Podium rules and discussion thread

Quote from DarthSaver : No more than "Homosexual Convicted of Serial Murder and Cannabalism" would be linked to a Dahmer article. Don't you see that both of these examples require you to make a judgement call about the posters agenda and if they are choosing words from an article to further it? Why not simplify things wrt news articles and keep it to exact titles. That way there is no debate, which doesn't belong in a news thread anyway. Just my 2 cents.

An article about Dahmer would be about his killings, not his sexual orientation unless it was some anti-gay publication that thought the sexual orientation and murders were linked. The thread title of OP summarizes the first paragraph of the article he linked to. You seem to be missing the spirit of the rule, yet you posted Wu's concise explanation.


If you truly believe that the two titles you reference above are equivalent, it is best that you stick to your previous impression of the rule when creating threads.

Quote from trancepire : An article about Dahmer would be about his killings, not his sexual orientation unless it was some anti-gay publication that thought the sexual orientation and murders were linked. The thread title of OP summarizes the first paragraph of the article he linked to. You seem to be missing the spirit of the rule, yet you posted Wu's concise explanation. If you truly believe that the two titles you reference above are equivalent, it is best that you stick to your previous impression of the rule when creating threads.

You asked me my thoughts about the "gist" of the article matching 403's title. The "gist" of a Dahmer article is that a homosexual killed and ate people. Doesn't mean the thread title should be anything other than the article title. It's blatantly obvious that 403's intentions were to associate Republicans with wanting to kill Obama. Sad if you choose not to see it.

Quote from DarthSaver : You asked me my thoughts about the "gist" of the article matching 403's title. The "gist" of a Dahmer article is that a homosexual killed and ate people.

His sexual orientation is no more relevant than his religion, his hair color, or his shoe size to the matter at hand: he killed and ate people. No true news source would choose to throw his sexuality into the title; you're arguing a hypothetical that wouldn't happen.

This is the sort of tail chasing I was hoping to avoid by PMing LivninSC originally. You might as well throw out an article title like, "Straight Caucasian Christian Male Robs Store, Kills Cashier". If you're going to argue against a rule, you should stick to realistic examples.

Quote from DarthSaver : It's blatantly obvious that 403's intentions were to associate Republicans with wanting to kill Obama. Sad if you choose not to see it.

It's blatantly obvious that the article's intention was to make that association. Here's the first paragraph of the article:

Quote from the article : A former soldier accused of killing two people and leading a plot to assassinate President Obama worked at the last Republican National Convention, it has been revealed.

403's source created the association, and 403 highlighted it. The source from his source might even be where he got the idea: Leader of Army Plot to Assassinate Obama Apparently Attended the 2008 Republican Convention as a Page [gawker.com].

It's not like 403 altered the idea of the article, or even the focus. That is the crux of the issue.

Quote from trancepire : His sexual orientation is no more relevant than his religion, his hair color, or his shoe size to the matter at hand: he killed and ate people. No true news source would choose to throw his sexuality into the title; you're arguing a hypothetical that wouldn't happen. This is the sort of tail chasing I was hoping to avoid by PMing LivninSC originally. You might as well throw out an article title like, "Straight Caucasian Christian Male Robs Store, Kills Cashier". If you're going to argue against a rule, you should stick to realistic examples.

So you are agreeing with me and Wu that just because an article contains pertinent factual information, the use of some of that wording or information in an articles headline or in the title of a thread does nothing more than sensationalize it at best and at worst, is inflammatory. Why is this thread title still not changed or this thread not closed then if we agree?

Quote from trancepire : It's blatantly obvious that the article's intention was to make that association. Here's the first paragraph of the article: 403's source created the association, and 403 highlighted it. The source from his source might even be where he got the idea: Leader of Army Plot to Assassinate Obama Apparently Attended the 2008 Republican Convention as a Page [gawker.com]. It's not like 403 altered the idea of the article, or even the focus. That is the crux of the issue.

The information about the assassination plot against Obama was so incredibly important and pertinent to TP that 403 was compelled to include it in the thread title, but DailyMail, the actual source of the article DIDN'T feel compelled to do so in their headline? No matter how it is spun, there was no reason for 403 to title the thread the way it is, other than to further his own agenda.

Quote from DarthSaver : So you are agreeing with me and Wu that just because an article contains pertinent factual information, the use of some of that wording or information in an articles headline or in the title of a thread does nothing more than sensationalize it at best and at worst, is inflammatory. Why is this thread title still not changed or this thread not closed then if we agree?

I have no interest in arguing against the position you're fabricating, the words you're putting in Wu and I's mouths, nor playing your game at all.

The rules are stated simply, as Wu did, in part to avoid such fruitless arguments.

If you feel a thread title is trolling, MA it. There is not a guarantee we will agree with you, however.

Quote from trancepire : I have no interest in arguing against the position you're fabricating, the words you're putting in Wu and I's mouths, nor playing your game at all. The rules are stated simply, as Wu did, in part to avoid such fruitless arguments. If you feel a thread title is trolling, MA it. There is not a guarantee we will agree with you, however.

http://slickdeals.net/f/1761826-P...ion-Thread

4. (REVISED) From now on, posts should include the title of the original article, a link to the article, and your take (your own summary if you choose). Posts SHOULD NOT INCLUDE LARGE BLOCKS OF TEXT FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE.You can still quote from the article, but only use what you need to make your point (you guys are kind of doing this now by bolding particular parts- just quote what you might otherwise have bolded). Also, please err on the side of under-quoting.

As you've clearly shown, rules evolve and tighten and loosen over time. The most recent one you cherry picked was focused on keeping SD out of hot water with copyright trolls. This discussion has been moved to PM.