# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/41 "2010-06-18T15:15:38Z")
2 cents adjusted for inflation. I don’t think one should HAVE to choose a “side”. Maybe you don’t really have a side. Maybe you do, but you’d rather not put notions into other peoples heads before they start discussing it. Maybe you just want to hear what others think and think it would make for an interesting discussion.But damn, as others have said, give a personal summary of what they heck is going on with the link you have provided. Unless I am pretty bored, I generally don’t click on a link that doesnt include some background info. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/42 "2010-06-18T16:05:09Z")
I’m not asking for the OP’s opinion on the link, necessarily, but a summary of what the vid is about, its main facts, would be nice. And stubbornly refusing to do that even later in the thread is being a jerk, IMO. GD _and_ GQ thread openers should have more substance. And I never said _I_ was at work. I was using the inclusive “some of us”. _I_ can watch vids just fine, I choose not to, when there’s no more data. It’s like all those youtube links that say “here” or “this” in CS threads (which I’ve pitted before) ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/43 "2010-06-18T16:13:17Z")
> [@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:** ![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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/44 "2010-06-18T16:18:18Z")
What, you think it “should be modded, and heavily so”? Really? At the first instance, or would you give some leeway on how the modding was approached, dependent on the severity of the misdemeanor? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/45 "2010-06-18T16:43:50Z")
I don’t think moderatorial action is necessary, here. This sort of thing is self-policing: If someone posts a bare link to a video with no commentary, then people will decide to not bother watching it all by themselves. We don’t need the moderators to tell us not to do what we never had any reason to do in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/46 "2010-06-18T17:01:57Z")
I’m commenting mainly because the OP mentioned GQ. I have to say I can’t recall seeing recent examples of this sort of thing in GQ. However, if someone made a frequent practice of linking to videos and posting nothing more than “Please explain this” as an OP, I’d be inclined to discourage it. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/47 "2010-06-18T20:45:20Z")
As noted above, it’s an etiquette thing more than a mod thing – but ISTM that mods do more than just enforce the bare, hard line rules. They occasionally use their discretion to keep discussions on track and reinforce broad board norms via notes and suggestions (the ‘no warning issued’ type posts). This, of course, often results in apoplectic fits in ATMB (mostly from posters who can’t understand why complaints about moderation were moved from the Pit). While it’s a rule not to post open NSFW links, it’s simple etiquette (in general or as particularly evolved here) on the boards to not post open spoilers, to post a link to the subject of a intra-board pitting, and to post a bit about what you’re linking to. In some cases, OMG DEVO IS BACK (link) is sufficient to let anyone know the basics of what’s behind the link (note, Rickrolling is/was frowned upon). Many IMHO and MPSIMS links are similar. But even the biggest news stories linked to in GQ or GD should get a cursory description of the subject. Most threads that do so have _someone_ within five or ten posts asking what’s there, and then someone inevitably and kindly tells them what it is. Not doing so, and being aware of the general culture of providing a basic explanation, is rudeness that doesn’t quite rise to the level of jerkdome, but is rude nonetheless. It’s especially rude posting knowing that someone else will come along and do the summation for you. In contrast, however, posting links to multi-volume works and refusing to debate until other posters have read the books and the extensive library of linked analysis of the work is a welcome addition to the board. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/48 "2010-06-18T20:46:07Z")
[speaking as a GQ mod] In the General Questions forum, we look for clear questions with factual answers. A link to a video with “what do you think of this?” or “can you refute this?” doesn’t fit well, and will probably either be shuffled off to another forum or closed. On the other hand, a link to a video saying, “how is this done?” would be a good GQ, as long as there’s a brief summary of what the video is about and it’s clear that the link is a video. [speaking as a regular poster] When I see a thread like the linked in the OP, my first thought is, “he doesn’t care enough about the subject to formulate a question or an opinion, so why should I care about it?” I’ll participate in threads where someone says, “This video shows a new bird feeder that uses robot-controlled mini-tasers to take down squirrels attempting to eat the birdseed. Personally, I think it’s cool, but cruel. I’d prefer to discourage the squirrels by squirting water in their faces.” I won’t be the slightest interested if it has a video link and says, “What do you think?” If you want to get a conversation going, show some initiative and start the conversation. Otherwise, a lot of people will write you off from word 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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/49 "2010-06-18T20:48:28Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:48, topic:543657”] When I see a thread like the linked in the OP, my first thought is, “he doesn’t care enough about the subject to formulate a question or an opinion, so why should I care about it?” I’ll participate in threads where someone says, “This video shows a new bird feeder that uses robot-controlled mini-tasers to take down squirrels attempting to eat the birdseed. Personally, I think it’s cool, but cruel. I’d prefer to discourage the squirrels by squirting water in their faces.” I won’t be the slightest interested if it has a video link and says, “What do you think?” If you want to get a conversation going, show some initiative and start the conversation. Otherwise, a lot of people will write you off from word one. [/quote] Well put. Nothing is too cruel for those squirrels. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/50 "2010-06-18T21:07:48Z")
Even if he were to provide a summary, all people would have done was bitch about and nitpick the summary anyway. The thread title says what the video is about, so everybody knows what they’re clicking on. It’s not like there was a thread called “Tell me what you think” whose OP contained nothing but a YouTube link. ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/51 "2010-06-18T21:14:34Z")
Exactly my opinion. If you are genuinely interested and have got a point to make, raise it and I’ll give my opinion on it, but I’m not going to give anyone the opportunity to start pointing out their perceived faults in my interpretation and summarising. Cut out the middleman, go to the source, and stop thinking about shooting the messenger. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/52 "2010-06-18T21:19:15Z")
I think ivan’s OP made the bare minimum for the request. He posted the topic: > [@](#): > > Did China fake a space shuttle expedition? He stated a question: > [@](#): > > Does anyone want to counter the claims in this youtube video? He included the video link, which makes the claims he wants refuted. Now because he won’t bother to attempt to summarize the claims, nobody feels particularly motivated to spend time refuting them in depth. But I don’t think there was anything deserving of a rule to that. The followup: he posts that nobody is reading his thread. Well, you didn’t give them a reason to care, did you? Then he gets three or four mild responses that don’t go into any depth. So he complains that nobody is taking it seriously. Well, you didn’t take your OP seriously enough to spend much time on it, why should responders spend time on a detailed response? You asked a question: “Does anybody want to refute the claims?” You got an answer: “Not really. There’s nothing there of any merit.” It’s not until post 11 that you start to ask any detailed questions for people to assess for you. So, should it be **required** to post more? No, but at the same time, nobody is **required** to give a care about your post, or respond, either. If you want to get a discussion going, you should start with some discussion. **Sailboat** said: > [@](#): > > “So that’s all? No one can seriously refute me?” is an obnoxious response from someone who didn’t make an initial post himself. Agreed. **ivan astikov** said: > [@](#): > > Obnoxious? Exaggerate much? How strong a word is “obnoxious”? Is there a scale of obnoxiousness, or is obnoxious only allowed above a certain level? What is the means of measure? It is a bit annoying. You asked “Does anyone _want_ to refute this?” Then when the answer is “Not really,” you reply, “So nobody _can_ refute this?” :rolleyes: Then someone posts a couple links to other people who did spend time refuting the claims, and your response is to cite some goober whose rebuttal consists of “Given the level of digital technology, nobody can refute it, and the Chinese government has an incentive to fake it, so they must have. You can’t prove me wrong.” :rolleyes::rolleyes: ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/53 "2010-06-18T21:26:15Z")
I wasn’t saying “you can’t prove me wrong” — that was you. I was saying that an appeal to authority - ie. **Stranger On A Train** ( “Hey, he’s a rocket scientist!” ) - is not exactly a solid refuttal. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/54 "2010-06-18T21:39:35Z")
> [@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. YES! I join in fully and concur on all points, and I’d extend it to all forums. If it’s worth starting a thread about, it’s worth spending a few minutes composing a summary of the linked video/article/whatever, and either asking a question, taking a position, or otherwise having something to say. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/55 "2010-06-18T21:53:37Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Exactly my opinion. If you are genuinely interested and have got a point to make, raise it and I’ll give my opinion on it, but I’m not going to give anyone the opportunity to start pointing out their perceived faults in my interpretation and summarising. > > Cut out the middleman, go to the source, and stop thinking about shooting the messenger. So basically you’re saying, “I’m going to start a thread to get other people’s opinions, but I’m not going to state my own because people might disagree with me.” If you want a discussion, **Ivan** , then _discuss_! Participate. Go out on a limb and say what you think. Pick something you’re passionate about – or at least interested enough in to have an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/56 "2010-06-18T22:14:22Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > 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. You aren’t being :“forced” to do anything. You do not have to respond to every question on the board. If an OP puts up a video, you have the right to not bother responding. You do not have the right to tell the OP that they have to do something for you. If the people on the board don’t like a certain thing, they can just not respond to it. No need to get the moderators involved to enforce your opinion of what should happen. There’s no reason to go all totalitarian when a democratic solution would do. ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/57 "2010-06-18T22:18:06Z")
On a _very_ personal, individual level (though I can’t believe I’m the only one), for a few months, my PC had no sound. This made _all_ links to YouTube videos useless for me. I think an OP should at least _consider_ that for whatever reason (no sound, work blocks their access to YouTube or would discipline them for it, whatever), _some_ of the folks here would like and/or need a summary about the content that is being debated. It is very much possible that some people have never thought of this as an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/58 "2010-06-19T00:38:13Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > You aren’t being :“forced” to do anything. (Not directing this at BigT per se, just quoting to make the train of thought easier to follow.) The “you don’t have to open it” and “don’t have to respond” type of positions slightly miss the point of the objection/disgruntlment. It’s not that anyone _has_ to open every link (okay, some of us battle SDMBOCD and _do_ open just about every link), it’s that topic-less posts can be the equivalent of a pesky fourth grader saying “hey, guess what?! … That’s what!” on and on and on again. It doesn’t have to be the same poster, but a post–a call to pay attention–that doesn’t have the courtesy to follow through and make it worth reading is a poor post. Better posting habits should be encouraged. Other posters have extraordinarily limited ability to do so–Jr. Modding is a tenuous call, so they take it to ATMB. Mods have much greater leeway to shuffle to different forum or ask for an explanation before they allow a thread to remain open. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/59 "2010-06-19T03:47:43Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t think moderatorial action is necessary, here. This sort of thing is self-policing: If someone posts a bare link to a video with no commentary, then people will decide to not bother watching it all by themselves. We don’t need the moderators to tell us not to do what we never had any reason to do in the first place. This is also pretty much how I feel. Personally, I’m very unlikely to click on a linked video unless the poster gives me some reason to beyond “look at this”. But I don’t think there needs to be a rule against it. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2010, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/60 "2010-06-19T14:14:08Z")
Let me be more specific - I agree threads like this can be somewhat self-policing. Where I really think the modding is needed is when the OP refuses to make a content-rich reply beyond “watch the link/read the book”, because that’s where I see the derailments happen. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657.md?page=4)