Freedom in the World discussions

Discussion in 'Help and Rules' started by Eivind, Dec 18, 2018.

  1. Eivind Well-Known Member

    May 16, 2014
    I searched for "Freedom in the World" and saw that this old thread had been closed for "newsreader violation":

    To me this seems to be an interesting topic. I considered making a thread about this years report, as I find it strange that countries like Poland and Hungary are listed as "free" and not as "partly free", as they clearly are moving in an authoritarian direction. Why exactly was it closed? I hope there are no rules against discussing human right topics.
  2. Zagan Donor

    Apr 22, 2015
    Discussion is fine and encouraged. That thread was closed exactly because the opening post contained NO discussion at all, no comentary, no opinion, nothing, but only a image and a link. It is that that is not acceptable and consitutes a "newsreader violation": to post some news with no comentary.

    By all means, do post a discussion about that and it will be fine. Not just an image and / or a link.
  3. January First-of-May Well-Known Member

    May 8, 2009
    I never got the point of newsreader violations - as far as I was concerned, an opening post without commentary was ideal for encouraging discussion, because anything else would inevitably point it either at agreeing with the OP, or disagreeing with the OP, without much in any other possible direction, and I didn't want either (in particular, my own political views are far from typical for, so if I was the OP, the former would mean hobbling the discussion, and the latter would mean a discussion focused against me).

    I ultimately decided that if I ever want to post a news article, I would write the required commentary on a very minor detail that has little to do with the article's actual topic (e.g. on word choice in a particular sentence, or on the author's last name or something), and hope that this would be enough to actually get the needed open discussion without a newsreader violation.
    Admittedly, I suspect that it's more likely to fail at both, but I couldn't think of anything better.
    Zagan and Eivind like this.
  4. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Oct 4, 2005
    The prohibition was put into place, as Ian explained in his pinned post, to maintain the "Discussion" part of the Board as a thing. What had happened was an ever increasing number of threads were being posted that were NOTHING but a copy/paste with no OP comment at all, or, at best, a "What do you think?"

    Ian decided that that was not the directed he wanted HIS board to follow. I happen to agree with him, there are literally hundreds of headline accumulating sites on the 'Net available for that sort of posting, but that actually doesn't matter. His Board, his rules.
    Barry Bull likes this.
  5. January First-of-May Well-Known Member

    May 8, 2009
    I don't dispute that the prohibition is in place because Ian thinks it's a good idea for some weird reason. This seems to be the way most of is set up.
    (...OK, IIRC, in a few cases, usually involving the ASB subforum, it's because you think it's a good idea for some weird reason.)

    I just want to mention that this particular prohibition, more often than not, almost directly counteracts my goals for why I would ever decide to post an article for discussion, which is why I'm thinking of ways to get around it and still keep my goals. The obviously irrelevant commentary that is technically still about the article is my current best idea.
    (I guess I could try to write my commentary on an obviously weird topic that I don't expect anybody to actually hold, but that way I'm very likely to end up taken seriously and banned for conspiracy theory support, which makes this option too risky.)