This is the way I see it too.

I wonder if some of the critics would also like Joffa's mod job too.

Draupnir, why don't you rephrase the thread title so this is an issue about cutting and passing generically, rather being about specific poster's cut and pasting behaviour?

I'm assuming that most reading this thread title have cut and pasted football articles at some time to 442. I have, but have not been criticised for doing it.

I've never set up polls, as I am usually not interested. However, that does not mean I question the right of others to do so.


What should be considered a reasonable number of polls made by a poster in a week?

Why?




Should posters cut and paste articles from other sites?

Why or why not?



Are some more equal than others in cutting and pasting?



What is the definition of a plausible cut and paste action?






Edited by Decentric: 23/2/2015 08:19:38 PM

You have to admit, it's a pretty good reason.

Ie: ABC does not rely on site advertising for revenue, so there's no ethical reason to not cut & paste the whole article as long as it is correctly attributed, alongside other articles that are posted under CreativeCommons licencing arrangements.

It's a good reason... but don't you download and stream movies and TV shops? ;)

I don't, but even if I did they would be different situations.

If Joffa were downloading articles to his PC rather than taking them from one publicly available area and replicating them to another publicly available area then you may have a point ;)

That's because he has over moderated in the past for shithouse reasons, hence people will find shithouse reasons to rag on him.

Cycle of life.

-PB

Y'all just need more peace pipe up in yo lives.

So wonderful to see such principled people on here.

I take it everyone will be uninstalling adblock then lest they deprive anyone of ad revenue.

I think this is a fertile recruiting ground for football clubs to recruit some bored cybergeeks and loafers to get off their bottoms and clean some club toilets, as well as pour some diligent workers in football, like me, some quality beer at the clubrooms.:lol:


In the Australian section this morning, there are heaps of articles cut and pasted by a plethora of 442 members. None have been rebuked by the naysayers in this thread. :roll:

Why not?

Because you shamed me into accepting Joffa's unethical behaviour, it wouldn't be fair to come down on other people.

It has been okay for Arthur, Damo Baresi, Switters, Scott 21, City Slicker, and me, plus a plethora of other posters, to cut and paste articles on 442, but apparently Joffa is not permitted?:roll:

I am taking an unequivocal stand. This is because a diversity of forum members cut and paste articles from other sites, 442 has a lot of football content to view, then respond to, not manifest anywhere else.

If one adds the 442 articles, this provides constant, new football content for members to respond to. This elicits football discussion.

Moreover, the 442 scenario moves inexorably forwards and keeps posters like you, Notorganic, coming back for more. It might be nice for you to acknowledge the unmitigated success of the 442 football forum, and your unequivocal support of it, by contributing often and regularly.:lol:

In terms of ethics, I can see a some cogency in your argument that the ABC, ostensibly a non-profit organisation, should be treated differently from profit making media organisations.

Congratulations on taking a stand...

Joffa means well, and he wants what's best for this site.

+1 to decentric

There you go, Decrepit, you have the venerable Gladbach on your side so you clearly have the superior argument.

I shall refrain from highlighting Joffa's ethically-challenged actions in the future.

No wonder Jedinak isn't playing anymore, he's performances weren't even better than an A-League player in Milligan at the Asian Cup.

Waiting for Draupnir who scored stats to save the day from Europe's best DM.

This is the right thread right what's going on

I cut and paste numerous articles but im sort of with Draupy on this one (so im a naysayer) and I do think that Joffa is a good mod but the moderating team maybe needs a bit more consistency in terms of what's locked and what isn't (not just a Joffa problem)- possibly through more communication in the mod thread?

Whilst I agree that the WSW thread was getting a bit iffy in regards to what was actually being posted surely the offending posts could have been deleted and a warning issues in the thread to stay away from that stuff, after all it was a light hearted thread 95% of the time and all of its discussion has just spewed out into de-railing some other threads anyway.

Edited by jlm8695: 24/2/2015 01:46:06 PM

Needs to be more editing of posts rather than just closing down whole threads.

Or phantom deletions.

-PB

Phantom deletions scare me.

For the most part from what I see (and do), closing of threads are usually thoroughly explained and are usually done because the threads seems non-re-railable (lol), or that the thread would serve no longer purpose in being open or it's just that bad that it needs to be cut. Usually it's pretty clear which rules are being violated, and they are explained.

Phantom deletions are sometimes necessary. I admit to doing these at times, but usually I'll go to the lengths of explaining why (aka taking away the phantom). Most of the time it is when a post that requires deletion due to the hectic nature of it or something like that, and multiple people have quoted it. I had a bit of a frenzy of phantom deletions last night in the Politics thread, but that's because I was literally cleaning up the troll bait.

u4486662 in, Joffa out

Here's a good example on how to do it effectively, Decrepit.

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2170474#2170474



A small except and gist of the article, a link to the full article and a small personal analysis and opinion to stimulate discussion.

Everyone wins in this situation;
Forumites wishing to discuss the abstract only and engage with the analysis without clicking can do just that.
Forumites wishing to get the full story of the article can click and read the entire article on the website of origin, thus providing opportunity for the author to be compensated for his/her work.
Page clutter is reduced.

I think you are being overly pedantic. It is only my opinion, but I surmise the pedantry occurs because you have more insight into the industry than most, possibly with a vested interest.

Nevertheless, I acknowledge you are discussing the issue per se, rather than personalising it by attacking one poster for doing what most do - cutting and pasting football articles on 442.

I surmise you are a trained journo who is underemployed, unemployed, or a journo student. I have offspring in the same predicament.

With the change from print to internet a metamorphosis has occurred in the industry. There are less jobs in the media industry and a lot of tertiary trained journos exist, with my offspring having to pursue further post graduate training to procure a profession.



My bias against the industry exists, because I've been interviewed in political settings for media purposes. I've often been disgusted with the methods the media use , their manipulation, disingenuousness, egotism, cynicism, arrogance, selfishness, to compile stories. Even worse, what has appeared in print, or TV, has been a distortion of what I, or others, said or written, by omitting key content.

A mate of mine has been a prominent football journo. In work for a Murdoch tabloid, he has been given a hard time about reporting genuine football stories, particularly about Australian football. They want a lot more European football content.

Yet as soon as there is a bad news story about football - crowd violence, cancellation of games through player violence, etc, the Murdoch tabloid gives carte blanche for journos to gather dirt and it gets maximum exposure and column space.

Even worse, I've had editors and sport editors blatantly lie to me, that they have had no further concerns expressed to them about football issues I've raised, or write to them, with their abysmal coverage of football. I've had mates show me what they've written to the same tabloid, expressing similar views. ](*,)

However, in a different setting, music, I've written articles that have been printed word for word.=d>

In the occasional political settings, the media have accurately reported events too, namely the ABC.


So to hear you preach a sanctimonious perspective, abut the most cynical industry I've known in a work career spanning 40 years, when the same industry is often so despicably underhand and egocentric, does not sit well with me.[-x


Industries like building, education, welfare, music, agriculture and football, even politics, that I've worked in, have many far more altruistic and decentric (the opposite to egocentric) people committed to the benefit of other people, than the media.[-x


What I like about the intent of perspective though, is your idealism, based on normative principles. There is a great deal of social justice apparent. I highly value it and laud you for it.=d>

If you were applying this to other issues and industries, I'd acquiesce.:)







Edited by Decentric: 25/2/2015 09:16:49 AM

How to argue Notorganic style.

1) Take the moral high ground.


2) Get shown to be a hypocrite. (Spruik about adblock in dozens of posts....


.....and then crap on about ad revenue being lost and journalists being dudded. See this thread.)

3) Post the 1 in 1000 contrary example from some dark corner of the internet to show the current proposition proffered to be false. (Pick any argument about women getting the rough end of the pineapple for an example here. Plenty of those in ET.)

4) Build a strawman by answering a question with a question. (Ask Rusty about this - see politics thread for dozens of examples.)

5) Belittle an opponent by implying he's a pa_edophile or a homosexual (With reference to Decentric)


and/or by having a crack about his age.


6) Alternatively belittle an opponent by name-calling.


7) Sarcastically agree with your opponent.


8) Claim that whilst everyone else is guilty of the above he never is.

9) Always get the last word in. Post, post and post again until your opponent gives up replying. Then claim you've won and/or they've "died of embarassment".

There's probably more but unlike this time-wasting oxygen thief I have a job that doesn't involve spending vast swathes of my time on an internet forum for small children with small minds.

So flame away internet warrior. I'll take it all with a grain of salt as I've just learnt from a very illuminating post the other night before it was pulled down that far from being the intellectual giant you pretend be you spent years and years working as a telemarketer of all things.

Would be funny if it wasn't so fucking pathetic.




Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 2/4/2015 03:17:11 PM

Manrub, you seem mad ;)

This post says a lot.

Thanks, Munrubenmuz.:)

It's like a one stop shop of logical fallacies. He did well.

If he would actually like to address the substance of what is being said (as he is wont to never do), I might be a bit more receptive to him.

Didnt you say you were gonna fucking leave. Just leave.