Posted on 05/17/2011 1:30:40 PM PDT by stolinsky
I figured out a way for my kids not to drive me crazy with that song . . . every time they started singing I joined right in until it drove them crazy. ;-)
I haven’t heard the other song ~ thank goodness.
I agree with you on that, and that happens on more than just blogs. Sometimes it happens because the piece is very short, but the source is on the excerpt list: there’s no way around not leaving just a little bit at the link, as annoying as it is.
However, I don’s see the solution as going from that situation to full-fledged blog vigilanteism. I simply think a better balance can be struck here.
Oh, please. I’m not “leaving.” I’ve been here over a decade. But neither you nor I nor anyone else has an obligation to stay on a thread 24/7, without at least a pee break.
You funny.
You are never leaving, are you.
Heh heh heh!
I simply don't agree that JimRob's post necessarily deputized a bunch of freepers to go out and filter FR for the rest of us according to some standard they have created in JimRob's name.
I see JimRob's post as him saying HIS thoughts on how HE will handle certain situations, on a CASE-BY-CASE basis.
If he's okay with what you all are doing in HIS name, and in the name of the entire community, including the mods, that's fine. But I personally would not assume that from my careful reading of JimRob's post.
I set out my reasoning on JimRob's post here, at #295, and at #300.
To review:
JimRob's post said he was concerned about bloggers posting "brief excerpts."
That doesn't necessarily mean he thinks the solution is for blog posts, even if they are 50 pages long, to be posted in full at the demand of a group calling themselves Blog Overlords or Blogbusters.
JimRob's post said he was concerned about bloggers posting in such a way that they were “only and obviously attempting to draw away our participants.”
That doesn't necessarily mean that he is opposed to bloggers self-posting a link and excerpt in ALL cases, because ALL articles on FR have a link and freepers go read the article and then come back here and discuss it because, well, we like to discuss things with other freepers. So I personally would want more clarification on this before I started approaching bloggers and making demands in JimRob's name.
JimRob said that when HE found posts that met HIS understanding of the above criteria, that HE was more “apt . . . to ban his account and blog.”
That in no way means, to my reading, that JimRob is deputizing Blog Overlords to go make demands of bloggers and shut down their posting in HIS name. He doesn't even say he will ALWAYS ban the account and blog. He says he will review the case and make a decision based on all the circumstances, according to HIS discretion.
I just don't get from that the authority to do what you apparently, according to the several threads by bloggers, are doing. That is all.
As I told hg, who conceded this was a "vigilante" move by some freepers, that does not respect the CHAIN OF COMMAND here.
Yes, heap criticism and abuse on any poster you please. But that is quite different from stating you (meaning: the group involved in this) have determined the community standard and that you can act in JimRob's and the mods' name to effectively shut down self-posters that YOU find a problem with.
Shut them down, if you like, by calling them stupid or reporting them to the mods. But I personally don't see leaping from JimRob's post to thinking anyone here wears a badge but JimRob and the mods.
I heard you the first several dozen times.
First, you repeatedly wail that I am stating my points over and over again -- though I'm always, um, responding to your points and those made by those who agree with you.
Secondly, you wail that I am bailing on a thread because I won't hang out here overnight for some reason.
Finally, I am not trying to prove you are "in the wrong."
It doesn't matter to me if you are wrong or right or in the middle.
This is about an issue that is a matter of controversy, not clear, and causing bloggers to post thread after thread about their treatment at the hands of people making demands on them in the name of JimRob, the mods, and the entire community.
I am expressing my opinion, which disagrees with blog overlording, and simply suggesting that if you think JimRob needs to clear this up, as you told me in a recent post, then by all means, ask him if what the BO's are doing in his name meet with his approval.
I got a good belly laugh out of that one!
First holler that the person is leaving, then holler that they’re not!
Cheers!
Perhaps this will help:
JimRob on overlords and blogpimps
By the way, the overlords are not "shutting down" blog posting. They are asking for full posting. Big difference.
Sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree with the scope and intent of that. Maybe it's the lawyer in me, but I simply don't see JimRob's comment that "that's why we have blog overlords" as *necessarily* meaning what this has become.
Also, let's look at the comment in context. Someone posts JimRob and asks, "does this [blogpimping] bother you as much as it bothers us?"
What's JimRob's answer at the link you just gave me?
He, essentially, answers, NOPE, it's a problem that mostly takes care of itself --- because freepers, in my view, will take the USUAL appropriate action, formal and informal, against abusive posts and spam.
I take what JR said as something like this:
"If blogpimping bugs you that much, knock yourself out. Blogpimping doesn't concern me all that much and I have better things to do, but if that's what concerns you, go around and find blog posts that bother you, if you like, and then HANDLE THEM THE USUAL WAY -- either heaping your own personal criticism upon the poster (i.e., NOT in the name of the community as a whole) or hit the mod button and let them take care of it."
(Of course, if, like the BO's, I were actually taking action claiming I was acting with JimRob's authority to set community and posting standards, I'd sure as Hell's Bells make sure I was clear on his intent ahead of time!)
I still don't see anywhere in either the comment at the link you gave me, or the other comment by JimRob frequently posted, where he gives any indication that it's a FR standard that ALL bloggers who self-post MUST post FULL articles, remain on the thread to discuss the post with freepers, and whatever other demands the BO's are making in JimRob's name.
As I've said, the only evidence, beyond personal preference (which certainly can be argued for, just not demanded), that self-bloggers "must" post FULL articles seems to be JimRob's comment that he does have a concern about people posting "brief excerpts." (link upthread)
But, again, seeing a potential problem with people posting "brief excerpts" is a long way from a group of freepers being deputized to demand, in the name of the community, a FULL posting of the article.
Okay, 50mm, now I will be accused of repeating my points again (:O), but I don't see a problem in responding to your specific point, which hadn't been brought up yet on this thread. Thanks again for the link.
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out tomorrow when I’m here for more than a few minutes. See you then!
Okay, got the chance to read the Mod response. To be honest, I took it as saying pretty much what I’ve been saying all along.
I don’t see anywhere in that explanation that it’s FR standard that a self-poster must post his *entire* article, as opposed to an excerpt and a link. There were other concerns about posting snippets and non-original content, but nothing that leads to the conclusion that a blogger who posts a link and an excerpt to *appropriate material* is *officially* “rude” or, again, violating FR posting standards.
The piece also indicated that “blog overlords” — though they may have some special personal interest in pursuing these matters -— are not doing (or, one could say, should not be doing) any more than any other member who happens upon a problem post. Try to work it out; if that doesn’t work, alert the mods.
Again, I have repeatedly said posters can be as big of a “trial by fire” as they desire. That’ situation normal! But that’s a far cry, however, from what started this discussion: making official-sounding demands about special posting guidelines for self-posters.
Just as I saw in the JimRob excerpts posted earlier, here I see the same “know it when we see it, case-by-case basis” perspective. That’s exactly what I’ve been advocating as well.
And all that was in reaction to the apparent bright-line rules the BO’s were developing: no self-posting, no excerpts and links, etc. I didn’t see that as what was intended, and I feel that more strongly after reading the Mod’s piece.
Bottom line on what I take away from the Mod’s piece:
* There are no bright-line rules, such as requirements to post the entire article, etc.
* The process and standard for determining what posts are appropriate is really the same across the board, as are the functions of the members and the mods.
* There is no special rule for self-posters; their work can be posted in the same way as if it were posted by someone not the author, and their work has to meet the same posting standards as everything else. If it doesn’t, it gets treated the same as any other inappropriate post.
So.
Thanks again for the link and for the civil discussion.
Howdy.
One last thought.
It seems to me that the easiest way to sum up what the mod said was the completely usual idea that “posting privileges are for freepers,” IOW, for members of the community.
How you sort out who is a freepers — among newbies, lurkers, long-time lurkers, the occasional poster of threads, the occasional poster of comments — that really comes down to (1) the legitimate “we know a freeper when we see one” approach, and (2) how the poster conducts himself in a particular situation.
Beyond that, it’s only more business as usual with the requirement to not abuse posting privileges and refrain from spam.
Looks to me that if someone comes here, engages as a freeper (however that “looks,” there are no hard and fast rules for when someone is recognized as a member of the community), and follows normal posting guidelines, there shouldn’t be further demands made as to posting the entire article, etc.
Okay . . . cheers!
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_WTC.jpg
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.