Official forum cop thread

[BrutuStrength]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

This is just my opinion but I think there should but a difference in posting a link to an opinion piece and offering no commentary versus posting a link to news event like the release of a piece of economic data

We enacted the rule because we had numerous instances where people would start threads with nothing more than an article posting. Or they would simply site an article as a means of support for their argument or as a rebuttal to another person's argument.

What you need to realize is that it's not sufficient to simply post an article and expect for people to read it, especially if it's lengthy, and to understand the full point of it's being posted. You might see the article one way, whereas another person might interpret it differently. So if you wanna post an article, then you need to explain it's relevancy. If that proves to be to difficult for you, or is too much of an inconvenience, then you have the option to not post articles.

You can debate this 'til your blue in the face, but it's not likely to change anything. Prof and I have moderated this forum since it's inception, and we feel very strongly that this is an important rule.

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

That's where you're not quite right.

I see him doing that, several times so that to me from perspective ques me in that it's ok.

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/1533308-post27.html

I don't think Sushi should get dinged for that or not be able to post it seeing as to how it's relevant to the thread.

[DaytonBuck]

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

We enacted the rule because we had numerous instances where people would start threads with nothing more than an article posting. Or they would simply site an article as a means of support for their argument or as a rebuttal to another person's argument.

What you need to realize is that it's not sufficient to simply post an article and expect for people to read it, especially if it's lengthy, and to understand the full point of it's being posted. You might see the article one way, whereas another person might interpret it differently. So if you wanna post an article, then you need to explain it's relevancy. If that proves to be to difficult for you, or is too much of an inconvenience, then you have the option to not post articles.

You can debate this 'til your blue in the face, but it's not likely to change anything. Prof and I have moderated this forum since it's inception, and we feel very strongly that this is an important rule.

There's no distinction between posting an article from Huffington Post or Fox News with an opinion on Ted Kennedy versus posting an article saying he's passed away?

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

I see him doing that, several times so that to me from perspective ques me in that it's ok.

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/1533308-post27.html

I don't think Sushi should get dinged for that or not be able to post it seeing as to how it's relevant to the thread.

Have you seen JO do it since a couple days ago? Probably not.

[BrutuStrength]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

JO is posting links all the time and the general acceptance of that from what I can tell. I've seen several that are comment free and it doesn't appear that anyone has told him to stop.

To me this wasn't a right or left issue, just a consistency in the application of the rules

JO's received a warning as well. I've also tried to use dings with reminder comments for posters in the past. That hasn't been working so well lately so we've started to issue actual warnings.

Originally Posted by xcrunner

I actually thought about making a similar post, but then decided that I had changed my mind. If there's a piece of news that you feel worthy to post, you should be able to say why that's newsworthy IMO. So, for example, (not to "call you out" by any means) your "acorn" post could have had any kind of commentary relating how it's inexcusable that taxpayer money goes to fund that kind of action, maybe bring in how stimulus money should be monitored more closely, whatever. That, IMO, would provide for greater discussion.

That's all were looking for. So easy, even Taos could follow this rule.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

Announcement: Poli Forum Season 2009: Things Must Change

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Don't know what you mean, JO... I'm dead serious...

You guys bring them to my attention and I'll go about moderating...

I'll even put "This infraction brought to you by deputy X" if you like.

post #16 is a clear infraction and violation of the rules/guidelines. thats not a hard one.

i appreciate the gpa and the mockery though...

Originally Posted by OSUsushichic

I see what you're saying, but at the same time it seems like a copout when just throwing out a link in response to someone. JO posts a list of links all the time, but what is that supposed to mean as far as what we're discussing? If you want me to read these articles, let me to why you posted it and what is particularly interesting about it.

you mean make a point, toss in a quote from one link, then use a handful of other sources? its called string citing sushi...

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

JO is posting links all the time and the general acceptance of that from what I can tell. I've seen several that are comment free and it doesn't appear that anyone has told him to stop.

To me this wasn't a right or left issue, just a consistency in the application of the rules

sure ive violated that, not debate there. application has been inconsistent, selective, etc for sure, but i violated that rule. then again sometimes how much summary is needed? if all i need is a simple plan statement then fine, i can handle that. even it requires me to regurgitate the text which i have specifically highlighted (rather than just doing the first paragraph like some). its not hard, i can handle doing that.

[BrutuStrength]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

Have you seen JO do it since a couple days ago? Probably not. He knows why.

To be fair he just got his warning yesterday. So he should have proper article postings from around noon forward, yesterday.

[jwinslow]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

JO is posting links all the time and the general acceptance of that from what I can tell. I've seen several that are comment free and it doesn't appear that anyone has told him to stop.

which gets back to the point from the other thread about warnings and infractions being private unless someone posts about them separately.

Then again, it appears your detective work skipped the lengthy exchange JO and others had yesterday about this very topic. I believe its pinned atop this board, or it was recently.

In that exchange, he also makes the mistake of using an example of another divisive post that he assumed was not addressed by a moderator, when in fact it was privately... where a lot of work is done on this site.

[BrutuStrength]

Originally Posted by DaytonBuck

There's no distinction between posting an article from Huffington Post or Fox News with an opinion on Ted Kennedy versus posting an article saying he's passed away?

What distinction is needed? If you want to post an article of any kind, then simply point out it's relevance.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

post #16 is a clear infraction and violation of the rules/guidelines. thats not a hard one.

Why so serious all the time, Jo? Can't you spot a joke when it's blatent?

i appreciate the gpa and the mockery though...

No problem. and I appreciate your steadfast search for bright line rules and strict construction.

[AKAKBUCK]

Well... we could just dust off the PCP and go back to hazing and anarchy.

I mean... if you want your opinions to be stifled... that's really the best way.

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by BrutuStrength

To be fair he just got his warning yesterday. So he should have proper article postings from around noon forward, yesterday.

my infraction
FDIC to borrow $500,000,000,000

FDIC to borrow... 09-09-2009
10:38 AM 09-04-2010
10:38 AM 0 Spammed Advertisements BrutuStrength

[jwinslow]

We're spending an awful lot of time discussing the rule started by the official moderators...

yet very little showing how to moderate the forum your way. Clearly that rule isn't yours or one you embrace readily, so let's hear some of the ways you are going to clean up the forum.

I know JO will offer some. Perhaps he should get to use the brains user title.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Wow... that OSUsushchic sure is a meanie...

[BrutuStrength]

Originally Posted by AKAKBUCK

Well... we could just dust off the PCP and go back to hazing and anarchy.

I mean... if you want your opinions to be stifled... that's really the best way.

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.