We'd like to add a new rule that if you submit a post with a video link, you must provide an outline of the video's arguments that you wish to debate.
This could save us all a lot of time for videos that are long or allow people that, for whatever reason, cannot currently watch videos.
What are your thoughts?
Vote here: http://strawpoll.me/2523549
Posted Sep 8, 2014, 5:06 PM UTC
Clearly I support this rule. It would let the few people here post videos with discussions but it also doesn't inconvenience others who can't watch a video to reply to the points.
I don't see the point of linking to a video if the argument is laid out well in text.
Possibly if a reader R likes the argument that the OP has described in text,
he/she would like to know what video it came from,
so that reader R can give a link to that video to other people.
Makes sense, though I expect it's more likely to be used for promotion purposes.
Or educational purposes. Not everyone has ulterior motives.
The post itself can educate. A/V is a far slower (more inefficient) means of information conveyance.
How about if you can't be bothered/don't have time to watch a video, ignore the comment. Just pass it by. Or (heaven forfend) down vote the comment as "does not contribute".
What's with all the rules?
The rule encourages people to present discussions in a format that maximizes participation.
If that's the aim, than how about a rule that states original posters must also present a positive argument in the body of their OP rather than just pose a question--or face deletion?
Honestly, very few video links are submitted, either on OPs or on comments that I've noticed. Is such a rule (as proposed) really necessary? Might it not have the opposite effect of stifling the free exchange of ideas?
than how about a rule that states original posters must also present a positive argument in the body of their OP rather than just pose a question
Questions often encourage debate.
Is such a rule (as proposed) really necessary?
In the instance that it might happen, yes. I fail to see how frequency affects rather or not it should be a rule. If it happens at all, there should be concrete and transparent rules regarding how to handle it.
Might it not have the opposite effect of stifling the free exchange of ideas?
Why would it?
Why would it?
Because sometimes an argument just can't really be effectively summarized without destroying the argument. (Nor reduced to 10,000 characters or less.)
If some expert in a given field--a professor, a professional theologian, a scientist, a philosopher, a professional historian--has spent an hour laying out an argument, typically that IS the summary. It's the summary of a much longer argument. Usually a book of several hundred or thousand pages.
Take this video talk by Professor N.T. Wright. In it, he summarizes some of the arguments he made in this 740 page book.
Will the proposed rule be clear enough to stipulate exactly how much of a summary of the summary is required to avoid censure by the mods?
You need to flip the argument around - currently all videos are banned from the sub. This is to avoid people posting titles like "What do you think?" with a link to a 3-hour debate video.
This rule relaxes the original ban as a way to enrich the sub and encourage more debate. People would still post the video but they would now be required to actually write the debate points that can be discussed with the video as a reference.
I agree, seems every sub I go to I gotta learn how to post a link or pic or vid and if it's my first time in a sub, it usually gets deleted because I did something wrong. I vote NO
All you have to do is provide a summary of the points you want to discuss exactly as you would do with a text only post.
Even if I don't have time to watch the video or actively participate in the thread, I appreciate when a text summary is provided, so that when I read the comments that others made, I can understand what they are responding to.
(Here was a recent post, in which other readers perhaps appreciated that I wrote a paraphrased transcript.)
We'll if what that OP did is what we're talking about than I can understand the motivation behind proposing a policy. But I still don't see why it's got to be a rule. Why can't people just ignore the OP or do exactly what was done in the case you referred to...ask the OP to provide more description or someone else summarize/transcribe the video.
or do exactly what was done in the case you referred to...
ask the OP to provide more description or someone else summarize/transcribe the video.
The moderators are basically telling any OP in advance to provide a text summary of the points,
rather than wait for an OP to give only a link to a video
and then have readers ask the OP to provide a summary.
I think it is courteous for an OP to provide a text summary,
so this is establishing a rule that the OP should be courteous in that way.
I see. I think I was confusing comments with posts.
Totally agree. If I just see some multi-minute video posted, and that's it, I'm going to skip the topic entirely, or go off some person in the thread's description of the argument.