# 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:** 11\ **Page:** 5
**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, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/81 "2010-06-23T19:48:02Z")
So, all postings should be made with dial-up users in mind? Okay, got that! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/82 "2010-06-23T19:49:06Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > …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. …but when you are asked why you want us to view the link in the first place, please, don’t make out you are being asked to _write_ War And Peace and discuss it chapter by chapter. ---
**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, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/83 "2010-06-23T20:08:07Z")
I haven’t done any such thing. I’m just refusing to lay out my own thoughts on a subject unless others are prepared to take in the same sources of information I have. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/84 "2010-06-23T20:12:12Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > I haven’t done any such thing. I’m just refusing to lay out my own thoughts on a subject unless others are prepared to take in the same sources of information I have. Which certainly allows you to tailor your initial response to however the posters react to your video link. How brave of you. ---
**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, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/85 "2010-06-23T20:24:48Z")
There aren’t enough rolleyes to cover that response. Where does bravery come into posting stuff on the internet? ---
**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 23, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/86 "2010-06-23T20:31:54Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > 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 does and it doesn’t. If the point is there should be a rule about it because it’s annoying and/or is a poor way to start a thread, then I think it hits the mark just fine. People will decide it’s crappy, and won’t respond, and won’t click. Why **mr astikov** himself returned to the thread in question to lament that no one had responded. Well, because people are not, apparently, super eager to reply to a thread whose sole content is “Click on this link about Such & Such topic and discuss.” Now if the point is simply that it is annoying and/or poor form, “You don’t have to click” is a shoddy rebuttal. ---
**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, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/87 "2010-06-23T20:39:32Z")
I wasn’t lamenting the lack of response; that would be greatly over-exaggerating. I was more bemused that a ridiculously titled thread posted at the same time, was getting more views - not responses - than my interestingly titled thread. ---
**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 23, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/88 "2010-06-23T20:48:19Z")
Yes, that would be greatly exaggerated. I shall not exaggerate from now on in your presence. ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/89 "2010-06-23T21:14:25Z")
> [@](#): > > 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 online posts on the other hand aren’t even worth spending a minute on. If you feel a video has value, explain why. Or at least establish a track record of recommending interesting videos. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/90 "2010-06-23T21:25:27Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > 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. Because your wish is our command? Hey, at least you didn’t get [Rick Rolled](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ). I think your complaint is petty. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657/91 "2010-06-24T16:44:23Z")
**ivan astikov** said: > [@](#): > > I was more bemused that a ridiculously titled thread posted at the same time, was getting more views - not responses - than my interestingly titled thread. Interesting is in the eye of the beholder. Also, people can see on mouseover that one post has some content and the other is a “watch this video” post. Gee, which one inspires more attention? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-we-get-a-ruling-against-watch-this-vid-first-ops/543657.md?page=4)