Without getting overly specific , its easy to see why when PF tolerates even small trangressions, standards begin to drop. I speak of course of one liners which as far as I can tell are completely acceptable at this point. Day after day folks cut and paste articles, many of questionable credibility and content with absolutely no original commentary or explanation of why they posted it to begin with. For example: http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...fires-live-ammunition-gaza-demonstrators.html Its a spam fest basically. Sure discussion occasionally manages to develop, but it that the standard? What this leads to is more and more one liners from folks who dont care about the rules in addition to new one liners from those that would just assume follow the TOS. After all why put in the effort if just doesnt really matter. Ive reported them from time to time.....this is just an exercise in futility. They never disappear. I comment about the failure to follow the TOS in the threads...no matter. So I guess from now when Im feeling lazy Ill just spam it up as well.
The rule on Thread Creation says this: The key test is whether the OP establishes 'a foundation for respectful discussion and debate', and it makes it clear that it 'should contain a member's opinions or questions with sufficient elaboration' to do that, and that 'Images, links, quotations, etc., should be used to support a member's opinion, not to replace it'. The thread linked to above did not do that, and did not develop a 'respectful discussion and debate' as a result, and has now been deleted accordingly, but we obviously don't see every thread that is posted on a forum this size, so some will inevitably survive. We don't apply this rule harshly, or in a strictly dogmatic fashion, though, because we obviouosly don't want to stiffle any ongoing debate. Occasionally an apparent 'one-liner' (or equivalent) can lead to a good discussion thread, either because it is so well worded that it manages to set the foundation (which is unusual) or because another member sets the discussion up in a subsequent post that starts a debate and 'saves' the thread - what we obviously don't want to be doing is shutting down discussion threads that are going along just fine, simply because the OP wasn't good. The rule is there simply to stop the forum being swamped by nonsense threads without any real discussion, or threads that are just full of rule violations. If a reasonable discussion starts on a thread, it's likely to be left alone, even if the OP wasn't very good (unless the OP is actually violating other specific rules like 'flamebaiting' or whatever, of course - then we do have to take action). We don't want a forum flooded with pointlessness and one-liner nonsense, of course, but the last thing we want to do is to prevent people from continuing with any actual ongoing discussion!
'Relevant 'is right to point this out. The current situation results in ' illegal' threads remaining on view- or in the wrong forum- because the thread has picked up a few posts before being seen for what it is. Others then come along and ape the fault - understandably. So, either reports are addressed faster than they presently are or the rules override the additions to the illegal thread. The third option- the existing state of affairs- is to allow the illegal thread , ignore the rules and permit the illegal threads to multiply. Here's an illegal thread that we might use as a tester;
'Relevant 'is right to point this out. The current situation results in ' illegal' threads remaining on view- or in the wrong forum- because the thread has picked up a few posts before being seen for what it is. Others then come along and ape the fault - understandably. So, either reports are addressed faster than they presently are or the rules override the additions to the illegal thread. The third option- the existing state of affairs- is to allow the illegal thread , ignore the rules and permit the illegal threads to multiply. Here's an illegal thread that we might use as a tester; http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/230544-who-has-right-israel-v2.html It's definitely a breach of the stated forum rules- no doubt about it. It's received at least two reports ( two were mine ) yet it remains in the wrong forum. I suggest that other people seeing this will simply ignore the rules as well. Why shouldn't they ?
This one is typical; http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/230822-sick-people-strip-hamas.html#post1060818145
....and because it has been ignored it is followed by another; http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/230909-most-arabs-proud-israeli.html
Well, they're gone, and praise due for that- only to be followed by two more. Same source, same scorn for the rules; http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/231519-legal-right-palestine-video.html http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...tz-harvard-professor-best-selling-author.html ...and another; http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/230676-doug-murray-his-best.html#post1060835645
And another. Someone's having a larf. http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/231676-israel-amazing-country-amazing-people.html
Yet another; http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/231702-pat-condell-latest-islam.html That's five rule-busting threads running simultaneously on the first page of the forum. Why have rules ?
Is ' Latest News ' being modified as a spam-magnet ? Another one; http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/231755-my-town-jerusalem.html#post1060840594
Three more. Who cares ? http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/233822-contemporary-muslims-need-spirituality.html http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ans-greatest-political-scam-modern-times.html http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ge-your-congressman-write-your-president.html
Moon, you are just to funny! Sounds like the OP could be expanded a few pages to list all the troubles. How in all of heaven and earth did this thread starter miss being included in this OP? In the future, MrRelevant, I suggest that your arguments includes all the troubling threads, not just the ones that you don't politically support.
I just don't understand it. This thread is in the wrong forum. The author himself openly admits it here. http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...n-write-your-president-11.html#post1060896350 #107. Now, if the members think it's in the wrong thread- and they are supported by its author- .........................?
How about this one ? http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/234063-demand-obama-support-isreal-else.html The thread title has no connection to the news snippet . It's a cut-and-paste opinion piece.
This one's from 1925 ! http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...-muslim-council-1925-temple-mount-jewish.html I suppose it might be ' Latest News ' for a very old person coming out of cryogenic storage.
