Is it in keeping with netiquette to begin a thread with another's article and without personal commentary?

Is it in keeping with sciforums spirit to permit such threads?

I am not sure, yet such are many threads in the Religion Subforum, including this (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36107) and this (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36105) and this (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36209) and this (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35768).


To me at least, these threads, totally devoid of contribution by their starter, smack of propaganda.

The person posting them, for the most part, is irrelevant.


James R has, I believe, started a poll pertaining to and proposing stricter moderation within the Religion Subforum.
Potentially, reform like this could rid us of insipid, wasteful threads like those presented.

...

In my opinion, those rules should include committment or qualification of the issue by the starter as an explicit requirement to any thread.

I for one am tired of entering a thread only to be linked to the works of another and given no information on the position of the person who actually began the thread.

Are you, as a user, also tired of this?
Are you supportive of measures, changes to the rules of sciforums as a whole, which would disallow threads of this nature?


Original Thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36270)

it's it netiquette to not introduce a piece of quoted text?

ooh... and there should be an "I don't really care, that's what the Cesspool is for" option.

Though CC has changed his rules in order that he might throw out any thread, the Cesspool is, generally, for threads which break the rules, yes?

There is no part of the rules of, say, relgion, WE, P, or EM&J that prohibits threads without commentary.


ooh... and there should be an "I don't really care, that's what the Cesspool is for" option.

No, there shouldn't.
You're either supportive or you aren't.

Rules for the Religion forum, in particular, will be changing in the very near future.

Not that I want to pre-empt the results of this poll...

I hate propaganda threads.

They serve no purpose other than propaganda.

Since I'm the only dissenter so far, I should explain myself:

I like the cesspool (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=92) purgatory for badly-crafted or otherwise useless threads. I think the cesspool is an admirable method for open moderating, and leaves a slight chance for badly-started threads to be redeemed- Far preferable to unseen hands yoinking "proppaganda threads". Those who don't want to, don't have to look in the cesspool, so there is no reason for indignance.

Then maybe propaganda threads should be banished to the cesspool.

That's a good idea hype.

I vote that the rule be changed to banish propaganda threads to the cesspool.

Yes, that is a good plan.

I can't believe somebody posted "no."

Moving them to the cesspool would be best probably. A shame really, it would lower the quality of the cesspool. :p

rap, why dont you just change the poll to another 'ban' (or in this case 'move') all of PM's threads, since all of those examples are by him.

but in general i think moving {propaganda threads} to the cesspool = good idea

I think maybe the poll has already statistically proven that we want to end propaganda threads.

I think maybe the poll has already statistically proven that we want to end propaganda threads.
sample size is too low.

to me the poll shows that people don't care

of course they do...even hoax_muslim voted yes!

To the sewage pool yes. Total ban no. I believe that it is better to know where these people are coming from and worry about who gets to decide what unpopular stances are propaganda.

Yes, the Cesspool allows for reconsideration, at least.

'Tis a good idea, this.

hey, dont fill up the cesspool with crap, the cesspools the best bit of sciforums atm

Why do we need a poll on this anyway. Can't the moderators just change their own policy and start removing the propaganda threads?

If someone objects they can start a poll to get them back in.

propaganda: - "information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause"

the information is the poll, and the cause that you are promoting is to have propoganda removed

this thread is propoganda :P

dont you mena :p

why cant people do that right.

There is no information spread. There is information gathered on the subject...

maybe...

maybe not...

I just saw that PM supports rules against propaganda threads. Interesting.

but he doesnt spread propaganda, only the truth lol.

He is trying to confuse us.

Maybe staci can vote yes too then, since she thinks PM holds the truth and nothing but the truth so help them satan.

whatever, i dont really care, hes banned at the moment.

I'll bet he will call his banning a gargantuan massacre, or true holocaust, or grave injustice, or fascist oppression, or something similarly shocking when he returns.

May the force be with us.

it is, the mods can just ban him again.

"why cant people do that right.", i wasnt trying to actually get the emoticon to show up, im fine with :P

"There is no information spread. There is information gathered on the subject..."
when a person votes in the poll, theres info gathered, when a person views the poll, it's info spread

This poll seems to be part of history.

James posted new 'anti-propaganda' rules in the religion forum, and they are quite thorough. It was an interesting read.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36963