• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rule 17

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,528
Reaction score
34,853
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Perhaps Rule 17 could be tidied up a bit?

As it is, it suggests that people provide original content when starting threads, but doesn't make it an absolute rule. Perhaps it could instead require one of two things to happen: (1) that people always provide some original content AND demarcate what is original and what is being quoted from a source, or (2) indicate that there is no original content.
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
50,528
Reaction score
34,853
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Perhaps Rule 17 could be tidied up a bit?

As it is, it suggests that people provide original content when starting threads, but doesn't make it an absolute rule. Perhaps it could instead require one of two things to happen: (1) that people always provide some original content AND demarcate what is original and what is being quoted from a source, or (2) indicate that there is no original content.



Too late to edit: it's just that some OPs have tripped myself and others up, unnecessarily so. I'd be nice if the rule clearly required some form of demarcation. I think that the duty to make clear what's what should be on the person who crates the original post, rather than on the person who reads the thread; the latter would have to open the source and check things line for line if there isn't an demarcation.
 

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,744
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Too late to edit: it's just that some OPs have tripped myself and others up, unnecessarily so. I'd be nice if the rule clearly required some form of demarcation. I think that the duty to make clear what's what should be on the person who crates the original post, rather than on the person who reads the thread; the latter would have to open the source and check things line for line if there isn't an demarcation.

Good idea, it is strange to me that some people dont do this, like maybe they are trying to be confusing. I want it in a quote, and I expect a link right under the quote. This is not rocket science.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,514
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Perhaps Rule 17 could be tidied up a bit?

As it is, it suggests that people provide original content when starting threads, but doesn't make it an absolute rule. Perhaps it could instead require one of two things to happen: (1) that people always provide some original content AND demarcate what is original and what is being quoted from a source, or (2) indicate that there is no original content.

I agree. Most sites have this requirement and for good reasons.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Too late to edit: it's just that some OPs have tripped myself and others up, unnecessarily so. I'd be nice if the rule clearly required some form of demarcation. I think that the duty to make clear what's what should be on the person who crates the original post, rather than on the person who reads the thread; the latter would have to open the source and check things line for line if there isn't an demarcation.

I rarely participate in threads that don't have some kind of comments from the OP. Maybe we should just start a groundswell movement and simply ignore any thread without OP comments....
 

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
48,878
Reaction score
29,082
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The problem with enforcing this rule in every forum is that it doesn't work for every forum. Rule 17 is rarely enforced unless we have a serial thread starter where there is no original content. Thanks for the suggestion though, we may look at rewording it in a future re-write.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom