There is a rule in the Religion/Politics forum that states:

"Just posting an article and link, particularly as the first post in a thread, w/o any additional commentary to continue the dialog is not allowed. If it's good enough to post it's worth commenting on as well."

There has been some private discussion from posters and the mod team about making this rule universal throughout the forums. I'd like to get a public discussion going on what the vibe is from the community about putting this rule in place. Please share your thoughts on this. Thanks.

An additional addendum I'd like to make to this rule is that if you're cutting and pasting contents from an article, you must post a link back to your source.

Also, I think there should be exceptions for media-related announcements (bd release dates, movie casting, tv cancellations, etc).

I, for one, welcome our new article-posting rules.

This makes sense to me, absolutely.

I'll add that I think the mods (and the community) will need to offer people some grace, particularly in the first few months, as users adjust to this. That may mean a little extra work on the part of the mods in terms of doing actual tracking of who does what how many times in terms of not following this rule instead of penalize someone for what "feels" like it happening a lot (confirmation bias, perhaps).

In a way, ironically, I'm asking mods to do their due diligence to be able to cite their sources and comment on them.

I don't think it's needed. If the topic is relevant to the community, conversation will follow. How it was posted or the OP's opinions are irrelevant.

Agreed.

I think if someone is starting a thread then the subject must be of some interest. Why is it so difficult to get the discussion moving? Otherwise you'll have people doing nothing but starting threads with a link and a cut/paste from that link.

Personally, I would like to know the OP's opinion.

I do think this should be a guideline that's followed in all circumstances. It seems like it should be common sense. To quote something without including a link reeks of laziness.

Generally it's because the poster is hiding something (less than reliable source or "more to the story"), rather than laziness.

You're likely correct when it comes to it being done in the religion/politics forum, but I've seen it in other places as well.

My opinion is that I can see both sides of the argument. I voted yes in the poll, but that is based on my own personal style of posting. I don't really start a lot of threads, but if I post an article I will put my 2 cents in to try to get the discussion started.

On the other hand I have seen plenty of threads blossom with only a quoted article and a link to the story.

To me it seems like a culture thing. It "feels" like it would spur more discussion if you put some personal comments in the OP. We've been doing it for a while in the Religion/Politics forum and it seems to work well there. I don't really want to influence the results of this thread either way though. I'm really trying to get a feel for what you guys think.

Yes, I can see how a thread could take off on it's own. It probably depends on the subject. I just think it's a better idea to get a thread started by hitting the ground running.

I agree as well. Usually posted articles speak for themselves...particularly in the Otter Forum.

Indeed...

Florida man arrested for having sex with pit bull in yard

Voted no, I hate the religion/political forums so I guess I don't care if it works there. Looking at the results of the poll though could you clarify if it would be just for the first post or any post with an article.

I think the rule should stand for Politics/Religion but not for Otter. A funny story in Otter doesn't need more than the article and/or picture to get the thread going. If you're going to post something religious/political and not share your views on the subject, I can only guess that your intent is to stir the pot and cause issues rather than have a real discussion.

Let me say a little more on why I think there should be a little comment by the OP along with the link...

Person A brings Issue X to the community's attention but doesn't say why. The community discusses Issue X blind, not knowing why their member thought they should know, nor what that person thinks about it, including whether it was simply posted to stir up the hornet's nest rather than perpetuate dialogue.

Person B brings Issue Z to the community's attention and says why. The community discusses Issue Z with a framework, knowing why their member thought they should know, and what they think about it, including whether it was simply posted to stir up the hornet's nest or to honestly bring about dialogue.

The second scenario seems a lot healthier to me. It seems like it avoids trolling, maintains accountability, wastes less people's time, gives users more than one thing to think about (engaging the topic AND the original poster), and at least offers the gift of a wider starting point.

Not everyone knows each other simply by username or avatar to know how the OP feels about something or why they brought it up. I don't and I'll bet I'm not alone. When I click on "New Posts," I count on a lot of things to tell me whether I want to engage in it at all: subforum, thread title, who the OP is, what the OP's opinion is, what the links says, etc. I think that OP opinion is a substantial part of one's jumping off point to deciding whether or how to enter the stream.

A couple quick comments.

The rule would apply just to the first post of the thread.

One of my original thoughts was that the rule would apply to Other, and mainly because there is quite a bit of overlap in some of the stories posted, such as news stories.

I think it's something that can be recommended but shouldn't be required.

If it starts a thread, yes. If it's an addition to an existing thread, no.

I like the rule to include at least some information on the posters position when starting a thread with a news story. It gives people a discussion route to support or disagree with the OPs position on the article they posted.

This.

My sources say you are wrong. Also that you have a terrible singing voice.

If that is the case then the below should probably remove the word particularly.

Good point. This should be done for the existing rule in Politics regardless of where the discussion in this thread goes.

I'd like to leave this thread up for a few more days before we make a call. I see a trend already, but want to give people more time to respond.

There's quite a few people who are currently reporting Other threads where this is occurring, but I don't see comments from them here.

I think it depends.

There are some stories that just don't really need commentary. For example, if there's a building that explodes in Harlem and someone starts a thread, should the OP have to write out a paragraph explaining why he thinks exploding buildings are bad or why they're newsworthy?

If it becomes a pattern, it can get a little annoying, especially if the OP never posts again in his/her own thread.