A ban on Cut & Paste Odesseys?

[Idaho]

Can we institute some kind of forum rule on tedious c&p threads. There does seem to be a few prime culprits. And the content is always along the same monotonous track.

Certain posters seem to think that it is intellectually robust to c&p whatever dirge they happen to swallow and present it as evidence to the rest of us. Even worse is the multi c&p - one borderline reasonable source combined with several wacked out ones.

Perhaps a simple rule. Post up the link to your drivel with at most a paragraph synopsis. Even better - make the point yourself (if you have the wit). It's a drag having to wade through endless threads which in effect are just reading one paragraph of some ongoing boreathon before scrolling past acres of text in the vain hope of original commentary beneath it.

I think the urge to paste all of it up is part of a realisation that no rational member here would, quite reasonably, ever visit such sites and that they feel the need to 'spread the word'.

I come on this board for some debate, some original ideas - hell even some unorginal ones - but at least make them your own. I have no interest in reading a bunch of opinion articles cut from sources I wouldn't touch with a bargepole. Sources who's legitimacy seems to come from the fact that no-one else would either.

[R'as al Ghul]

Absolutely true.

I would like to add that the old "I link - you link" game is also pretty tiresome.
I mean the habit that posters are asked to provide links to backup their opinions and
when they do so that the sources always get debunked for being biased.
This most often ends in link battles where links are posted that say the exact opposite of the link before.

[rasoforos]

I have been copy pasting articles but I mostly provide only a link.

As long as the article is small enough and not dogmatic or patronising then I think its ok, I can never be bothered to read 5 pages of text though and when ppl start disecting and quoting it it gets too tedious.

I hope the oddly enough articles I occasionaly post do not cause too much trouble.

[monkian]

You wouldnt happen to be talking about a certain poster would you ?

*cough* Gawain *cough*

[Papewaio]

What you would prefer unproven dribble rather then referenced dribble that is upfront and has the ability to be disected?

I thought that a good mix is what stops it just being a set of nominative statements.

[Idaho]

The problem is not really about referenced articles, or indeed conversation pieces. The problem is certain users simply posting opinion pieces that agree with their opinion as opposed to being able to articulate the point themselves.

[Shahed]

The problem is "spreading the word". Most times I noted people are simply trying to convert others and say "Hey look see I'm right." It's a bunch of nonsense, you may as well be in some brainwashing concentration camp.

It's a different and acceptable story, when the poster is simply trying to encourage civillised debate on a topic by referencing an article. Most times this is not the case, the poster/s is/are trying to force their own idea of a cohesive collective vision among the patrons. Attempting to persuade them to adhere to their own vision in a perverted and pathetic attempt to gain some vision of self legitimacy.

This is most definetely a major problem.
Is this a conversion camp or a debating hall ?

I support the ban.

[Productivity]

I support the ban.

If it's news, link to the article, and then state your view. A nice little example of this is given here by Don Corleone.

If it's just a opinion piece that you happen to agree with, well state it yourself. By all means use their references, but simply posting it, leaving one or two lines of fluff and then letting the article take the criticism instead of yourself appears somewhat intelectually cowardly to me.

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL, the same people calling for this ban would be the same asking, "link please" if the person just wrote what they had heard or read. This thread should be in the Watchroom so Tosa can get a good belly laugh.


**sips on some fine liberal whine**

[Proletariat]

Copying the whole thing is a copyright violation anyway. Just C&P the most pertinent few lines or paragraphs and post a link so the actual website gets it's due.

[Productivity]

Heh, I'm not actually thinking of anyone in particular. I can remember a few topics, but not the starters - they have come from both the left and the right - and I'm just as rightwing on economics as you Dev. Dave .

I don't know, I just would prefer if someone says something, as they feel in their own words, rather than just posting something which is close to their feelings.

[monkian]

LOL, the same people calling for this ban would be the same asking, "link please" if the person just wrote what they had heard or read. This thread should be in the Watchroom so Tosa can get a good belly laugh.


**sips on some fine liberal whine**

Um... it was stated that links are fine when qouting a source - but copy and pasting somebodt elses rant followed by 'discuss' is getting rather tedious

[Don Corleone]

Boo hoo hoo! Gawain put a gun to my head and made me read an article in a thread that agrees with his position and not mine. What's more, it's not fair, because the guy in the article sounds like he knows what he's talking about. At the very least, we should have a rule that these guys have to write articles for the Independent every now and then, so Jag can can post them. Boo hoo hoo.... wait a second... nobody's putting a gun to my head. I can just not read threads I don't like and let them move into obscurity

[Al Khalifah]

To an extent I agree. For every good well thought out thread, there is another where someone has just seen a news article they agree with and pasted it without any gisting followed by one line of "Yeah - too right!" or "At last the left/right have been exposed!"

It's one thing to use sources of evidence to back up your opinions, but it's another thing altogether to just wholesale c&p someone else's and then expect debate to follow. These topics never stay on topic for long, because very few people can actually be bothered to wade through the entire piece before replying and they usually break down into petty disputes about fragments of the whole.

[Franconicus]

Boo hoo hoo! Gawain put a gun to my head and made me read an article in a thread that agrees with his position and not mine. What's more, it's not fair, because the guy in the article sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

Do you really mean that Gawain we all know. And the author sounded like he knows what he's talking about?
Even though I realise the very fine sarcasm in your words I do not remember any thread of Gawain ...

[Ser Clegane]

This thread should be in the Watchroom

Agree - especially, as we now have a dedicated Backroom sub-section in the Watchtower

On topic:
I agree to a certain extent with the original idea of this post. I also find it quite tedious to wade through entire articles (sometimes rather long) with the thread starter only adding a one-liner to it - often along the lines of "told you so" or "what do you think", without adding an own view on the issue discussed in the article.

Best practice would be to post the link to the full article, quote some essentials you considered to be most important, and add your own view (or perhaps the resaon why you actually psoted tha article).

Boo hoo hoo.... wait a second... nobody's putting a gun to my head. I can just not read threads I don't like and let them move into obscurity

The problem is that you have to read the whole article to decide whether it might be an intersting topic or not.
Therefore a short summary or only quoting the most important points would be really nice (especially for a moderator who actually is supposed to read all the stuff that is posted )

[Idaho]

Boo hoo hoo! Gawain put a gun to my head and made me read an article in a thread that agrees with his position and not mine...blah blah blah

The point is that he doesn't have a position. He is merely a nodding dog to a variety of dull predictable sources that he C&Ps from and then adds a platitude at the end.

Citing articles is fine. Giving examples of authors is fine. However merely slapping yet another article up and cluttering up the forum with... let's count... 5 threads on the first page which are merely an opinion piece cut from other sources - does little to improve the variety of debate.

Perhaps what I should do is to report the copyright infringement each time a C&P appears...

[Ja'chyra]

To be honest if it's too long I just don't read it, after all I am at work and have got stuff to do you know

[scooter_the_shooter]

The point is that he doesn't have a position. He is merely a nodding dog to a variety of dull predictable sources that he C&Ps from and then adds a platitude at the end.

Citing articles is fine. Giving examples of authors is fine. However merely slapping yet another article up and cluttering up the forum with... let's count... 5 threads on the first page which are merely an opinion piece cut from other sources - does little to improve the variety of debate.

Perhaps what I should do is to report the copyright infringement each time a C&P appears...

Does it count for a violation if you post the link and have it in quotes??

[Productivity]

Does it count for a violation if you post the link and have it in quotes??

I'm no lawyer, but at the bottom of every Fox News page (for example, there is something similar everywhere else), there is;

Copyright © 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

Which would indicate that yes, it is still a violation.

Incidentally this post is a violation, as the above is covered by itself I would think.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's one thing to use sources of evidence to back up your opinions, but it's another thing altogether to just wholesale c&p someone else's and then expect debate to follow. These topics never stay on topic for long, because very few people can actually be bothered to wade through the entire piece before replying and they usually break down into petty disputes about fragments of the whole.

So you dont like my posting style then dont read my posts.

Well if you look at my threads they are the longest lasting ones here by far. The reason I print the whole thing is exactly why you say I shouldnt. If you dont they either dont read the link or they only read part of it. When I first got here I didnt know how to cut and paste or make links and evryone always jumped on me to prove what I was saying. Now I just beat them to the punch. I also post articles I dissagree with. Face it many of you are either lazy or dont like to read articles that you dont agree with.

[PanzerJaeger]

I have no interest in reading a bunch of opinion articles cut from sources I wouldn't touch with a bargepole.

Then dont read it genius.

This thread is nothing more than an attack on Gawain, which is evidenced by this:

The point is that he doesn't have a position. He is merely a nodding dog to a variety of dull predictable sources that he C&Ps from and then adds a platitude at the end.

How about lets not start banning things and use our own common sense to decide what we want to read and what we dont. Its easy enough to tell from the layout of a post if it follows that format.

Do you realize how many amazing debates have been spurred by Gawain's postings? Do you realize that almost every long thread where people really hammer out policy and such start from a copy/paste thread?

This is all too typical. You dont like what Gawain does so you want to ban it. I frankly dont like your posts, can we ban them?

[Don Corleone]

What's more, I can think of two people that Idaho tends to agree with, that engage in the exact same practice, and I find it notable that we're focusing on Gawain.

I think Gawain's posts start a LOT of discussion on a topic. Heck, I find myself in disagreement with them a lot of time, and there's times when I'm in a rush and once I see a C&P post, I just hit back on my browser.

The copyright issue is another matter, so I'll wait to hear what Tosa-sama has to say on that matter. But I do think it's unfair to single out some people who do it and not all.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The point is that he doesn't have a position. He is merely a nodding dog to a variety of dull predictable sources that he C&Ps from and then adds a platitude at the end.

Its pretty amazing that for a man without a postiton I came in third in the best debator at the org and aways score high in such polls. This is indeed a personal attack and an unfounded one. Jeez others here accuse e of being the farthest person to the right on the org. Not bad for someone without a position.

[Idaho]

Coca Cola is a very indentifiable and unbiquitous brand - that doesn't make the product worthwhile.

Panzer - go ahead and suggest banning some particular type of thread that I always post... er.. whatever that is.

I have no problem with Gawain posting threads - I have a problem with the debateless single sentence underneath a C&P odessey. I would prefer you to actually engage in the debate you have congratulated yourself for being so good at. Most of the time you use someone elses opinion as a way of not presenting for yourself. You are not the only culprit. JAG seems to be doing this increasingly, and I also dislike those threads - but at least the pointless original sentence is "this is interesting" rather than "this prooves that all libarals (sic) are wrong" or some such drivel.

[Beirut]

The point is that he doesn't have a position.

Excuse me?

Gawain... unpositioned?

And you returned from space when exactly?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I read a few other forum, mainly paradox forum.

It's quite funny that when I read something there from let's say a US conservative, I usually find it here again copy paste, same source, a few days later.
And I got to say it's really, mainly US conservative doing this. Whether it's Pindar or Gawain or whoever, in all cases I got the same exact stuff.
Can't you guys be like... creative?
I got to agree that Don is pretty much the only one that do it right... And at least he writes a bit itself in a funny way.

At paradox, they post it before here, so here, it's already my second copy/ paste... And they also got lot of post that are not copy paste + they call on that practice.

I am fully aware of what many of you might think; "hey, if Paradox is better and we're not good enough, go there and don't let the door...."

Dont acte,



Louis,

[LeftEyeNine]

Actually, some discussion and implementation of an idea needs proof. So articles are valid.

However, many threads out there are starting with legendary articles by some journalists that I can only read if I am dedicated to be a know-it-all super-high-intelellectual using-%6-of-my-brain guy..

I think it's better to read the article yourself, commentate on it yourself and blend it with your claims with the topic starter post. You can always forward the link if anyone demands a proof, can't you ?

[Simetrical]

Copying the whole thing is a copyright violation anyway. Just C&P the most pertinent few lines or paragraphs and post a link so the actual website gets it's due.

This is precisely the rule I've gotten implemented over at TWC. No large quotes, just quote a piece and then link.

Does it count for a violation if you post the link and have it in quotes??

Yes. Otherwise, by that logic, I could photocopy the New York Times every morning and reproduce it, clearly attributed, and sell it for half the price, or even put it up on the Web for free. That's exactly what copyright law is meant to prevent, infringement on commercially-viable intellectual property. There are some "moral rights" as well, but not very major ones.

Which would indicate that yes, it is still a violation.

Tip: don't trust the word of a corporation that makes its profit off being able to have exclusive rights to its intellectual property on whether it has exclusive rights to its intellectual property. By and large, though, yes, FOX does have the right to prevent you from doing that (even if it doesn't state you can't, incidentally—I could sue you for printing out this post and selling it on the street if I wanted, even though I haven't explicitly said you can't).

Incidentally this post is a violation, as the above is covered by itself I would think.

Technically they might be able to sue you or the Guild for an injunction to stop distributing that quote, yes, plus maybe legal fees and possibly even punitive damages, but they won't, and you might well be able to put up a fair use argument (certain limited uses of copyrighted work are in fact allowed). Copyright protection is a civil matter, not criminal; it's not exactly illegal for you to reproduce that statement, it just leaves you open to lawsuit.

-Simetrical

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When the thread just has a cut and past article (posted by whoever) and nothing said by the poster it usually isn't an interesting subject anyway. I can't see banning it as a good idea.