New rule: quote & comment?

[SeekerNo1000003]

How about: When quoting other people's work please provide your own comment about the quote?
Perhaps in some cases (e.g., when starting a new thread)? Freestanding quotes may leave viewers guessing about the purpose of the post.

[DGA]

How about: When quoting other people's work please provide your own comment about the quote?
Perhaps in some cases (e.g., when starting a new thread)? Freestanding quotes may leave viewers guessing about the purpose of the post.

This is an excellent idea. I think it's generally regarded as good practice in online discourse, but I think some of us (myself included sometimes!) didn't get the memo.

I don't know if it would be suitable as a rule per se, but perhaps as a point of courtesy to others--something we can work into the "Right Speech" section.

Thanks for bringing this up.

[Fortyeightvows]

[quote=SeekerNo1000003 post_id=258959 time=1414540889 user_id=4470]
How about: When quoting other people's work please provide your own comment about the quote?
Perhaps in some cases (e.g., when starting a new thread)? Freestanding quotes may leave viewers guessing about the purpose of the post.
[/quote]

Just want to check if the quotes are working for me?

[Ayu]

How about: When quoting other people's work please provide your own comment about the quote?
Perhaps in some cases (e.g., when starting a new thread)? Freestanding quotes may leave viewers guessing about the purpose of the post.

Just want to check if the quotes are working for me?

This is strange.

[rose]

Just want to check if the quotes are working for me?

Please go to:

User Control Panel (UCP) (click user ID top right to see drop down menu)
Board preferences tab
Edit posting defaults - 2nd in menu
Enable BBCode by default
check 'yes'
submit

The quote function should work if these these instructions are followed.

[Fortyeightvows]

Just want to check if the quotes are working for me?

Please go to:

User Control Panel (UCP) (click user ID top right to see drop down menu)
Board preferences tab
Edit posting defaults - 2nd in menu
Enable BBCode by default
check 'yes'
submit

The quote function should work if these these instructions are followed. :smile:

Let’s see

[Fortyeightvows]

Just want to check if the quotes are working for me?

Please go to:

User Control Panel (UCP) (click user ID top right to see drop down menu)
Board preferences tab
Edit posting defaults - 2nd in menu
Enable BBCode by default
check 'yes'
submit

The quote function should work if these these instructions are followed. :smile:

Let’s see

Ok. Thank you so much Purple Rose!

[Bristollad]

This idea doesn't work for me. If I want to comment on a quote from someone else, it seems natural, logical and courteous to supply the context for the comment (the quote) before supplying the comment. When I've seen it the other way around - comment, then quote - I've ended up reading the comment, reading the quote, then having to re-read the comment now the particular context is clear. Just seems a strange way to procede.

[Kim O'Hara]

How about: When quoting other people's work please provide your own comment about the quote?
Perhaps in some cases (e.g., when starting a new thread)? Freestanding quotes may leave viewers guessing about the purpose of the post.

Absolutely.
The other Wheel has this in its TOS (and I thought this Wheel did, too, but I didn't find it when I looked):

4. Mindfulness

... Since you are not here alone, new topics should invite discussion via questions, suggestions, an introduction, or provide appropriate context.

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=2


Kim

[Mantrik]

Absolutely.
The other Wheel has this in its TOS (and I thought this Wheel did, too, but I didn't find it when I looked):

It was. I recall as a Mod many times asking people to actually post something which gave a context and meaning to their OP meme/pic/quote etc.
ToS get modified and I think this should be reintroduced, for sure.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Sort of depends on the area of the forum, but generally this is already an unwritten rule, basically...this is not a Facebook wall.

[Kim O'Hara]

Sort of depends on the area of the forum, but generally this is already an unwritten rule, basically...this is not a Facebook wall.

Unwritten rules are less consistently followed and enforced than the other kind.
Perhaps it could be rewritten?


Kim

[Johnny Dangerous]

Sort of depends on the area of the forum, but generally this is already an unwritten rule, basically...this is not a Facebook wall.

Unwritten rules are less consistently followed and enforced than the other kind.
Perhaps it could be rewritten?


Kim

We'll have to discuss it as a team, personally I am all for it.

[Fortyeightvows]

I don’t think it should be a rule.

Also, there are certain users who basically all of their posts are just that.
Remember phantom?
Or just look at the bon section.
I see value in a lot of those posts.

[Kim O'Hara]

I don’t think it should be a rule.

In the other forum it's a guideline rather than a rule. It still gives users good advice if they ever look at the rules (most don't, of course) and, more importantly, gives mods something to point at and say, "please do this."

Also, there are certain users who basically all of their posts are just that.
Remember phantom?
Or just look at the bon section.
I see value in a lot of those posts.

Some threads are basically a string of news items (I've been responsible for some of those) so comments can be minimal or non-existent and there isn't usually much discussion. That's fine, IMO, and it wouldn't be constrained by the guideline although it would be problematic if the guideline became a rule.
But as you say, some users start a lot of new topics with no context, no discussion-starter, and that can be a waste of other members' time and bandwidth.


Kim

[Johnny Dangerous]

Worth mentioning: When posts like this become problematic, they are covered by the “no trolling” rule. If anyone sees ‘drive by’ posts like this of no value, report them.

[Mantrik]

I don’t think it should be a rule.

Also, there are certain users who basically all of their posts are just that.
Remember phantom?
Or just look at the bon section.
I see value in a lot of those posts.

I think the Bon forum is a case in point. A stream of posts with minimal discussion, if any at all.
Posting dozens of seemingly random pics. vids, etc. with lazy wording like 'in addition' again and again is blog style, not forum style.

[Könchok Thrinley]

I don’t think it should be a rule.

Also, there are certain users who basically all of their posts are just that.
Remember phantom?
Or just look at the bon section.
I see value in a lot of those posts.

I think the Bon forum is a case in point. A stream of posts with minimal discussion, if any at all.
Posting dozens of seemingly random pics. vids, etc. with lazy wording like 'in addition' again and again is blog style, not forum style.

Yup! I wanted to point that out too. It could be a rather interesting source of information, if there were some sources cited, however ... this is a forum.

[Simon E.]

I don’t think it should be a rule.

Also, there are certain users who basically all of their posts are just that.
Remember phantom?
Or just look at the bon section.
I see value in a lot of those posts.

I think the Bon forum is a case in point. A stream of posts with minimal discussion, if any at all.
Posting dozens of seemingly random pics. vids, etc. with lazy wording like 'in addition' again and again is blog style, not forum style.

Very difficult to comment on traditions whose provenance seem largely the result of the imagination. But perhaps that’s just me...

[Simon E.]

I don’t think it should be a rule.

In the other forum it's a guideline rather than a rule. It still gives users good advice if they ever look at the rules (most don't, of course) and, more importantly, gives mods something to point at and say, "please do this."

Also, there are certain users who basically all of their posts are just that.
Remember phantom?
Or just look at the bon section.
I see value in a lot of those posts.

Some threads are basically a string of news items (I've been responsible for some of those) so comments can be minimal or non-existent and there isn't usually much discussion. That's fine, IMO, and it wouldn't be constrained by the guideline although it would be problematic if the guideline became a rule.
But as you say, some users start a lot of new topics with no context, no discussion-starter, and that can be a waste of other members' time and bandwidth.


Kim

You hold “discussion” in higher esteem than I do I suspect. For me THE most valuable service the forum provides is in pointing to teachers or teachings.
I set less store by the opinions of folk about teachings..particularly mine..seriously.
People are doing it or about to do it, or they are not doing it and not about to.