If you post in GD, take a position on the issue in the OP. Or at least if you fail to clearly do so, you are not permitted to post later in the same thread, “I haven’t taken a position.”
It is trollish behavior to put forward arguments, only to fall back that the arguments don’t reflect your position.
This law can be voided if the initial post clearly states that one is taking a devil’s advocate position. Whether the law should apply to the OP can remain open for debate.
A brief note on the OP and thread title: this one began life in GD as a request for suggestions for formal “Laws” appropriate to that forum - as it took a turn towards criticisms of posting habits on the board in general, it got moved to the Pit. Still waiting on that new title, though…
…or not, as the case may be.
Links to SDMB threads should include the thread title not just “example” or “in this thread”. Example: Will Taiwan declare independence? Will China invade? Will (should) we intervene?
If someone posts something you disagree with and you call them on it and you deem their reponse not worthy of you, you do not automatically win the argument.
I know this depends on an honor system, but anyone using the “CITE!” bomb without first making a good-faith effort to google it their own damn selves at least once should get a big wet sturgeon upside the head.
I changed the title to reflect the entire board since the thread was moved from Great Debates. Just in case anyone’s left scratching their head and wondering if they hallucinated something, y’know.
TVeblen
RIF Law*: Haven’t read the entire thread? DON’T FUCKING POST TO IT.
“I didn’t read the entire thread but I just wanted to add my 2 cents.” <continues with point that was made, refuted, made again, refuted again, and finally agreed upon as debunked by all parties two pages ago. Rehashing for another two pages ensues>
“I can’t believe nobody has mentioned Highlander 2 as the worst movie of all time.” <The OP mentioned it, then it was mentioned again on page 2, then again on Page 3>
“Can someone give me a link to a plot synopsis from last week’s episode?” <Link to a plot synopsis already provided>
“This ‘Dog finds weed’ thread reminds me of this incident that occurred last week.” <Link already provided in a previous post>
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Poisoning the grammer: I would like a law banning the attributing l33tsp34k to the opposing position. For instance, were I to write the following OP, it would break the law.
"I think Bush’s plan XYZ is good because … and I don’t want anyone posting “Bush is teh sux!!!1111oneoneone!!11!”
I’ve seen this a lot less here then other boards, but I’ve seen it here, and it should stop
You’re DREAMING. We should consider ourselves lucky if everyone bothered to read just the POSTS they’re replying to. Occasionally they haven’t bothered to read the whole SENTENCE they’re objecting to.
It’s more like this:
Thanks, Veb.
What’s worse than that is when they haven’t even bothered to read the posts they’re replying to.
I’ve only taken a glance at the SAB, but I don’t see anything that makes it egregious. Explain?
You know your post actually pissed me off before I got it?
Yeah, but sometimes an OP can be longer than several other entire threads combined. Worse, subsequent retorts rival the length of the egregiously bloated post that spawned them, like a flame-war composed of Unibomber manifestos strung one-after-the-other. I think it’s a lot to ask of people to not skim in some circumstances. Shit, I got yelled at once for not reading an entire post, but the thing was fucking four 8.5x11"-pages-in-12-point-font long, ferkrissakes. Have freaking mercy on our eyes, if nothing else.
So much for debate.
I got better.
Take a look at Genesis 1. Basically, they’re critiquing a very simplistic and literal interpretation of the bible.
