On Propaganda Threads

[Rappaccini]

HEY! READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE!


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.



The current rules of sciforums can be read here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34522), here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34473), or here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35527), second of which is for the Religion Subforum.

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?

Are you for such measures or against them?

[ElectricFetus]

We now have a sub-forum for sewage trash, new rules are not needed as any thread of that nature will end up in the cesspool.

[Rappaccini]

There's nothing about these threads that is currently against the rules.
So, no, they shouldn't end up in the trash unless that is changed.

[fireguy_31]

You make an excellent point rapp...

To be honest, when I first read the title of this thread I thought to myself, 'oh great, another propagandist who'll contradict themselves' but I was wrong.

You got my vote - be gone with propoganda, carefully of course.

EDIT: The second link you provided as evidence, in defence of proud..., did have a point in the third post - a position and question is provided, in a round about way.

[ElectricFetus]

Rappaccini,

and what threads are you talking about?

[Tiassa]

The first thing to do is to let those topics pass, then.

Obviously, we can't always account for people who choose to comment on them.

To the other, often the result is that without some guidepost, the topic just becomes a breeding ground for flames.

It is helpful to include some comment. Doing so also earns you a certain leeway. After a while, if I post a quote with the comment, "I don't know where to begin," or even, "Further commentary would be extraneous," now and then, nobody seems to complain about the lack of comment.

However, it has long been expressed in the rules that such stand-alone posts are discouraged. Like vulgar language, however, there is a force of posters' will to contend with. If the mods don't find the topic before other people chime in, the discussion is afoot. We even had a minor discord along those lines last week.

Also: Informational topics are fine. I ridiculed potentially-stupid people who haven't yet shown them to exist in order to warrant a post about a product recall ... I'm not sure anything I wrote aside from posting the topic link was helpful or useful, so there's a consideration to be had there. Which brings us back to the relationship between information, purpose, and propaganda.

What a neat little package.

[Rappaccini]

Rappaccini,

and what threads are you talking about?

Read my post.

[ElectricFetus]

oh those links are small man hard to see. I think you should change your subject to "ban Proud Mulsium"! hell we had so much fun with his previous pseudonyms being banished http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=25193 http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=16743

[wesmorris]

ah crap man i think i voted wrong.

i don't think proud muslim is necessarily a problem. it's just his behavior. :)

[Rappaccini]

Dang it.

The way I did the title and poll, I think many people are going to vote incorrectly.




*dusts off hands*

There! That ought to do it!

[ElectricFetus]

I did not vote yet.

[SkinWalker]

Wait a minute... the poll is asking if we are "for or against" propaganda polls right?

I'm starting to think its are we "for or against" stricter rules... if the latter is the case, I voted wrong.

I'm an Anthropology/Archaeology major, so I'm always interested in religion as a topic, but every time I go there, I just get annoyed at members like ProudMuslim and realize that the Pseudoscience kooks are more fun to argue with... they aren't blowing up and beheading anybody. Yet.

Still, I'd like to get involved in more religion discussions, since its one of the areas of anthropology that fascinate me, so I'll give the Religion Forum another shot. I agree that it would be more enjoyable without fanatical propagandists, however.

[Rappaccini]

Yes, you did.

I guess I'll make the text bigger.

[ElectricFetus]

ah No, no I did not.

[SkinWalker]

Ah... I see what I did. I read the initial post. Then read the remaining posts before going back to the poll. By the time I got back there, the only guide I had was the thread title and poll title. I should have referred back to your initial post... sorry.

[Rappaccini]

ah No, no I did not.

I was talking to Skinwalker.


Skinwalker, no problem.

[spuriousmonkey]

Can't a moderator make the poll options a bit more clear?


I'm against propaganda threads but still not sure which option to pick in the poll...

[CounslerCoffee]

But I did edit my version of the site rules:
13.1 Amendment to the Site Rules Concerning New Subforum:
If a thread serves no objective purpose or promotes unintelligent conversation, it is moved to The Cesspool. Moderators may determine which threads need to be moved on a case by case basis.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=549516#post549516

I just edited it again today to correct spelling, but that passage has been there for about a month.

[wesmorris]

Howzbout a do-over with a more clearly worded poll?

[spuriousmonkey]

yes please...that would be nice...

[Porfiry]

Indeed, I think I voted for the wrong option. Like the untalented songwriter says, dust yourself off and try again.