Copied news articles...

northerntiger said:Let’s clear the air—which other rule am I supposedly breaking? 🙂

Chuck shared the link to the site rules, so I’m asking nicely: could you please just copy and paste the specific rule I’m violating? I don't want us getting into an argument here about how things work on this forum based purely on personal bias rather than actual logic. 🙂

Looking through that list, I don't see any other violations on my part.
Where does it say we aren't allowed to post content that isn't "contrary, objective, or neutral in tone"? 🙂

How on earth can posting a link or quoting a portion of someone's official biography—like Viti Turšić's, whom Hillary Clinton kept on staff as reported today—be interpreted as "aggressive propaganda"? 🙂

Well, the supermoderator actually already addressed this.

If it's constant or excessive, it can be considered disrupting the normal flow of the forum. Sure, a massive copy-paste dump might be technically okay (though one wonders if anyone actually reads it or if it adds anything productive to the discussion), but if that's how someone chooses to participate, it's clearly a different story.

Sarah Doyle54 said:We mostly cleared them out, but if you spot any posts about those spreadsheets in a foreign language that we missed, please post them here. 😁

I'm well aware of that, and I know you're scrubbing it all. 🙂It caught my eye because there were several different English texts posted on that same thread.

If I recall correctly, that first thread about Hillary Clinton was posted before the election. Let me go back and take a look...

northerntiger said:If I drop a link to something that’s heavy on text, I’m just going to quote a specific snippet—like that biography of a public official we were talking about earlier—rather than retyping the whole damn thing. Honestly, I can't stand playing translator for things that are already staring you in the face. I'd much rather just lay out the actual words so you guys can see if my take is actually backed by facts or if I'm just making stuff up again.

I get what you're saying, but honestly, it’d be way more efficient if you just quoted the specific snippet you need to back up your points and then dropped a link to the full article. That way we aren't wading through walls of text. Plus, it helps us avoid exactly what rapidnomad512 was talking about.

rapidnomad512 said:Honestly, I might just start doing the exact same thing. I’ll just start copying Lovrić, Šol, and a few of those other guys and start hitting them back. Before you know it, there will be two articles by northerntiger and two of my own cluttering up the site. If people actually want to read that mess, fine. Let them.

🙂

Susan Price30 said:Alright, I guess I'll go take a look then...

Whatever makes you happy. 🤣 Honestly, I don't think it makes much sense. It’s highly unlikely anyone is going to dig through those ancient threads from the Stone Age just to find some missed details or old drama we overlooked.

Sarah Doyle54 said:If you're happy about 🤣 , I don't really see the point. It's unlikely anyone is going back to dig through ancient threads just to find some missed details.

Man, you've worn me out 🤣

Seeing this bit from The New York Times on page made me realize how much we've been circling this topic lately. Our user northerntiger speaks fantastic English, but since there wasn't a translation provided, people ended up leaving long comments and things got lost in translation.

That's all from me, enjoy yourselves. 😁

I honestly don't mind when people post long "walls of text" that are just quotes from other sites or articles. Take Cukina’s massive write-up about the new advisor, Pavić, regarding Hillary Clinton—even if the source is just a local daily news site, I think it's great because it adds so much flavor and context to what's happening. Even if some of the details aren't 100% factual, it’s still a fun read. Plus, I actually appreciate it when someone pastes the whole thing instead of just dropping a link. I don't really visit that site, and there are plenty of others I skip too. It saves me the hassle of clicking away, and let's be real, not everyone can access every single website anyway due to various restrictions. That's why I love it when people just bring the story directly to us.

I'm honestly just over all the mindless nonsense and trolls that won't stop cluttering up my feed. It's getting old.

So, regarding my post and that New York Times article—I followed the rules and wrote a summary of what I was quoting. I only included two direct sentences from the piece and provided the link. Now I'm being told it’s still not okay? What gives? 😂

It all sounds a bit tragicomic, doesn't it? 🤣

The real issue here is just the sheer volume of text. This user is actually trying to bring some substance to the table so we can have a real debate and compare facts..

Maybe we should all just stick to one-liners like everyone else does over on the Politics subforum.. 🙄
Honestly, if you post something without throwing out a label like "fascist" or "commie," you might as well get banned right then and there. It’s the only way to keep the discourse at that high level they love on Politics... 🙄

I mean, instead of the moderators stepping up to defend actual quality discussion and logic, they're wasting time debating whether stuff like this should even be allowed.. 😵

How many people are actually going to click those links she posts? Hardly anyone. People just don't have the interest or the energy for it...
When she pulls out the key points herself, people actually read it, which helps the conversation move forward. And since she leaves the link there, anyone who actually wants to dive deeper can just read the whole thing themselves..

Nobody is suggesting we scrap anything. Every single thing you see happening here is welcome, and most of it isn't even an issue. This is about "overkill"—it’s about a total lack of moderation. I'm simply calling for some balance, not a ban or the removal of any element that adds value to this forum.

Susan Price30 said:That is all from me, I hope you all enjoy yourselves. 😁

Hmm... I suppose one might argue that you didn't actually contribute much to the conversation if that was the post you were referring to:

I don't really see any "hidden meaning" here; honestly, even if it had been written in Chinese instead of English, I guess you could probably make sense of it using Google Translate.

Quite something, really. 🙄

Has anyone actually bothered to mention the king of nonsense, Konev? At least northerntiger manages to put out something remotely readable. Konev, on the other hand, just dumps these Google Translate messes translated straight from Russian that nobody can even begin to decipher. Here is one of the more harmless examples:

But I suppose we all just tolerate it here because Konev is a "professional," right?

northerntiger said:Regarding my post and that article from The New York Times—I followed the rules by summarizing what I quoted. I included two direct sentences from the piece and provided the link. Is that still somehow an issue? 😂

Setting that specific post aside—the whole point was that misunderstandings happen when people rely on untranslated English text or snippets, which forces you to spend pages explaining what a foreign news piece actually means versus what it doesn't. It's all about those misunderstandings.

That’s what I was talking about. 👍

And obviously, I'm not targeting you per se, but rather a general rule. As far as I know, the standard practice isn't to just use Google Translate, but to provide a full translation of the text being posted, or at least the most vital part.

(And yes, there were some "nonsense" bits in English too, not just plain text)

rapidnomad512 said:Nobody is actually suggesting we scrap anything. Every kind of content you see here is welcome and usually isn't an issue. It’s just about the "overkill"—there's a lack of moderation regarding scale. I'm simply calling for some restraint, not a ban or the removal of any elements that make this forum what it is.

It looks like William Bennett has already stepped up with a solid point. For those of us trying to have a conversation, constant flooding makes things unreadable and drags everything down. But then again, if certain mods don't mind it and aren't seeing an issue, fine—let's all just start dumping endless media quotes into every thread, too (though maybe we were holding back specifically because of the reasons mentioned above).

And I guess that solves it. If the mods aren't bothered by it, I don't see why those of us who don't moderate should be.

slybison8 said:I don't see any kind of "cover-up" here; honestly, even if this had been posted in Chinese instead of English, you could still make sense of it using Google Translate.

Is your entire post basically on the same level as that old joke: "Truth is our most precious commodity, so let's try to use it sparingly"?!

No hard feelings, man. 🙂 🙂