# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/61 "2010-06-21T16:48:42Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:55, topic:543657”] If you want a discussion, **Ivan** , then _discuss_! Participate. Go out on a limb and say what you think. [/QUOTE] Yeah, good luck with getting a twoofer to say what they think. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/62 "2010-06-22T19:06:12Z")
Certainly if people ask the Op questions about the topic, want clarification of his position, etc, and the OP won’t reply other than “just read the link/watch the video”, then that is being a jerk, and deserves moderation. And I think it currently gets moderated. But I don’t support a rule that states a person cannot post just “Hey look at this neat video I saw about \_\_\_” and a link. I mean, that gives an idea about what is in the video, and it is posted for the purpose of sharing, not necessarily defending any position. And it will get the response posters feel it deserves. I might support a rule that if you post like that and nobody comments, you can’t whine about it. 😉 ---
**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 22, 2010, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/63 "2010-06-22T19:11:16Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Yeah, good luck with getting a twoofer to say what they think. Is it really about “what they think”? ---
**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 22, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/64 "2010-06-22T20:40:10Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Is it really about “what _ **they** _ think”? Yeah, who is this _ **“they”** _ you are talking about??? [sorry about not getting back to this thread, my machine went down. Just now succeeding in arranging alternate access. I’ve got some real comments, but not if the thread has died. _ **I** _ won’t be accused of summoning zombies. :D] ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/65 "2010-06-22T22:43:39Z")
It bears mentioning that the vast majority of “hey, check this out!” links posted to message boards on the Internet at large are abysmally stupid wastes of time. You may be the lone shining counterexample, but the odds are against it. More info in the OP might help persuade us. ---
**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 23, 2010, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/66 "2010-06-23T09:07:57Z")
It also bears mentioning that there seems to be a great deal of snobbishness about youtube clips, as though nothing useful can ever come from the site. With that sort of attitude to contend with, what is the use of adding your own thoughts before others have even made their objections to, or approval of said link? If you ask a question and provide a link, the helpful thing to do is have a look at the link first - whenever it is convenient - not ask the OP for a detailed analysis of what they are supposed to have a look at, before you’ll even consider looking at it. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/67 "2010-06-23T09:55:17Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > It also bears mentioning that there seems to be a great deal of snobbishness about youtube clips, as though nothing useful can ever come from the site. With that sort of attitude to contend with, what is the use of adding your own thoughts before others have even made their objections to, or approval of said link? If you ask a question and provide a link, the helpful thing to do is have a look at the link first - whenever it is convenient - not ask the OP for a detailed analysis of what they are supposed to have a look at, before you’ll even consider looking at it. To add to **Sailboat** ’s extremely relevant comment, there have been posters on this very messageboard who have asked us to watch videos lasting literally hours in support of their argument. The signal is frequently drowned out by the noise, and the onus is not on me to validate your choice to post a link to a particular video. Give me a damn reason to watch what you want me to watch, because there’s an idiot in the next thread over who also wants me to watch something, and the next, and the next… Alternatively, if we choose not to watch your video don’t get snarky or pompous about it. Silence in this case signifies apathy, not concession. ---
**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 23, 2010, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/68 "2010-06-23T11:00:42Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > If you ask a question and provide a link, the helpful thing to do is have a look at the link first - whenever it is convenient - not ask the OP for a detailed analysis of what they are supposed to have a look at, before you’ll even consider looking at it. I disagree. It is helpful to at least provide a summary of what the video is about, so the reader can judge whether they even want to continue reading the thread. Am I somehow rude for closing threads that don’t give me some reason to continue reading? ---
**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 23, 2010, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/69 "2010-06-23T11:07:54Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > To add to **Sailboat** ’s extremely relevant comment, there have been posters on this very messageboard who have asked us to watch videos lasting literally hours in support of their argument. Who’s starting an argument? If you put the OP in GD, fair enough, you should add a bit more than “Hey, look at this!”, but is it necessary in every forum? ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/70 "2010-06-23T11:28:52Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Who’s starting an argument? If you put the OP in GD, fair enough, you should add a bit more than “Hey, look at this!”, but is it necessary in every forum? Presumably **Gyrate** is referring to Great Debates, as opposed to “every forum,” as GD and GQ specifically are the subjects of this thread: > [@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. ---
**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 23, 2010, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/71 "2010-06-23T11:32:59Z")
It’s in GD now, but it didn’t start out in there… and that’s my point; a link and the briefest description are all you need to start out with, if you are asking for an answer, or other’s opinions. If the topic then proves interesting enough, it might then be transferred to GD to go into it in depth. Then you can nitpick and badger the OP to your heart’s content, and shout “Yay, I win!” if they can’t come back at ya. ---
**Author:** ![norinew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/eb9ed0/32.png) [@norinew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/norinew)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/72 "2010-06-23T13:05:36Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > It also bears mentioning that there seems to be a great deal of snobbishness about youtube clips, as though nothing useful can ever come from the site. With that sort of attitude to contend with, what is the use of adding your own thoughts before others have even made their objections to, or approval of said link? If you ask a question and provide a link, the helpful thing to do is have a look at the link first - whenever it is convenient - not ask the OP for a detailed analysis of what they are supposed to have a look at, before you’ll even consider looking at it. Well, in a case like mine (which is no longer true; I can watch YouTube just fine now, thanks), sometimes it could be a case of _not_ being able to watch the video. When my computer didn’t have audio, there really was no point in watching a YouTube video. If the OP provided some commentary about what was happening in said video, perhaps I may have been able to participate in the thread. I don’t believe I have the right (or the need) to participate in _every_ thread. But I also don’t believe that I’m the _only_ one who has _technical_ issues with videos. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/73 "2010-06-23T15:59:25Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > It’s in GD now, but it didn’t start out in there Please show where the thread _you_ started was moved from somewhere else. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/74 "2010-06-23T16:08:47Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Is it really about “what they think”? It would greatly benefit meaningful discourse if one would outline what one thinks of any given situtation as opposed to making those on the other side of the fence play guessing games. However, getting a typical twoofer to outline what, exactly, they think happened is like getting a pig to outline how they feel about the next election. ---
**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 23, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/75 "2010-06-23T17:54:11Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > It also bears mentioning that there seems to be a great deal of snobbishness about youtube clips, as though nothing useful can ever come from the site. With that sort of attitude to contend with, what is the use of adding your own thoughts before others have even made their objections to, or approval of said link? I don’t think there’s actual snobbishness toward youtube. It’s more a matter of courtesy. When you post a youtube link with no description, you’re basically saying: “I’m not going to tell you what this clip is about, I’m not going to tell you how long it is, I’m not going to tell you why I think it might be interesting to you, and it’s not important enough for me to state my opinion on it. I just want the rest of the board to watch the video and post opinions that I can pick apart.” > [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > If you ask a question and provide a link, the helpful thing to do is have a look at the link first - whenever it is convenient - not ask the OP for a detailed analysis of what they are supposed to have a look at, before you’ll even consider looking at it. I can’t parse this. If I ask a question and provide a link, of _course_ I’m going to look at it first. But I _am_ the OP in that case so how can I ask the OP for something? This makes no sense to me. > [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > It’s in GD now, but it didn’t start out in there… and that’s my point; a link and the briefest description are all you need to start out with, if you are asking for an answer, or other’s opinions. As I said earlier in this thread, **ivan** , if you want to start a discussion, then _discuss something!_ Don’t just tell everyone else to discuss it so you can critique what they say. Start a thread. State an opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/76 "2010-06-23T18:05:08Z")
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:75, topic:543657”] I can’t parse this. If I ask a question and provide a link, of _course_ I’m going to look at it first. But I _am_ the OP in that case so how can I ask the OP for something? This makes no sense to me. [/QUOTE] He’s misusing the pronoun you. The first you should be “the OP” for it to make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/77 "2010-06-23T18:24:39Z")
If you are posting in GQ, then you should spell out enough of your own question so that people can answer your intent. “Hey, look at this” is poor form in GQ. “Hey, look at this video of sasquatch and tell me if it looks real” is better. In GD, you should post your own opinion or state enough of a question that people can understand the intent of the debate. “Hey look at this” is basically stating “Why don’t y’all debate this for me. Then maybe I’ll pick at your arguments, if I feel like it.” Not good form. If you want a topic debated, then you need to post something to frame the debate. “Hey look at this gun video.” Bad. “Hey look at this video listing arguments for supporting a total gun ban. I find it convincing.” Better. If you just want to post a link to a video and say “I saw this and thought it was funny”, then it goes in MPSIMs, with some indication of what is on the video “a cat wearing a hat” or whatever. I don’t think you should be required to outline every detail from the video just to start the conversation. But you should also not get testy if your minimal post does not get anyone’s attention and leaves you with no responses. It’s up to you to make your OP interesting enough for people to want to respond. ---
**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 23, 2010, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/78 "2010-06-23T18:51:29Z")
> [@](#): > > If you ask a question and provide a link, the helpful thing to do is have a look at the link first - whenever it is convenient - not ask the OP for a detailed analysis of what they are supposed to have a look at, before you’ll even consider looking at it. Life is short. Nobody is going to read every post on this board. And this board is only a small fraction of life in general. That means if you want somebody’s attention you have to offer them a reason why it’s worth their time. ---
**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 23, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/79 "2010-06-23T19:25:41Z")
You’re sat here in front of your computer. It’s not like you have to get off your arse and go to the local library, or something equally strenuous! Fair enough, when I wanted people to read an entire book I can understand people’s hesitancy to “waste their time”, but when you are being directed to a link on the web, please, don’t make out you are being asked to digest War And Peace and discuss it chapter by chapter. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/80 "2010-06-23T19:35:52Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > You’re sat here in front of your computer. It’s not like you have to get off your arse and go to the local library, or something equally strenuous! Fair enough, when I wanted people to read an entire book I can understand people’s hesitancy to “waste their time”, but when you are being directed to a link on the web, please, don’t make out you are being asked to digest War And Peace and discuss it chapter by chapter. Some people are on dial-up, watching a video is a _major_ time and bandwidth commitment. That’s if it’s just a 3-4 min clip. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657.md?page=5)