A Polite Request to All OP Posters...

[MineralMan]

If you post a long quoted passage from some other source that might be misconstrued as a mindless attack on the Obama administration or as a supportive statement about someone like Sarah Palin, please clarify your position.

Either in the OP or in the first reply to that OP, please write a couple of paragraphs laying out your opinion of the quoted matter, and give us an idea of why you posted it. You may think that everyone knows that you are a staunch Democrat and a supporter of liberal and progressive viewpoints, but that is not necessarily the case. You may think that everyone on DU knows your screen name and can puzzle out your reason for posting some material that might be misconstrued. That's unlikely, too.

Odds are that the majority of people reading your OP has no idea who you are or what your prevailing political opinion might be. Odds are that you're not quite as famous as you think you are here on DU.

So, please clarify your OPs. Don't just plop a big pile of controversial text on us, then leave us to figure out why you posted that mess. It's not fair. Please tell us why you posted that block of text, and what you think of what you posted. Assume that nobody knows who you are and what you believe. That's a good assumption, because, in most cases, it's absolutely true.

Thanks!

[flyarm]

1. can you not just read what you want to read and stop making new rules on your own?

thanks

[MineralMan]

3. Rules? How could I make any rules?

It was, as I said, a polite request. It wasn't an order. I'm in no position to give orders to any DUer. I'm hoping that people will make their OPs more clear, so that we can avoid ugly misunderstandings. Nobody has to do what I asked.

Does what I wrote not make sense? If not, please tell me where I went wrong.

[roguevalley]

12. actually, I agree with MineralMan that clarifying things prevents

misunderstandings.

[PCIntern]

14. I'm with you, Mineral Man

At a Lefty website, the last thing I want to read is one of those, "My brother-in-Law who loves Palin sent me this diatribe against Obama. Please help me answer it." Seems like an insidious way of posting crap on the Site.

Those posts remind me of the old Penthouse/Hustler: "I go to a small college in upstate New York and I can't believe this happened to me..."

[MineralMan]

17. Thanks. I don't mind seeing posts like that, but I do always appreciate

it when the poster adds some of his or her own words to it to start the discussion. When that doesn't happen, we end up with a long thread full of arguments about everything but the subject of the OP. That doesn't seem very productive, really.

For example, in your example above, the poster might point out some of the errors in the diatribe or grumble about wayward brothers-in-law, or something. That way, the intent of the posting is clarified. I don't think anything should be off limits for posting, but things that may turn into flamebait need clarification or they....turn into flamebait.

[AnArmyVeteran]

84. I notice some people don't read every word in a post and react opposite of it's intent.

I have written contoversial posts deliberately trying to provoke others to think in a different direction, but often those posts are attacked because they weren't understood from failure to read every word. I'm not casting blame or trying to 'make a rule' but it would be nice if people could look at the intent of the ENTIRE post before attacking specific words, sentences or paragraphs. I believe we should all try to understand each other and sometimes that takes a bit of reflective thought. It might even force some to think outside the box and look at a new way of accomplishing a goal.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

9. from the crew that likes to complain about imaginary censorship, you have no problem telling people

to shut up, do you?

[flyarm]

11. I never told anyone to shut up..I was replying to a thread that is asking for

people to apply new rules to the board.

I find it disengenious to take someone's article and post it and change their heading, which in turn is obviousy changing the author's meaning.

[MineralMan]

16. A request that people consider doing something has nothing

to do with wanting new rules. I'm certainly in no position to make any rules here, nor would I want to be. I think you may have misunderstood my post.

[flyarm]

23. I possibly did mis- understand your post and for that I am sorry..

When I post someone else's writings and materials I try to be as respectful to their wrotings as I can be..I Try not to change their words or meanings...Do I always succeed?/ No..but I try..

If I misunderstood what you wrote I apologise.

[dionysus]

42. he didn't ask for people to change headings. he asked for people to throw a

paragraph or two of their own thoughts on the linked article in their post.

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

48. Yeah you did

The "stop telling me to shut up" folks are almost continuously telling people to shut up. It would be laughable if I didn't know you were serious.

[KurtNYC]

80. To talk about an article or news story in a big picture way requires

adding one's unique perspective to it. I agree with the OP and I think it avoids squabbles that stem from being left to guess what kind of discussion a poster is trying to initiate.

As I understand the rules Late Breaking News requires the original headline as the the thread title; and post a limited amount of the story and a link. But this is GD, which seems to me to be the place to have a discussion that may be larger than the story being cited, a discussion about trends, strategies, how propaganda works, theories, dot connecting, mysteries, meta-media, cynicism or any unbridled hope (that you would like to have crushed). I love big picture discussions so I am attracted to threads which have titles or OPs pointing that way.

I think it is a very good suggestion.


edit to add hope crushing joke

[MineralMan]

13. Where did I tell anyone to shut up? In fact, I asked them

specifically not to shut up, but to expand their posts with their own ideas. Maybe I didn't explain what I was saying clearly enough. It seemed clear to me, but perhaps it was not.

I did not say not to post controversial things. There is nothing in my post that says that. I asked that people add some of their own thoughts to posts that might otherwise be mistaken for flamebait. Seems like a good idea to me.

On edit: I see that I was replying to the wrong post. Sorry.

[flyarm]

19. I don't believe you told anyone to shut up, but to ask people to change an authors meaning or

their words..is not nessesary..just read what you want and ignore the rest..I don't think any of us should change an authors headings or their writing...and plug in our own words to someone else's writing.

If it is ok with you fine..but it is not ok with me..so I will never do that...or I try my darnest never to and I always TRY to give creidt to those who post something before I copy it or repeat it..I don't always succeed in doing that..but I try to.

[MineralMan]

24. I guess I don't understand what you're saying.

I didn't suggest that anyone change anything. I suggested that they add their opinion after quoting a long passage. That helps begin the discussion and lets us know how the poster feels about what he or she posted.

Nowhere did I suggest that an OP change anything about what was quoted. I would never do such a thing. Commentary is something completely different.

[Cresent City Kid]

87. You were sufficiently clear

I have the same preference, I like when people add some personal context to a quote or article. I don't know if it bothers me as much when they don't but we're all entitled to our likes and dislikes.

You were clear in stating that you were just making a polite request. I don't know what else you could have done to be respectful. If a handful of people take this suggestion to heart consider it a sucess. Never mind the bashing, that seems to come with the territory.

[notadmblnd]

2. When you start your own blog and have 100,000 + members

you get to make the rules. Until then, hide the ones you don't like.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, I'm just another member here. I read posts that seem like

ones that would interest me. I'm just asking that people make their intentions clear and that they make an attempt to actually start the discussion. I'm not sure what's objectionable about my request.

[XemaSab]

15. I agree with the OP

If someone here posts something that is unmitigated bashing of Obama, they should clarify whether they agree with the piece, or whether they are just posting it to stimulate discussion.

[el_bryanto]

4. This is good advice. The purpose of communication is to communicate

That said sometimes your position seems clear in your head but doesn't sound clear to your readers.

Bryant

[MineralMan]

6. That's true. I guess that's why it's helpful to add a few sentences

of your own when you post a long block of text from somewhere else. That commentary from the OP is very helpful.

[notadmblnd]

8. Why do you need to know someones movtive for posting

There are people here that post articles because they're good at finding them and are kind enough to post them without comment. If I or anybody else want to post without comment, it's perfectly fine.

[el_bryanto]

10. Depends on the article - i have certainly read posts that made me wonder

why they would want to post it, while other postings are open and shut.

Bryant

[notadmblnd]

40. My feeling is that if someone is just bashing Obama to be bashing Obams

then all one has to do it hit alert and let the moderators take care of it. We've done a pretty good job of self censoring here for the past several years with the set of rules we follow currently. If the OP feels there needs to be more rules regarding posting here, then the OP needs to take it up with Earl G and Skinner.

[el_bryanto]

43. I don't think the OP is calling for more rules

I think he's calling for people to self regulate a bit better; if you are posting an Obama Bashing article, particularly one that's from the right, be clear as to why you are posting it.

Bryant

[csziggy]

57. As long as it is clear it is a quote and not the thoughts of the poster

No problem. I've often posted quotes from articles I've thought would be of interest to others here with little or no comment of my own if I was tired or not sure what to think about it. But as in my previous message in this thread, I use HTML blockquote to make the distinction that it is a quote.

Many times people quote without making clear that it is a quote. In the case of some of the items quoted can lead to confusion about the beliefs of the poster, especially if it is a controversial subject.

I think MineralMan is just asking people to help make that kind of thing clear so there is less confusion.

[notadmblnd]

67. a link to the article should satisfy that.

There are a couple of people here (been here for many years) that just post articles with a link and no comment. They're not necessarily bashing anyone or anything. If the OP wants to know their motives so they can bash the poster, then it is wrong. Why people insist on bashing the messenger here, and not the message is beyond me but I've seen many do it.

I think the rules that DU has in place go pretty far in policing the forum. Why do relatively new people come here and decide that they need to suggest things change instead of using hide thread, ignore or just finding some other site more to their liking?

[csziggy]

68. Far too often it is not clear especially if the link is at the end of the quote

A blockquote makes it clear that the text in the block is not the poster's words, but someone else's. For a short quote, quotation marks are the way to do it - but many here do not use them either, which also leads to confusion.

I don't insist that people do it, but just suggest the use of tools available on this forum to help make posters messages clearer. It is a way to improve communication with fewer misunderstandings. Why are these tools available if some need for their use was not seen by the forum owners?

[demwing]

7. When You Join a Democratic/Progressive Forum

Only THEN Can You Post Your Own Opinions!

Oh...wait. uhm.

Nevermind :)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. I tend to post controversial stuff as titled by the source with no more than 4 paragraphs

I might add a word or two at the bottom. I will join in the discussion, but prefer to leave the original material on it own. I see that as a much cleaner approach

[Phentex]

20. Tagalong: Check for DUPES!

That request IS in the DU rules and it's not hard to do.

This is the internet. News travels fast. The odds of YOU being the first to break the news are pretty slim.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. Unrec cause you don't own this website and can't make the rules

[MineralMan]

27. You're right on both counts.

I don't own this site and I can't make any rules. I'm just another member here. What I was doing was trying to avoid threads that turn into flamefests when the intent of the OP was not to post flamebait. It was a "suggestion" not an "order." I don't make any rules for this forum. I can't.

Are you saying that nobody should post suggestions to others here? Really? Is that a rule?

Unrec as you please. I don't post here to get recommendations. I post to have discussions.

[William Z. Foster]

96. it was a warning

The message is quite clear - any article posted that is critical of the administration in any way may be construed - by you, by others? - as an attack on Obama, as a promotion of Palin, and people should put in a couple of paragraphs professing loyalty to the administration at the beginning of any such posted articles, or prepare to be subjected to the various accusations you hinted at in your post.

People have two choices - give a loyalty oath at the beginning of any article that MIGHT be seen as critical of Obama, or be seen and treated as a Palin promoter.

Disgusting.

[MineralMan]

116. I think you may have misunderstood my OP. I did not

ask that anyone profess anything at all. I just asked that they offer a little content of their own to let us know what they think of what they posted. I can't warn anyone here about anything. I am not a moderator or an administrator, and have no interest in becoming either.

As for how people construe articles that are posted here or even original posts, everyone has an opinion, and can interpret a post as they choose. Often, posts get misconstrued, though. Sometimes it's because the entire post wasn't read or for some other reason.

Commentary written by the OP can help prevent people from misconstruing intent, especially when the quoted material in the original post is from another source. I don't see the problem with asking people politely to add a bit of commentary to quoted material. Nobody has to do that. It's just a request from another DUer.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. Don't think the poster claimed to...

It is generally a good idea to do as the OP suggest anyway, simply to avoid posts like "WTF did you post this asshole!!?!" or "GET LOST FREEPER!"

[Dappleganger]

37. OP never claimed that. nt

[berni_mccoy]

122. Rec, because the owner of this website strongly agrees with the OP. And *he* can make the rules.

[inna]

22. please stop making up rules and telling people what to do.

what a ridiculous, condescending and obnoxious post.

[MineralMan]

29. How could I make a rule here? Did you not see the word

"request" in the title of my OP? How about the word "please" used frequently in the post? Requests are not orders. I'm surprised you're confusing the terms.

[William Z. Foster]

98. of course you cannot

You did what you could do - tried to create an environment that will be hostile to dissenters and critics. It could hardly be more transparent. That may not be trying to set the rules - which you have no power to do - but it most definitely is an attempt at controlling the discussion.

[MineralMan]

117. You give me credit for having far more influence than I actually

have here. I'm relatively new to DU. I have no belief that what I write has any effect on DU, unless people agree with what I say or suggest. I'm not trying to create any environment at all. I'm trying, in fact, to offer a suggestion that might lead to some threads not turning into flamewars. I can't control any discussion. All I can do is join a discussion -- something I do quite frequently.

[lamp_shade]

25. Totally agree with you. In fact, this should be a DU rule.

:thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

31. Nah...we don't need more rules. We need more

reasonable discussion, which was the reason for my suggestion.

I've seen many threads where the OP meant well in posting, but where the quoted material was taken as flamebait. A few words of comment from the OP might have avoided that and started a reasonable discussion.

[Better Believe It]

73. Some people deliberately gang up on posts they don't like in order to get them locked!

They start, provoke and encourage a stream of personal attacks without raising any serious criticism of an article in order to provoke a moderator lock.

This is an old, nasty and undemocratic tactic we see used on Democratic Underground every week by those who hate civil debate and discussion.

And nine out of ten times they are successful when they engage in such discussion board disruption tactics.

I've never done that.

I won't even unrecommend a post that I totally disagree with.

I just put disrupters on ignore.

[William Z. Foster]

99. let me get this straight

New rule:

"Before posting anything that could be construed by any other members as critical of the administration, or as promoting Palin, please write a couple of paragraphs expressing your loyalty to the party and the administration and insert them at the beginning of your post."

Would that about cover it?

[Skinner]

26. I'm puzzled by the indignant responses you are receiving.

Everyone knows you're not an administrator, and you're not making the rules.

Giving people some information about your motivation for posting just seems like common courtesy and common sense. Lord knows, I would prefer to read a hatchet-job about President Obama if it was preceded by the sentence "Look what that asshole Jonah Goldberg is saying about President Obama" as opposed to "I'm really likin' the steady stream of insightful political analysis from the misunderstood Jonah Goldberg!"

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

30. It puzzles me, too. I thought I was pretty clear in casting what

I said as a request and used polite language to make the request. How that could be construed as rule-making, I have no idea.

Thanks!

[KonaKane]

128. You just put the smack down on the Obama haters. They don't like that.

That's where the indignance comes from.

[Mojeoux]

35. I don't get the hostility either. He says "polite request."

A little intro is obviously a good idea. Why would people not want to be understood?

Or maybe................ they would like to think they are DU-STARS and the OP has popped their

tender ego-bubbles?

[NeedleCast]

39. Haters gonna hate

[Uzybone]

58. +1

they keep on hating

[Uzybone]

59. +1

they keep on hating

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. Just how much time do you spend reading these boards?

Because I'm not surprised at all.

[lpbk2713]

44. Cut him some slack.

He's kind of a newbie. :eyes:



:rofl:

[HughMoran]

94. .

:rofl:

[Flying Dream Blues]

53. Some of thehostile replies belong to people who have no interest

in common courtesy, and it is making this place hard to tolerate. It started during the primaries and hasn't really let up since.

[MrMickeysMom]

85. Let's be frank...

They're assholes!

[spoony]

82. It's the assumption about shadowy ulterior motives that

the OP, and you, are operating under that is offensive to the posters responding to this thread. Note the particular TYPE of post that you both want clarification about. It singles people out based on the wearying "hater" tripe that has made DU so paranoid lately.

[HughMoran]

95. ...because that TYPE of post can be construed to be against the rules here

Isn't it inherently obvious as to why a little clarification might prevent such misunderstandings?

[Skinner]

105. I was hoping someone would try this angle. Let me be clear:

If someone posts a hatchet-job about Barack Obama from the likes of Jonah Goldberg, you're goddamn right people are going to wonder about your motives.

If anyone here thinks that's outrageous, then you need to take a good hard look at yourself. If you suddenly find yourself buying the snake-oil that conservative assholes like Jonah Goldberg are selling, then there is a good chance that you are utterly lost to the dark side.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

107. Well said, Skinner.

How are we (the majority of posters here) supposed to know at a glance if another poster is falling victim to the RW propaganda or not? If RW propaganda is being quoted without qualification how are we supposed to figure out the intent if the OP doesn't elaborate? Frankly, if anything feels "shadowy" and rife with "ulterior motives" to me, it's posts such as that.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

118. Sorry, but my brain doesn't come with a psychic switch

I'm unable to tell if a person is laughing at something, trolling for flames or just ignorant of the material they posted without some input from them. Since one of those intentions is a violation of the rules of the board, I think intention is important.

[spoony]

113. That certainly wasn't my "angle"-- What percentage of the posts attacked as "hate"

are from (font size 400) JONAH GOLDBERGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!! (/font size 400)

Posts are dismissed, and often deleted or locked, for nothing more than being critical of Obama. One was just locked because the criticism was from an item a few months old, as if that makes it unfit for viewing.

[Denzil_DC]

83. The indignant responses

would appear to be because doing as MineralMan requests would derail a lot of the flamebaiting posts that appear here, or at least make their threads a bit shorter because people wouldn't have to debate what the OP's attitude and intention was. Kicks to discuss that = visibility.

[laughingliberal]

89. "... the steady stream of insightful political analysis from the misunderstood Jonah Goldberg

:rofl:

coffee...spewed...monitor

[HughMoran]

91. Must. Resist. Urge. To. Say. Something. Snarky.

:)

:hi:





(edit to add, I'm puzzled too)

[redqueen]

111. Really?

I'm surprised that you're surprised.

[blondeatlast]

28. +1. It's sensible and polite. nt

[MineralMan]

34. Thanks!

[stuntcat]

123. yah,

not really asking for such a fight :o usually this is a symptom of people not having enough real stuff to discuss, they eat their own, fight over nothing.
But with all the horrible shit going on in the world I'm amazed at the hours & hours of fighting here lately..over sports, or stuff as little as this.

I have reading and memory problems so I appreciate it when people are clear about their feelings or purpose when they post quotes or opinions that aren't theirs.

This thread was Polite, just like it said in the title.

[AlinPA]

32. Thank you Mineralman, that makes sense.

[MineralMan]

33. Thanks very much.

[Dappleganger]

38. It's a good idea.

I'm game. :thumbsup:

[mzmolly]

45. I agree and respectfully suggest that we post satire in the lounge vs. other forums as well.

:hi:

[Scurrilous]

46. K & R

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

47. That's a good idea and reasonable request, particularly because

there are no visual cues but type on discussion boards.

[leftstreet]

49. As long as it's not a news item

We don't expect news anchors to give their opinions on the news they're reporting

[MrScorpio]

50. There are plenty of folks around here who don't know who I am

So, you're giving some great advice there

[lamp_shade]

51. K&R

[Morning Dew]

52. Just goes to show ya...

some here can't even read an OP.

rec.

[csziggy]

54. I agree - I hate reading a long post, only to get to the bottom to find it was a quote

There is a simple way to separate quotes from the poster's comments - just use the Blockquote option from the HTML lookup table - just insert <div class="excerpt"> before the quote and </div> after, but replace the <> with square brackets. Put the quote inside that, along with the link at the bottom before you close the HTML tags and that makes it obvious that it is a quote. It will look like this:

MineralMan:
Either in the OP or in the first reply to that OP, please write a couple of paragraphs laying out your opinion of the quoted matter, and give us an idea of why you posted it. You may think that everyone knows that you are a staunch Democrat and a supporter of liberal and progressive viewpoints, but that is not necessarily the case. You may think that everyone on DU knows your screen name and can puzzle out your reason for posting some material that might be misconstrued. That's unlikely, too.

Odds are that the majority of people reading your OP has no idea who you are or what your prevailing political opinion might be. Odds are that you're not quite as famous as you think you are here on DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8555649&mesg_id=8555649

See, now you know what are my words and what are the comments by MineralMan without having to remember what my attitude has been in the past on the subject.

[pinboy3niner]

61. Sincere thanks for the graybox briefing

I'd copied info on that some time ago, figured I'd eventually get around to figuring out where I filed the damn thing, or do another simple search to get it. 'Bout time I cross that off my list. :)

Kudos to you and all DUers who share helpful info with their fellow members. :thumbsup:

[csziggy]

62. To be honest I don't keep track of how to do it

I just click on the "HTML lookup table" link above the message posting box when I am writing a message. It's right above the "Smilies lookup table" link.

I post on a number of forums and each has a different formatting for doing blockquotes. Some use "real" HTML bracketing, some don't let the user put in their own, but have clickable formatting links, and some use the square brackets that are used here. So rather than trying to remember which boards use which formatting, I just see what is in the message box for letting me write my message.

[pinboy3niner]

86. So THAT'S where I found it

Actually, that didn't resolve all of my questions, so I did a DU search and found posts that elaborated, and had bookmarked one. Your reminder led to my successful use of grayboxing in an OP this evening based on the lookup table alone. Thanks again...

[snooper2]

55. Another Polite Request

Please include a little bit about yourself...

Age, background, field/fields of work, education...

That way when you post something we can see if you have any cred. to back it up or if your just another jackass rambling on the Intertubes :evilgrin:

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. And please add your social security and bank account numbers

:)

[NYC_SKP]

56. Heartily Recommended, MineralMan!

I have felt the same way since coming here and I want to thank you for expressing it so well.

:toast:

[MineralMan]

76. Thanks. I see the same thing on other forums, too.

It's frustrating, and leads to unnecessary flamewars.

[SunsetDreams]

60. K&R Understood and agreed :)

[Better Believe It]

63. Good points. I'll try to keep them in mind. Thanks.

[Spazito]

64. Excellent point!

Recommended.

[Better Believe It]

65. K & R

[Soylent Brice]

66. i'm not famous?

1st stage of grief: :cry:

2nd stage of grief: :argh:

3rd stage of grief: :beer:

4th stage of grief: :puke:

5th stage of grief: :grouphug:

[MineralMan]

77. Wait....what? I thought your last name was Greene...

:rofl:

[Soylent Brice]

103. witness protection program.

i've already said too much...

:hide:

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

70. This makes me want to find one so that I can clarify my position.

I don't have any passages to post today, though.

I think I've been pretty clear about my position on this administration, though; clear enough that I can't post a sigline because it offends Obama supporters.

[Better Believe It]

71. The only problem I can see is .....

Some DU'ers consider any criticism of the Obama administrations policies as a "mindless attack on the Obama administration".

So how can one make an objective determination on what could honestly be mistaken as a "mindless attack" as opposed to a reasonable criticism of the Obama administration? This is very subjective.

One would have to post extended personal comments on every single article that wasn't in "lock step" with the Obama administration in order to be fair.

I don't know how that can be done within reason to avoid any confusion short of having all DU'ers writing several paragraphs expressing ones personal opinion on every article posted on DU plus a clear explanation of why the DUer posted an article that doesn't agree with a specific Obama administration policy.

And also in the interest of fairness and transparency, shouldn't DU'ers who post highly favorable articles regarding President Obama's policy indicate that they are not serving the Obama administration in any capacity?

[Fumesucker]

72. +1

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. Well said

Thank you.

[MineralMan]

78. What I suggested doesn't apply to most OPs, just some.

They're the ones that deteriorate into flamewars and then get locked. In many cases, that could have been avoided with a little commentary by the OP. I hear what you're saying, but the type of posts you mention are not the ones I'm talking about.

[Better Believe It]

81. What about responders to posts who deliberately try to ignite a flaming war

in order to get a post they don't like locked?

[MineralMan]

109. Yes. That happens, but it's not the subject of my post.

[Better Believe It]

110. Well, what do you think can or should be done to discourage such disruptive activities?

I thought a major objective of your suggestions was to prevent posts from degenerating into mindless flamewars.

But, maybe I misunderstood the purpose of your post.

[MineralMan]

115. Well, I was just talking about one issue, and not the other.

You're right, though. Sometimes, flamewars begin when someone posts something inflammatory in a thread. What usually happens is that someone alerts on that and the post is removed. Not always, though.

Still, many times, inflammatory posts are based on not reading the OP carefully or on misunderstanding the intent of the OP. In that case, my suggestion might lessen the problem. Flamewars accomplish nothing, really, and generally stray very far off the topic of the original post. That's too bad, and leads to locked threads and worse.

My suggestion was only based on the idea that anything that promotes understanding of what is being said is a good thing, and can help prevent flamewars and contribute to rational discussion. I'm not sure why it was taken wrong by several posters in this thread. I don't want to shut anyone up or dictate what may or may not be posted here. I have no power to do that, in any case.

What I want is to promote active, but rational, discussion of the issues we're all interested in. Minimizing flamewars is part of that. I'm still trying to puzzle out how I might have written my OP in a way that wouldn't have generated the negative posts. I can't, though, for the life of me see how I could have made it more clear that I was simply posting a suggestion or request for something that would keep flamewars from firing up so often.

[Better Believe It]

126. No. You didn't understand my point at all. Why people try to start flamewars against posts ....

that don't meet with their approval.

"Flamewars" are frequently started by a few people in response to articles that are critical of an action or policy of someone in the Obama administration. A few people begin posting an endless stream of personal attacks on the DU'er who posted the original article. Those posters will not make any effort to rebut the points in the article and won't offer even the slightest criticism of the article. So rather than engage in civil debate and discussion they prefer to engage in personal attacks and deliberately attempt to launch a flamewar. When other posters fail to respond to their obvious provocations they shift gears calling upon moderators to lock the post falsely claiming a full scale "flamewar" has broken out and/or that the opening post is flamebait!

That's the excuse they use.

Take a closer look at some of these alleged flamewars.

Frequently they are one-sided flamewars that only those who disagree with the post participate in!

You stated that "Flamewars accomplish nothing" and lead "to locked threads and worse."

Wrong. You contradicted yourself and indicated in the same sentence exactly what is accomplished!

They want posts locked!

They are trying to shut down discussion and debate!

That's their goal and the whole point of their negative personal attacks against the person who posted the article!

Don't you really get it?

This is not rocket science.

[MineralMan]

127. That's still a different subject. Maybe you should start a new

thread for it.

[Better Believe It]

129. No. It's the same subject. The post deals directly with points you raised in your opening post.

Everyone can see that.

So your reluctance to discuss or respond to my specific points on bogus "flamewars" is surprising to me.

Perhaps you have a good reason.

It's unstated.

[arcadian]

112. That is total BS

posts about fried chicken devolve into flamewars, posts about ANYTHING have the potential to devolve into flame wars here.

[Cetacea]

79. Thank you. It IS good to be polite.

'Innit?

[Hawkowl]

88. Clarity is good!

Always assume your audience needs a little extra explanation.

[laughingliberal]

90. Very courteous. Rec. nt

[William Z. Foster]

92. objection

This is an absurd and unwarranted attack on the free and open discussion here.

Who will be doing this "misconstruing" and calling a post a "mindless attack?" You?

Who here is promoting Sara Palin? No one. But you are insinuating that anyone posting something you disagree with is doing that. Shame on you.

Who is to decide who is and who is not a "staunch Democrat?" You?

Why should people not post controversial things? Who decides what is and what is not controversial?

What is wrong with each reader assessing the value of the message ion a post, rather than trying to figure things out about the messenger?

Your posts is just full of passive-aggressive attacks on the DUers you disagree with, is baiting and misleading and I hope that all thinking people here will reject your appeal.

[Cetacea]

97. I would love to have you as a campaign manager

Or better yet, strategist. You have a fantastic grasp on splinter politics/double binds. I am not saying this OP is an example of that, and I'm not saying it isn't, it's just something I've noticed in your responses in various threads. :toast:

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

101. Bravo

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

104. Agreed. Every single sentence.

Boy, are you a great addition here.
***********************************

Sidenotes on my own posting style.

Usually the way one titles to an OP will tell people right away what your slant is, or if you even have a slant.

If I post a story from elsewhere, I usually put the source in the title, just as a tip off. Daily Kos, FDL, FR, NYT, WP, FOX all carry a different subtext, even before you start to read the article: liberal forum, a regressive swamp, MSM, corporate crap media, etc. Same thing with authors because of the preconceived mindsets people have around here. The saddest thing is when people just try to kill off a "controversial" thread with insults and denigrations without reading the substance of the OP, quote, story, link at all, which of course says a lot more about their close-mindedness than anything about the post, poster or original story.

I have often posted articles without personal commentary for the exact reason that I DIDN'T want to sway follow-up discussion in any direction. What's wrong with that? As I said above, if you attribute the source and the author as you have to anyway, you've already done the groundwork for the reader.

Then again, I have posted many articles and then made my own POV a major part of the OP, because I CHOSE to.

****************************************************

Everyone writes and posts their own way. That's as it should be. That's what makes a forum interesting and thought provoking. If the people who are so passionately interested in enforcing conformity of thought and style get their way, eventually this whole place will become just another Party Pap website. That market is already saturated.

[berni_mccoy]

124. I find it sad that you consider the OP an attack. It is not.

Many people post RW garbage here without any context. It's a bad idea for both the poster and for this site. There are far more external readers of posts here than members. If they see a RW post out of context, what conclusions about the poster and the site are to be drawn. And like it or not, those conclusions *will* be drawn.

It takes no effort on the poster's part to say, "Look what this dipshit RWer said". And if you agree with RW dipshits, then you shouldn't be posting here. It really is that simple.

[William Z. Foster]

135. pretty obvious

First, the OP establishes just whom he is referring to - those whose posts could be "misconstrued" as helping Palin or tearing down the President. Leftists are routinely accused here of both of those things.

No one is actually promoting Palin or trying to tear down the administration other than obvious right wingers who are soon banned. No, the objection a few people have here is that some things posted have the effect of promoting Palin or tearing down the President, and there is an extremely wide range of posts - anything even vaguely to the left as a general rule - that make a person vulnerable to those charges.

People can not be held responsible for "conclusions" that "will be drawn" by a relative handful of posters who are relentlessly attacking any and all left wing posts because those posts supposedly "tear down the President" or "help Palin." Nor can people be held responsible for the inability - or the feigned inability - of a few members to distinguish between left wing critical analysis and "RW dipshits."

[Spheric]

125. +1 That sums it up nicely. Thanks.

I feel it is domineering and capricious to attempt to judge the value of a post on the supposed motivation of the poster. Even if the poster were to claim some sort of motivation, how is the veracity of that statement to be determined?

For example, if my true motivation were that I was getting paid to post, I would hardly be willing to let that be known.

An OP should stand and fall on its own. The message is all that matters, in my opinion, not who the messenger is or what motivates them.

[gleaner]

102. Good idea ....

and good common sense like telling others where a link takes them and what they will see there. You're right about most of us not knowing each other. I don't know most of the posters by screen name. I browse the threads and answer what interests me. Clarification is good.

[JHB]

106. It's your own fault for not being a telepath...

Why can't you read minds like a normal person, anyway?

:evilgrin: :hi:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

108. I agree with you

It's often the difference between flamebait and discussion.

[noamnety]

119. The thing about your request

is that it puts the focus on the OP, rather than the information the OP posts.

So for me it's coming across a little like "If I read something critical of Obama, I would respectfully like to know please if it's appropriate to engage in an ad hominem attack on the OP rather than discuss the content of the quoted piece itself."

[NoSheep]

120. I agree completely. Why should the poster be the focus? If there's no opinion

can't we just assume the poster is posting this for discussion?

[MineralMan]

130. That wasn't my point at all. A post that does nothing but quote something

from another source doesn't always promote a discussion. And, when the quoted material is something controversial, the assumption a lot of people make is that the poster agrees with the quoted material. That's often an incorrect assumption, but it is the assumption many people make.

A comment on the quoted material clarifies the reason the poster posted it in the first place. That's all. With that clarification, one of the main reasons for a flamewar starting is eliminated. That's all I was requesting - that if someone posts an obviously controversial block of text from another source, a comment from the OP about why that particular thing is being posted would be a big help to people reading the OP, and might avoid misunderstandings.

I'm not singling out any particular type of controversial post. It could be some anti-obama thing from the right wing, or a post about the personal life of some non-public figure. It could be anything. There are many topics that are controversial enough to raise questions in the readers' minds about the motives of the original poster. It's not as though we don't get a lot of bogus posts here, and I sure don't recognize every name on DU. I'm sure others do not either.

[noamnety]

131. There might be less flamewars if we stick to discussing the articles, not the people posting them.

In the OP, you wrote: "Don't just plop a big pile of controversial text on us, then leave us to figure out why you posted that mess. It's not fair."

I am just not seeing the "unfair" aspect. It doesn't strike me as "unfair" for people to be trusted to form or state their own opinions about a quoted article. We're critical thinkers. It's not an unfair position for us to be in.

" a comment from the OP about why that particular thing is being posted would be a big help to people reading the OP, and might avoid misunderstandings." <-- misunderstandings about the OP's opinions are only an issue if you are seeking to attack the OP.

Perhaps a better rule of thumb for avoiding those flamewars is "don't make assumptions about the opinions of the OP - don't attack them as a person. If you don't agree with the article, lay out why it's wrong. That's what the DU rules require us to do - and it leads to more civil debate.

[MineralMan]

133. That's a good idea, too.

I'm sorry you've misunderstood my reason for posting my OP. The point was to help eliminate people posting about the poster. A little commentary from the poster would help with that in many cases.

I agree that the discussion should not be about the poster.

[woo me with science]

136. Good post. nt

[Spheric]

121. What's next, dunking stools? /nt

[tmyers09]

132. Nice attempt at message control.

It's cool that you get to lay out your own ground rules though.

[quinnox]

134. Wow, still not satisfied, all critical articles of Obama need to be

given a hard look, huh?

It appears skinner agrees with you, so maybe your suggestion will become a hard and fast rule! Congrats, the more you clamp down on any negative Obama news articles or posts, the more this website will turn into the dream of the Obama zealots of a forum where only Obama love threads are posted!