OOT WGA Threads

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
nt,

i am far from a regular oot poster, but what you're implying here is that it is inappropriate to start a thread in OOT asking for information that does not seem to go in any other thread.

is this true?

edit: and i don't mean googletarding. but like actual substance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very fair question.

What I am saying is, if you are going to start a thread seeking info or looking for comments, you should do the following:

-Make sure it's a topic of at least somewhat broad interest (appropriate for the forum).
-Look into it yourself first and bring some effort / info to the table. (Provide some direction to the discussion, give some background, etc).
-Make sure another OOT thread doesn't exist about it, or that it's not better suited to another subforum (i.e. sports).

This is all in the sticky. .Alex. didn't follow the second part of this.

To respond to what some are saying about this being an important topic and deserving a thread: i agree. And it has one. As I have said in the past, any time a thread is locked for insufficient effort, anyone (including the OP) can feel free to restart it.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
I will admit that this lock could have been explained to OP a bit better as soon as OP admits he ignored the OOT rules and wasted our time by making this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see anywhere in the sticky that clearly indicates that my post wasn't informative enough. There's nothing that even goes as far as your second bullet above. I provided a link, gave a sentence description, and asked a couple of questions. I can concede that I didn't realize that "no effort" means anything less than a paragraph or two of analysis, but it wasn't due to lack of reading comprehension. I also thought, as CMI said, that there would be a bit of leeway based on the nature of the subject.

If this thread is a waste of time, then what is the purpose of ATF anyway? It seems that I'm not the only one who could have misinterpreted the intent of the rules. This is troubling because if experienced posters aren't sure about the standards, then what chance does a newbie have? A bit of clarification can only be a good thing.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't see anywhere in the sticky that clearly indicates that my post wasn't informative enough. There's nothing that even goes as far as your second bullet above. I provided a link, gave a sentence description, and asked a couple of questions. I can concede that I didn't realize that "no effort" means anything less than a paragraph or two of analysis, but it wasn't due to lack of reading comprehension. I also thought, as CMI said, that there would be a bit of leeway based on the nature of the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Take a look at the short version of the OOT sticky. "Don't post links with no added content." I don't see anywhere in the sticky that it says, "Feel free to ignore this if you think the subject is important enough."

Here is a link to an informative thread that another poster took the time to write about starting OP's based around a question or a search for information.

For more specifics, under "What not to post," the sticky says, "OP puts no effort into the post or does not include needed info in the thread." There is also a section on 'linktarding,' which is defined as "Threads that are merely links to stories, games, internet memes or other content, or threads that just involve cutting and pasting articles from another source." Your thread, if you recall, consisted solely of a link to the story with a few questions tacked on.

So yeah, there are several spots in the sticky that say "Don't do pretty much exactly what you just did." If it's not clear enough for you, I suggest you leave OOT thread-starting to people who are able to follow instructions.

[ QUOTE ]

If this thread is a waste of time, then what is the purpose of ATF anyway? It seems that I'm not the only one who could have misinterpreted the intent of the rules. This is troubling because if experienced posters aren't sure about the standards, then what chance does a newbie have? A bit of clarification can only be a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rules pretty clearly state that if you don't understand them, DON'T START THREADS. I don't think there's anything particularly confusing about them, though. I doubt you read them thoroughly at any point, you probably just skimmed them AFTER your thread got locked. So this thread is pointless because we spent a good bit of time answering these questions in a clear set of instructions that you totally ignored. Furthermore, it's pointless because nobody even got banned, several threads on the subject continue to exist, and you clearly aren't going to be satisfied with any answer anyway.

[NT!]

Also for someone who is so up-in-arms about these threads and improving the forums, you don't seem to care too much about the strike. You haven't posted in the Lounge thread or in the new OOT one.

[MC Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
Also for someone who is so up-in-arms about these threads and improving the forums, you don't seem to care too much about the strike. You haven't posted in the Lounge thread or in the new OOT one.

[/ QUOTE ]

burn, imo

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
Also for someone who is so up-in-arms about these threads and improving the forums, you don't seem to care too much about the strike. You haven't posted in the Lounge thread or in the new OOT one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I was kind of wondering why he was complaining so much when all his OOT post did was ask for information about the strike. He was pointed to the Lounge thread (even given the link) which contained tons of info. I didn't read anything in his post about wanting OOT to discuss it.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
The rules pretty clearly state that if you don't understand them, DON'T START THREADS. I don't think there's anything particularly confusing about them, though. I doubt you read them thoroughly at any point, you probably just skimmed them AFTER your thread got locked. So this thread is pointless because we spent a good bit of time answering these questions in a clear set of instructions that you totally ignored. Furthermore, it's pointless because nobody even got banned, several threads on the subject continue to exist, and you clearly aren't going to be satisfied with any answer anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I may not have read this version until after my post, but I've certainly read several of the previous iterations in the two years I've been posting there. I'm fully aware of the linktarding rule and so on, but I thought I added enough for it to be good enough to stay. Apparently I was wrong. I don't know why you think I'm not satisfied. Even though you argue in the most insulting way possible, you got the point across. Remember, if someone had explained to me that the lack of content was the issue in the first place, there would have been no need for this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Also for someone who is so up-in-arms about these threads and improving the forums, you don't seem to care too much about the strike. You haven't posted in the Lounge thread or in the new OOT one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've read both of them and learned a lot. Since when do you need to post in every thread that you find useful.

See it's funny. Aside from maybe one line in the OP, I've been fair, rational, and given you every chance to explain yourself. You can't go a single post without making an unfounded accusation, a baseless judgment about my intent, or just taking a cheap shot at me. Yet I'm the bad guy.

[RunDownHouse]

.Alex.,

"Apparently I was wrong. I don't know why you think I'm not satisfied."

Maybe because you keep posting things like, "Waaaaaah, why did you lock my post?"

"Even though you argue in the most insulting way possible, you got the point across."

Maybe the OOT mods thought they didn't get the point across because you keep posting things like, "Waaaaaah, why did you lock my post?"

"Since when do you need to post in every thread that you find useful?" There's an appreciable difference between posting "in every thread you find useful," and not bothering to: educate yourself on a very common issue, and, having achieved such education, write an OP that can go somewhere. Your OP may as well have been a link to the IMDB page of "An Inconvenient Truth," and the title, "Is global warming for real?"

"Remember, if someone had explained to me that the lack of content was the issue in the first place, there would have been no need for this thread."

If you mean, "If the mods had been more communicative in the ban PM, there would have been no need for this thread," I'd probably agree. If you mean, "if someone had explained to me that the lack of content was the issue in the first place," well, I'm pretty sure it happened in the first eleven posts of this thread.

[NT!]

What RDH said.

Also,

"I may not have read this version until after my post..."

...so you made a bad post, complained that it got locked, then went back to look at the rules to justify your position. Guide to crappy ATF posting, chapter 1: Post-hoc OOT rules interpretation for crybabies.

[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
"Apparently I was wrong. I don't know why you think I'm not satisfied."

Maybe because you keep posting things like, "Waaaaaah, why did you lock my post?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not the only one who pointed out that the PMs plus the first half of the thread were full of contradictions and inconsistency. Now that that has gotten cleared up to an extent, I feel much better.

[ QUOTE ]
write an OP that can go somewhere. Your OP may as well have been a link to the IMDB page of "An Inconvenient Truth," and the title, "Is global warming for real?"

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a terrible analogy, and you know it. For one thing, global warming is a topic that has already been debated endlessly and is unlikely to lead to a productive conversation, while this is an new issue with constant breaking news and little existing analysis. You really don't think that thread would have lead to a good discussion?

[ QUOTE ]
What RDH said.

Also,

"I may not have read this version until after my post..."

...so you made a bad post, complained that it got locked, then went back to look at the rules to justify your position. Guide to crappy ATF posting, chapter 1: Post-hoc OOT rules interpretation for crybabies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Guide to crappy debating, chapter 1: Taking a sentence out of context and mischaracterizing it, while ignoring the actual points.

See I can do it too, but these kinds of tactics are what derail threads and waste everyone's time. To actually address your argument though, the OOT rules haven't really changed much over time, so I think my understanding is better than the majority of posters'. YOU went to the rules to justify your position. I just responded by saying that "no effort" isn't clear.