# Could we get a ruling against "watch this vid first" OPs? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [June 18, 2010, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657 "2010-06-18T08:10:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/21 "2010-06-18T12:44:32Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > 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. If you don’t care enough about your topic to summarize your opinion, how to do expect others to care enough to respond? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/22 "2010-06-18T12:47:00Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > 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. How hard is it to click a link? > [@Sailboat](#): > > 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 – That was humour. Don’t worry, it often goes over a few people’s heads. > [@Sailboat](#): > > 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. > . Obnoxious? Exaggerate much? ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/23 "2010-06-18T12:48:48Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > If you don’t care enough about your topic to summarize your opinion, how to do expect others to care enough to respond? Again, my opinion is really only of relevance once someone else has seen the link to counter it. ---
**Author:** ![MTCicero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a4c791/32.png) [@MTCicero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MTCicero)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/24 "2010-06-18T12:52:30Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > [Example](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=533623) 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. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/25 "2010-06-18T12:52:52Z")
I don’t see what the problem is, to be honest. I’ve seen threads with a link to some off-site news article and the only text present is a sarcastic quip and an eyeroll emoticon. This baaaaawing is unnecessary. It’s not like the site is swamped with threads linking to videos. Take [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=567583) thread. The OP didn’t explain anything at all. Given his post I wouldn’t know what the thread is about. Should I get butthurt because Facebook is blocked at my work or whatever? No. I close the thread, move onto the next one and if I’m really interested I’ll check it out when I get home. I’m with **ivan** on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/26 "2010-06-18T12:57:12Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Again, my opinion is really only of relevance once someone else has seen the link to counter it. Why should I care enough to click on your link if you don’t care enough to sell it? I am much less likely to participate in a thread that nothing more than a link and an ambiguous “What do you think?” It is just a lazy OP, a desperate plea for attention, akin to a post padding thread. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/27 "2010-06-18T13:03:13Z")
A plea for attention? Are you real, or what? And if I “post-padded”, my post count would be in the double thousand figure ballpark. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/28 "2010-06-18T13:03:45Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > 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. Because even a brief summary of this one, for example, would have told me enough about it to decide “Do I want to waste my time watching it, or not”. I never watched it, for the simple reason that I _ **assumed** _ it was just typical CT nuttyness that I didn’t want to bother with at the time. As it turns out, the people who went to see it confirmed my assumption. But what if I had been wrong and it would have been more interesting than what I spent my time on instead? A brief summary might have told me that. A “watch this and comment” certainly didn’t. It left me with no choice but to make my original assumption. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/29 "2010-06-18T13:09:18Z")
So, let me get this straight. If I link to a TED talk on human consciousness, and ask if the facts within it are verifiable, my own opinion on the subject matter is as relevant as the contents of the link? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/30 "2010-06-18T13:13:34Z")
I at least expect you to summarize the facts in question. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/31 "2010-06-18T13:15:10Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > So, let me get this straight. If I link to a TED talk on human consciousness, and ask if the facts within it are verifiable, my own opinion on the subject matter is as relevant as the contents of the link? A) A summarization of the video is not “your opinion” of it. People have no reason to give a rat’s ass about what’s in your video if they have no idea what’s in the video. If you don’t give a rat’s ass about your own video to even give an outline of it, why should they feel that it’s worth their time either? B) It’s a discussion. If you’re interested in discussing, then why _wouldn’t_ you say anything about the topic? Generally, only because you don’t want to admit that you’ve bought into teh stupid. Learn to man up. Or, if you watch a video and realize that it’s almost certainly stupid and wrong, but that you aren’t technically knowledgeable enough to point out quite why, then just say as much. “Hey, I saw this video. It says X, Y, and Z. It sounds like stupid conspiracy shit but I don’t know enough to show exactly why it’s stupid.” ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/32 "2010-06-18T13:16:44Z")
I flat out won’t watch a video or follow a link that doesn’t tell me what I am going to see. And not just “youtube video”, I’d like to know if it’s even worth my time. But I agree there’s no need for moderation. I’ll just ignore the thread and move on. Quite honestly if it’s not worth your time to post at least a little summary, it ain’t worth my time. In that link this is how you can say it without prejudging: “In this video X, Y, and Z claims are made. I’ve looked around and while I see X & Y claims have plenty of substance, Z seems to be a bit dubious. The video is X minutes long and the most relevant part starts at \_\_\_\_. Does anyone want to counter the claims in this video?” If you’ve watched it you can at least be arsed to tell us why you care! ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/33 "2010-06-18T13:18:11Z")
So, if the subject matter is a technical discussion involving terms an OP or poster isn’t even familiar with, they are expected to transcribe the points involved into their own words, yes? ---
**Author:** ![6ImpossibleThingsB4Breakfast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/6/e19adc/32.png) [@6ImpossibleThingsB4Breakfast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/6ImpossibleThingsB4Breakfast)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/34 "2010-06-18T13:21:04Z")
**Mr Dribble** , I think that when one is at work, one should be _working_, Sir. ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/35 "2010-06-18T13:22:43Z")
If the OP doesn’t understand the discussion, why the fuck would he (sic) be linking to it? To ask for clarification? Then the OP can state “This is interesting, but I don’t understand X, can someone explain it?” Oh, wait, that’s saying something about what the link is and what your own reaction to it is, which you’ve ruled out. My bad. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/36 "2010-06-18T14:03:17Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I’m fairly sure there isn’t just me and **nilum** who have this “quirk”. This, at least, is true. Most of the 9/11 conspiracy nuts that show up here seem to display it as well. ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/37 "2010-06-18T14:20:56Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > 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. I don’t believe this is true. I’m pretty sure repeated linking to NSFW material without a warning tag (or more prefferably breaking the link) will result in at least a warning. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/38 "2010-06-18T14:29:26Z")
We do sometimes shut down threads where there’s just a link and a “hey, look at this,” but it’s not common. This is more of an etiquette thing than a moderation issue. Cites are supposed to bolster your arguments, not make them for you, and asking people to watch a long video is kind of a pain compared to a text site they can read in a more leisurely way. It’s something people should keep in mind when trying to start a thread but I don’t think it needs to be a rule. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/39 "2010-06-18T14:45:31Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > 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. No big whoop until people respond and ask the OPs opinion and they won’t give it as **Czarcasm** pointed out. I agree if the OP of those types of threads can’t be bothered to weigh in or at least briefly summarize the thread should be heavily modded. Though not specifically the type of thread mentioned in this OP, the cattle muttes and the (lack of) discussion about UFO’s and the National Security State. vol1 spring to mind regarding this type of behaviour. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/40 "2010-06-18T15:09:31Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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? This is how I feel on the topic. If there is no summary I’ll just close the thread and move on. If notice a trend of this from a particular poster then I just stop opening any threads they start as it’s just a waste of my time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657.md?page=3)