Example This sort of thing in GD or GQ - not only can some of us not watch videos at work, but there’s a distinct lack of any effort by the OPs of these type of threads to summarize arguments or points, to make their own case, or often, to give any response to reasonable requests to do so, other than “If you can’t be bothered to watch the video [or, sometimes, read the whole book], I can’t be bothered to make an argument”. That is not only annoying and childish, but also, I believe, completely counter to the spirit of GD and GQ.
I think stuff like this should be modded, and heavily so. OPs should make a case, and when called on it, I think a “watch/read the thing first” answer should at least attract a Mod note, repeated offenses should get the thread shut down.
Note, this doesn’t apply to a scientific/academic citation request being met with an offline or subscription journal reference, sometimes those are the only relevant ones, I’m talking specifically about debate-free threads and obstinate OPs.
And if I ask for a summary, and get “watch it first”? And no, I don’t think I should be *forced *to go off-board, just to participate in a debate on this message board, when the actual debate topic is of interest to me (like the Chinese space program is). I’d be interested in that debate, if the OP could be bothered to actually, you know, make his own points. By now, I’ve gleaned the gist of it - from other sources in that thread. I’ve also watched the video, now. I’m not participating because it’s turned out to be just standard Moon Hoax nuttiness. Something I could have seen in one click, if the OP had summarized the video in the OP.
And that was just one example of many such posts.
As the creator of the thread you are moaning about here, I feel I must defend my actions and the principle itself. The thread title itself was quite specific as to what the content of the thread was going to be. The OP asked a simple question, and gave a youtube link to the subject matter.
It is not up to members to make this board completely user friendly for those who are working. The NSFW tag is a board courtesy for those people, not a right they have. Maybe posts containing video links should have a brief account of what the link is about, but unless I missed it in the rules section, there is nothing stating that a Dope member’s posts have to attain a certain a level of quality.
Maybe we need a sticky with examples of the ideal OP for each forum?
The informal but I think accepted rule of GD is that people shouldn’t have to read or watch material from off-site. It’s the OPs duty to lay out the data as best he can and link to the material simply for the sake of those who are interested in the in-depth view.
I’m not sure I want a rule on this but I would consider it fairly rude and lazy on the part of the OP to not even attempt a cursory summary of what it is we are supposed to watch and why the OP wishes us to express a view on it.
Why accept the material second-hand? Is every person who posts on the Dope meant to have the ability to accurately summarise a video-link or a web page’s contents? If you have given the most basic outline of what it is you are linking to, you’ve given enough information for any potential respondent to decide if they want to invest their time in the subject.
Way to miss the point. I was referring to the fact that citations tend to be read off-board… except when they come from those in the “my post is my cite” camp.
Of course most citations are off-board. I didn’t say “don’t cite” nor did I say “only cite what’s on the board”. I mean really, if it’s so hard for you to summarize something you have seen or read that the idea of having to summarize equates in your mind to, “Oh my god, he’s telling me not to post cites!!1!”, then I would say that you may want to reconsider why you’re on this board. Of course I’m not telling you to refrain from posting cites. Cite away. But, your reader should not have to read your cite to understand your post. He should only need to look at it to confirm what you say.
Yes, yes, I understand what cites are for. And this isn’t about me and my suitability for this message board. Is everybody who joins here to post something, expected to be fully versed in the quirks of this messageboard? Can only those people who have lurked for a sufficient amount of time to have learned the Dope mores, make posts on here?
Alright, it might be deemed a little abrupt for a long-term member to be doing, but nobody is forcing you to take an interest. And if you aren’t even prepared to look at what has prompted the OP or link poster’s question, why should they be obliged to type out a full summary of what it contains?
And if you can’t even be bothered to summarize your own link, to actually talk about the subject in your own words, why should we feel obligated to do it for you?
What are you on about? The point is to throw a subject into the air, and the opinions of the person posting the link aren’t relevant at that stage. When others have the same information as you, then it is time to start discussing the topic in detail and maybe throwing your own opinions into the mix.
Ah, yes. The “look at this interesting video” ploy where, if people support what the video says you get to be at the head of the parade, but if they say “This link is full of ca-ca and so are you” you get to reply back “I said it was interesting-I didn’t say I agreed with it!”. You say that it doesn’t matter what the opinion of the OP is in Great Debates, and that you don’t feel you should have to adapt to the “quirks” of this message board? Please give us a good reason why the posters of this message board should have to adapt to your quirks.
I’m fairly sure there isn’t just me and nilum who have this “quirk”. Anyway, sorry if “quirk” sounds offensive; perhaps I should have used the word “custom” instead?
I don’t mind succinct “Watch this video first” OPs. Sometimes it’s better not to know anything about it (assuming it’s SFW) before seeing it, and then discussion can flow from your and others’ immediate reaction to it. If you can’t watch it at work for technical or workplace-rule reasons, just wait until you get home. No big whoop.
Maybe. But the method is to paste in a link and save yourself the trouble of typing, summarizing, giving your own opinion, or making an argument. It’s easy for you and harder for everyone else.
What makes it much more obnoxious is when you follow up by complaining that other threads got more replies – of course they did, people are put off by blank, bland “follow the link and comment” posts – and then further make the low response level part of your argument. “So that’s all? No one can seriously refute me?” is an obnoxious response from someone who didn’t make an initial post himself.
I agree these OPs suck, but don’t see the need for any kind of moderation about it. I just skip the thread, like I do the vast majority of threads here.