I don’t find any of your explanations compelling. Worse, they are totally out of sync with what you do elsewhere.
Take this thread by buywhat. He ripped off a complete copyrighted post from another message board, a violation of board rules, and posted the racist rant in GQ with a misleading and inadequate title and no commentary at all. Even after the post was reported, all that happened was that the thread was moved and retitled without any comment from the mods for this behavior.
The complete stolen post is still up on that thread despite a second report explicitly making it clear that this is stolen material.
If you’re going to say anything to Brain Glutton, why not do so for his taking two full pages of a Slate.com article and reprinting it in this thread?
Protecting copyright used to be a major concern on this board. Why has that stopped?
I’m with Shayna. The thread and post by Brain Glutton she refers to works perfectly for me. I totally don’t understand why you’re letting far worse go by without these “strongly worded suggestions.” If you can’t figure out what the rules are you’re going to have to stop punishing people for “breaking” them.
The mods chiming in here seem to be missing the point.
Here’s the point.
Lynn said there should have been a short summary. But there was a short summary. So Lynn’s request made no sense.
That’s the point. So pointing out that there are rules requesting short summaries is irrelevant–because there was a short summary. Pointing out that it was just a request and not an official warning is irrelevant–because there was a short summary. It does not make sense to characterize the OP in question as consisting in a link with no summary–because there was a short summary.
I agree w/Lynn on this, and I knew what the thread was about. As some one up thread said “If it bothers you enough to start a new thread about it, you should have no problem giving some additional details”. In the thread in question, the problem isn’t that FOX news reported on a GOP press release, but that when giving “their” report, all they did was merely reissue the press release as if it were a newstory vs. a press release, a fact which was proven by the inclusion of the typo.
various entities release press statements all the time and news agencies often will present them, but with the addition of “news release from…source”.
I can’t find any additional information in your summary that’s not to be found in the one line summary in BrainGlutton’s OP’s title. What do you take yourself to have added?
Once again, not speaking for Lynn, but huh? Exapno, I’ve got nothing but respect for you as a poster, and I’ll admit that I haven’t had any caffeine this morning, but that post gives me a headache. You are the first poster in this thread to mention copyright. If you have an issue with how copyright is enforced on this board, it might be better to start a thread on it. Or email me or something. If you are trying to expose some sort of contradiction between Lynn’s comment and copyright enforcement, I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic. Can you help me out?
I wouldn’t say it was clear. Press releases are almost always issued “verbatim”, and issued as “press releases” (as in “GOP issues this press release”). That wasn’t done in the story in the OP.
This should also answer Frylock
Besides, as was noted upthread if something pisses you off enough to open a whole thread about it, hopefully, you’ll have a word or two besides linking to the news article (or my personal favorite w/the Recreational Outrage threads “words fail me” :rolleyes: )
I really don’t understand all the befuddlement over what the poor OP should have done differently.
So helpful to the reader, so simple for a poster to do. If the quote tags are too complicated, use a couple of these: " "
As it stood, the OP was needlessly vague. Was the press release about some mundane party administrative matter in which case FOX could perhaps be forgiven for not rigorously fact-checking, or was it on some hot political issue that merited a great deal of care and scrutiny (it was). Was the typo something of little significance like using a semicolon when a comma would have been standard, or was it something that should have made a halfway competent copy editor say, “Wait… that can’t possibly be true!” (it was).
So it’s a mystery to me what the mystery about that is.
The bigger mystery, and the only one that should have spawned its own thread, is what the hell is a not a warning but a strongly worded suggestion from an administrator?
If it’s an official communication made as a staff member that must be obeyed and not questioned in the thread, it damn well should say so.
If it really is nothing more than a suggestion, than just make the suggestion and leave out the extra verbiage.
I used to think the “/mod hat on” “/mod hat off” business was an annoying affectation, but given the heightened sensitivity regarding “abuse” of staff acting in official capacity, maybe it has become necessary.
Or maybe, as has been suggested by others, it’s no longer appropriate for staff to post to the pit *except *in an official capacity.
Well, warnings are orridial violations of rules that contribute to the decision to ban a person, so if Braingluttion had been warned for the post, that would have gone on the official record, and be one of the things that ight lead to a future banning. So maybe this was a way for Lynn to point out, “Hey,while you’re not going to get banned over this, you really should describe links better than you did in that post.”?
I understand, and fully agree with the fact that threads that are nothing more than a link and a smartass comment with no indication what the link/story/thread are even about are rude to the reading members of this community.
The thread in question received an admonishment of sorts, “strongly worded” no less, to at least include a short summary of what the link was about. As has been pointed out, he did, right there in the title. So why the “strongly worded” request for something that was already provided?
Had Lynn moved the thread to MPSIMS because she didn’t consider it a rant due to the lack of an actual rant in the OP, we wouldn’t be here, because that action makes sense (thanks, GFactor).
Citing the rule about using descriptive thread titles makes even less sense, since not only was the thread title thoroughly descriptive, it isn’t even what Lynn gave her “strongly worded suggestion” about doing.
Ordinarily I wouldn’t really give two flicks about this because it is somewhat minor and it wasn’t even directed at me. But the tone and tenor of the Pit Mods, and the mysterious changes we’ve been forewarned about due to the stepping down of Giraffe and fluiddruid, are somewhat disconcerting. If “strongly worded suggestions” are going to be coming down the pike for things that aren’t anywhere to be found in the rules, I’d like to understand what the hell that means.
Captain, it took me a few minutes of Googling and headscratching before I realized that you had your left hand on the wrong row of keys.
Yes, that would be the literal interpretation, but in the current atmosphere of fear and repression,* it’s easy to hear it in the tone of a thug in a gangster moving. “Dis ain’t a warning, see? More like what you might call a suggestion. A strongly worded suggestion, capice?*”
not to be overly dramatic about it, of course.
** stereotypical dialogue to capture genre flavor, not meant to reflect actual characteristics of any ethnic group.
I don’t get it. Piece by piece, here’s what seems to me to be the plain reading of Brainglutton’s OP’s title:
Nothing strange here.
They quoted every word of the press release, word for word. Either it was a very short press release or this is a little strange.
They didn’t explain that it was a press release. They took credit for the wording as though it were their own reporting. That’s highly unusual and seems wrong besides.
Haha, stupid Fox news.
That looks to me to be the simple, plain reading of Brainglutton’s headline. The phrase “without acknowledgment” is crucial. That means they took credit for the wording of the press release as though it were their own reporting. That’s the big deal here, and it comes across perfectly clearly in Brainglutton’s headline.
I agree entirely, and I’d like to see it enforced more. I really despise threads and posts like “what do you guys think of this?” (no actual link). I mean- can it hurt to cut and paste a paragraph or two? And then, also post what you think about it.
I agree with all but this. I don’t like quote tags for anything outside of a poster. In other words, It was not “Originally Posted by Media Matters”. Mis-using quote tags like this lead to two problems:
It is possible that some dudes may well think that “Media Matters” is a poster (we have had more unusual names) and go looking for that post.
I can’t “reply with quote” and include your quote from Media Matters without cut and pasting. There are times where I want to include in my “reply with quote” taht part of your post which is an outside quote.
Except that that’s not at all what happened in this case. The OP was sufficiently descriptive enough that anyone should have been able to understand what they were clicking on.
