nitpicky, or should we ask people to identify up fron where the post is coming from?

[Mr Bean]

One thing I always try to do is put the title of the news source in the first sentence, or as part of the dressed link. Saying "it's here at MSNBC" or "I found this at CNN" tells people from the start that it's not just some dude's blog or an opportunist's rant or tabloid. Would requiring something like that be too 'down in the weeds' and nitpicky, or should we ask people to identify up fron where the post is coming from?

That's what I aim to do with requiring links to be dressed with the source name.

Bad
http://uk.reuters.com/article/stocksAnd ... 0Y20090223

Useless
Linky

Good
Reuters

Same story three different times but the third link makes the source obvious at glance.

[Alyeska]

Seeing as Mike himself commented the link dressing was no longer required with a board update.

Link

Long links are auto shrunk. I think that link dressing should be encouraged, but not mandated. Quoting the article and posting commentary is the most important improvement.

I intend and purpose to hold N&P to a higher standard. Link dressing is not required, Quoting the story is not required. Nothing is required except linking the original story.

But the entire point of this suggestion is to create a new higher N&P specific standard. Link dressing goes along with that.

I can agree to link dressing, to a point. Requiring people to detail the source in the link dress should not be necessary. They will quote the source and link to it. If people wish to verify they can click the link or put the mouse over it to check the destination. Its nice to dress the link with the source, but unnecessary in my book. What if they acknowledge the source in the quote itself? You know,

or some such. Be a little flexible on link dressing.

[Mr Bean]

Do we have any further discussion before I ask this be taken to a vote?

[CmdrWilkens]

Do we have any further discussion before I ask this be taken to a vote?

- Well we haven't heard from any of the actual N&P mods. Its no requirement but I would prefer if we had some input from them.

- If you do wish to motion for a vote please ensure that the motion makes clear the language to be used in the N&P Forum Policy.

[Keevan_Colton]

Right, you want to hear from a N&P mod...

Hooray, more fucking rules to "increase post quality".

Have you had a look at the house of commons thread on this proposal? Take a look at the sample "comments" offered up over there. They're fucking abysmal and would add fuck all to an opening post for a thread, hence my "Mandatory one liner ending" suggestion for a name for this proposal, and dont just say "the rule will say it cant just be a pointless one liner" because honestly that wont fucking help...anal retentive bitching over the particular format of a link is almost as much fun to watch as the attempts at coming up with sample "commentary".

How about if you really, really want a place where everyone conforms to a rigid stylesheet and posts only what you consider to be quality material you go found a place where you pay everyone for their content and have an editorial staff to filter the incoming material? The domain name bbc.co.uk is already taken though...

Honestly, what the fuck is this really going to achieve?