Copied news articles...

northerntiger (who’s always wading into politics anyway, but this obsession with Kolinda has crossed a line) just dumps massive walls of text copied straight from news sites, adds a couple of their own sentences, and calls it a day. It’s exhausting. Regarding the Kolinda thread, they’ve essentially buried the whole discussion under a mountain of junk. It makes the thread impossible to read.

A forum should be a place for actual discussion and personal opinions. While quoting sources can give an argument some weight, someone needs to step in and address this spamming.
It’s fine once in a while to share an article you think provides good context, but hijacking a single thread by dumping everything ever written about it in the media isn't "forum participation"—it's just acting like a glorified press clipping service.

If there's an article, provide the link. If people want to read the full story, they’ll click it.

Just look at this page:

I’m calling for the enforcement of rule Quote regarding posts that ruin the forum's readability. This colleague needs to be told to trim the quotes and actually use their own words. We aren't here to act as news aggregators or a repository for press clippings; we're here to see what people actually think about certain topics.

If we set aside the fact that this thread is focused on a specific user rather than the actual issue of massive copy-pasted walls of text, I find myself agreeing. Large blocks of copied content that make a discussion impossible to follow shouldn't be permitted. Now, that isn't necessarily an issue if it’s just a one-off occurrence or something rare. It is entirely possible that, in this particular instance, all those articles and lists were actually necessary for the debate—and if that's the case, then fine. However, if users were doing this habitually, or if certain threads were being consistently cluttered this way, the moderators would need to step in and shut it down. I believe they mostly already do, but regardless, I'll be sure to bring it to their attention.
I appreciate the helpful intervention. 👍

William Bennett53 said:If we ignore the fact that this thread is about a specific user rather than the issue of massive walls of text, I agree. Posts that make a thread impossible to navigate shouldn't be allowed. Now, that isn't an issue if it’s a one-off situation. Maybe in this specific case, all those articles and lists were actually necessary for the debate—if so, fine. But if users were doing this habitually, or if certain threads were being constantly cluttered this way, moderators should step in and shut it down. I believe they mostly already do, but regardless, I'll make sure to flag it.
Thanks for the useful intervention. 👍

The thread isn't about the user; it's about the behavior she triggers. I have nothing against her personally—she thinks differently, and that's fine. But this is her pattern. This is how she posts:

http://www.example-us-forum.com/showpost.php?p=5...&postcount=270

And it's not just once. When she latches onto a topic, she just dumps everything in sight. You can't even hold a real discussion with her because you're expected to debate against entire essays.

I think I saw exactly one (1) post of hers on the Kolinda thread that wasn't formatted like this. This is spam. Regardless of whether the texts are relevant or not, a single link and a few key sentences to support an argument should be enough. I want to see an opinion, not "here is my thought, also here is a columnist's entire article." Because if that's the standard, I'll start doing the same thing—I'll just copy Lovrić, Šol, and a few others and go to town. Suddenly, the page will be filled with two columns from them and two from me. Who's going to read that?

Thanks for acknowledging the complaint. 👍

This is a total attempt to shut me up just because the OP doesn't like what I'm saying. Now they're coming at me with these "walls of text" accusations. Funny how those same long posts don't seem to bother them when their buddies write them—which is pretty easy to see since plenty of people, including the mods, drop massive essays all the time. 🙂

And let's not forget that he's perfectly capable of writing long posts himself filled with his own little theories, so why isn't that considered a "wall of text"? 😁

My whole thing is just providing articles and links so people can draw their own conclusions, maybe alongside a quick comment from me.

Specifically regarding the thread about Kolinda, where 80% of the stuff is just mindless cheering and voters acting like she's a hero, my "walls of text" were actually just links and snippets from the biographies of former advisors to Josipović and the ones chosen by Kolinda. The goal was to see if she actually brought anything new to the table after everything she promised. And clearly, that’s what's bugging this crowd: holding the President accountable to her word. 😁

The author of this thread is blatantly lying when he claims he only saw one post of mine that wasn't a wall of text. If anyone wants the truth, feel free to go take a look. So much for his "objectivity."

I try to follow the forum rules and I never just dump a link; I always provide a summary of the article, especially if it's in another language. 🙂

northerntiger said:This is a blatant attempt to silence me because the OP doesn't like my perspective, so he resorts to calling my posts "walls of text." Funny how those same long-winded walls don't bother him when they come from his own allies—which is easy enough to verify since plenty of people, including moderators, drop massive essays here all the time. 🙂

Not to mention, the guy himself can write a novel filled with his own fabrications, yet somehow that isn't considered a "wall of text"? 😁

My goal is to provide articles and links so people can draw their own conclusions, supplemented by my own commentary.

Take the thread about Kolinda. 80% of that discussion is just mindless cheering and voter triumphalism. My "walls of text" were simply links and biographical snippets regarding former advisor Josipović and the advisors chosen by Kolinda. The point was to see if she actually delivered on any of her promises. That’s clearly what bothers this crowd: holding the President accountable to her word. 😁

The author of this thread is lying through his teeth when he claims he only saw one post of mine that wasn't a "wall of text." If anyone actually cares about the truth, feel free to check the history. So much for his "objectivity."

I follow the forum rules. I never just dump a link; I provide a summary of the content, especially when it's from a foreign site. 🙂

You aren't following the rules; you're just copy-pasting massive blocks of text. It's obnoxious how you spam threads about the American President and everywhere else.
It's fine to share an interesting article once in a while, but you're overdoing it.
Stop it already. You're becoming a nuisance.

Greetings! The only subject we should be discussing here is the issue of posts containing massive blocks of copied text.
And let's keep this discussion at a high level rather than making it personal. If you see someone violating the rules, please just report them using the triangle icon.

Look, putting aside all the ideological fighting for a second, dumping massive walls of text here is just counterproductive. Between reading official complaints and scanning through comments, it feels like people mostly just scroll past everything—even when someone puts effort into an original post, let alone when they're posting excerpts from articles that anyone could read themselves with a quick click on the link. I guess it’s because it’s way easier to pick a fight with someone’s opinions, beliefs, or trolling on a forum than it is to argue with a published, static text. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should ban copy-pasting entirely. It just seems to me that if we want discussions to actually be efficient and move along, we'd be better off using smaller quotes or just summarizing the main points.

Just drop the link and give us a quick take—if someone actually wants to read the full thing, they’ll click it.
You don't need to dump the entire article right under the link.
It just turns into this massive wall of text that makes everything impossible to follow.

Look, sorry, but those endless walls of text you were pasting yesterday in this thread? Total joke.
And honestly, I think your whole goal was just to flood the board. If you actually cared about the topic, you would've let people discuss the link first—you know, following the actual flow of the conversation?
Instead, you just kept spamming the thread without any rhyme or reason.

northerntiger said:This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to silence me because the OP can't handle my perspective. Now they’re digging through my posts, nitpicking every single word like it’s some kind of crime. Funny how those same "flaws" never seem to bother them when their own crowd is posting long-winded nonsense. It’s easy enough to see the bias—you just have to look at how the mods hand out praise to anyone who echoes their own opinions. 🙂

No. Your turn.Not shields, just shrouds. Someone else's. Where are the texts?

Let’s not even get into the fact that he’s perfectly capable of cranking out a long-form piece when he feels like it—complete with his own particular brand of nonsense. So, calling it a "sheet" is just a reach. 😁

This is my own writing. It’s not anyone else's.

My approach is simple: I share the articles and links, let people draw their own conclusions, and then offer my take if necessary.

That’s the issue. We aren't here to act as media critics; we're here to exchange actual opinions. We all read the news. It’s one thing when you do it occasionally, but you make a habit of it across almost every single thread. If anyone doubts me, they only need to look at your posting history. Look, it’s fine if you do it once in a while—it’s just your style, whatever. But when you decide to camp out on a topic and drop five or six massive essays on a single page? It’s exhausting.

When it comes to this thread about Kolinda, where 80% of the noise is just mindless cheering and voters acting like they won the lottery, my strategy was simple. I dropped links and pulled snippets from the biographies of the former advisors under Josipović, along with the hand-picked advisors she brought on board. The goal? To see if she actually delivered anything new after all those grand promises. That’s clearly what gets under people's skin. They want her to actually stand by her word. Period. 😁

Look, that doesn't bother me. What actually gets under my skin is having to scroll endlessly just to find an actual conversation. And when the site starts acting up? Having to sit there waiting for your massive, bloated posts to load? That’s what really grinds my gears.

Synthesize those texts and run your own comparison. I have nothing against it—in fact, constructive criticism is exactly what she needs if we want a better President. I’m doing the same thing myself (look at my take on Radeljić). Just send over the link for the rest. There’s also some guy from the right wing driving me crazy with the same old talking points (josipnekibroj), and if this issue isn't settled here once and for all, I’m going to file a formal complaint.

The author of this thread is blatantly lying if they claim I’ve only made one non-ranting post here. For anyone interested in the truth, just look at the history. So much for his supposed "objectivity."

Before this thread even went live, I noticed one of your posts that wasn't just a massive wall of text paired with a comment. Today, that seems to have changed. Whether this specific thread triggered it or not—I won't speculate. 😉

I try to follow the forum rules. I don't just drop links; I provide a summary of the article, especially if it’s from an overseas site. 🙂

z

That isn't the issue. Nor is the thread itself. 😉

Sarah Doyle54 said:Setting ideological divides aside, copy-pasting huge chunks of text is mostly counterproductive. Looking at official complaints and the comments here, it seems people mostly just scroll past walls of text, even in original posts—let alone when they're just excerpts from articles that anyone with a link can read themselves. It's probably because it's much easier to argue with the views, beliefs, and trolling of someone actually present on the forum than with static, transcribed text. Of course, that doesn't mean copy-pasting should be banned. It just feels like for more efficient, dynamic debates, it's better to provide smaller quotes or perhaps a summarized retelling.

Personally, I don't mind it every once in a while. Naturally, it shouldn't exceed half a page—ideally a quarter—and it needs a mandatory comment from the person sharing it. Not a one-liner, either, but a coherent synthesis; a takeaway.
Sure, that's the ideal scenario, and not everyone is capable of it. But bans are never the answer, just like excess is never the answer. The middle ground is always the sweet spot.

But having a flood of those kinds of posts in a single thread makes everything unreadable. It's exhausting. And I'm not talking about attempts to silence anyone here; I'm certain people from similar ideological circles find this annoying too, though they might not admit it due to their bias, but let's set that aside. The author can say whatever she wants by summarizing it in her own words, whether in a long post or a short one, and that's perfectly legitimate. That's what's useful and necessary for both supporters and opponents alike. That's how you sharpen arguments and counterarguments. Ultimately, it changes society (since those we write about 😉 actually read this), leading to a cleaner, more organized forum, which indirectly pushes society toward being better. Nobody debates the posts I'm referring to, yet there was plenty of debate regarding the posts my colleague wrote afterward.

Thanks for understanding. 👋

As long as posts like this don't violate rule

Posting copied text exceeding 2,000 characters.

from the Policy PDF everything seems fine.

Shout out to Charles Fox10 for reminding us all about the old ruleQuote, which basically explains why my "walls of text" are getting me in trouble lately:

On page 3, the OP hit me with some criticism saying I need to stop dumping massive blocks of text because they "clutter the thread and make it impossible to follow." Since then, I’ve only made seven posts in this thread.

Post 1 - Just copied over the lists of advisors from the White House (both current and previous); came out to about 520 characters.

Post 2 - No huge walls of text here, just copying names from various commissions and presidential aides, totaling 865 characters.

Post 3 - My quote was 563 characters.

Post 4 - This was my first time dropping an article regarding the costs of the previous administration's office; total count was 1,219 words.

Post 5 - Shared excerpts from two articles (linking them like always), which hit 2,435 characters. That's when I actually broke the rule.

Post 6 - Posted details on the duties of the former and current Chief of Staff, totaling 1,632 characters.

Post 7 - Included bios for the former and current National Security Advisors, hitting 1,124 characters.

Post 8 - Dropped part of Obradovićka's bio—that one was 2,182 characters.

Look, I wasn't just spamming news clippings. I was trying to level up the discussion by providing actual info on who has been working in the administration and who their successors are.

I also brought up the budget figures from the previous administration under Josipović. It fits perfectly with the talk about the new President, since she ran on the promise of being more efficient and less expensive than him. You can only really judge that with hard numbers and comparisons, not the personal biases that seem to be running wild in this thread.

Honestly, I think the real problem with this thread is the constant worship of Kolinda by most of the self-proclaimed "right-wing" crowd. They get super aggressive toward anyone who isn't there just to cheer or gloat over political opponents.

I definitely went over the 2,000-character limit in two of my posts, so I'll leave it to the mods to handle any sanctions.

I wasn't even surprised you'd be protected. You people just do whatever you want, honestly. Go ahead, lock it. 😉

Charles Fox10 said:As long as these posts don't violate this rule Quote from the Politics section PDF rules everything is fine.

They clearly are violating it—if they just post endless walls of copy-pasted text from columns (which is often pretty irrelevant since it's just one person's opinion, and on top of that, it's a politician writing a column???). Basically, it's copy-pasting text without any personal input or anything else... besides a series of walls of text that nobody on these forums really reads anyway...

Why not just post a link to those columns instead of these massive walls of text?

Because they clutter up the threads, plus in this case, they aren't posting objective pieces or opinions; from what I've seen, it's mostly just ones that take an opposing view. Is that intentional spamming, or what?

Well, what you're saying seems wrong... because you know all of this is happening right in front of us and it's already been brought up in previous complaints. You also know there were walls of copy-pasted text in English before, yet nothing was done.

Should I post a link for that?

I ask you all to please have a little patience...
We are currently discussing this matter, and once we reach a definitive conclusion, I will ensure it is posted right here in this thread.

northerntiger said:Thanks to Charles Fox10 for reminding us all about the old ruleQuote, which explains why my own "copy-paste" posts look like this next:

.

but you seem to be breaking a different rule that Charles Fox10 didn't even mention.

>

all these biased texts—nothing objective or neutral. Seriously, what is this? Is this aggressive propaganda that’s been tolerated for far too long, or what???

.

William Bennett53 said:Please, just bear with us for a moment...
We are currently discussing this matter and will reach a conclusion, which we will then post right here in this thread.

Understood—thanks.

Susan Price30 said:And you knew they were just blatant copies in English, yet you didn't lift a finger.

Should I drop the link for that?

Look, we’ve been scrubbing them, so if one of those English-language copycat posts slipped through the cracks, just post it. 😁

northerntiger said:I broke the 2,000-character limit in two different posts, so I'll leave it up to the mods to decide on any penalties.

Honestly, I don't see the point in playing cop and handing out tickets just because a post happens to be 2,001 characters instead of 1,999.

The rule about quoting massive walls of text was meant to stop discussions from getting diluted. If we start obsessing over the count, we can just lower the limit to 200 characters, and then some "genius" will just chop a 2,000-character essay into ten separate posts of 200 each. Or worse, you'll have people who contribute nothing to the community except by dumping huge quotes and pretending it's their own original thought—and those are the people we should actually be calling out. Personally, I think this kind of nitpicking over character counts and adding more bureaucracy to rules that are already bureaucratic enough is a waste of everyone's time, both for the users and the mods.

It would be great if people just stopped posting massive chunks of text that don't actually advance the conversation (you know, the stuff you just scroll past without reading), and that's really all there is to it.

Susan Price30 said:Man, it looks like you’re totally breaking another rule that Charles Fox10 didn't even mention.

>

Everything here is just straight-up negativity. There isn't a single objective or neutral take to be found. Seriously, what is going on? Is this just aggressive propaganda that we've been letting slide for way too long, or what?

.

Alright, let's clear the air—which other rule am I supposedly breaking here? 🙂

Charles Fox10 gave us the scoop. I can't see any link here! Drop it in the chat and I'll take a look. Look, if you're gonna cite the site rules against me, do me a solid and actually copy-paste the specific rule I'm supposedly breaking. Let's not turn this into one of those typical arguments where people just shout about their own personal preferences instead of actually using logic. 🙂

I don't see how I'm breaking any other part of rule Quote on that list.
So, where does it say we can't post stuff that's "contrary, non-objective, or lacks a neutral tone"? 🙂

How on earth is it even possible to drop a link and quote a section at the same time? Official. So, I just saw this news drop about how some biography—apparently for someone like viti Turšić, who was even kept on by Kolinda—is being slammed as nothing more than "aggressive propaganda." It’s wild how much people are losing it over a simple bio these days. 🙂

@Sarah Doyle54/">@@Sarah Doyle54
If a link leads to a long read, I’ll just quote a snippet—like that official bio mentioned earlier—instead of retyping the whole thing. Personally, I’m not about being a translator for stuff that's right in front of you; I’d rather just drop the text so everyone can see if my take is actually based on facts or if I'm just making things up.

On Politics, you rarely get a real debate on this topic because there are way too many posts like the ones below. They’re purely emotional and don't offer any actual arguments—just personal preferences that aren't really worth "debating." You can't argue with them; you just have to let the trolls eat.

Is this what passes for an argued discussion?

Or maybe this?

Not to mention the ultimate proof of patriotism shown by the new President compared to her predecessor, after which we can finally close the book on Hillary Clinton. 😁

And you guys have way too many of those. At first glance, they don't even break the rules, right? But that's why my complaints are such an issue. They totally watered down a great discussion about how much better things are now that Hillary Clinton is in office. 😁

Just wipe out all the nonsense, the trolling, and the whining that you think is pointless. You're more than welcome to "clean up" my complaints—that's your call. I'm not going to sit here and cry about it. 😁