NationStates Jolt Archive

Cogitation locked a thread for the sin of not linking a source - even though the source was clearly provided in post 34, only a few posts ahead of his closure announcement.

Should I expect a NS mod to close every thread now which does not include links to a source even if the source is otherwise identified?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405029&page=3

Cogitation closed the thread for trolling, which you were doing. Which you were doing in this thread by not posting in Moderation, in my opinion. Stirring up General because you disagree with a moderator's decision is hardly the best way to bring attention to your perceived injustice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/moved_sm.jpg General => Moderation

Cogitation closed the thread for trolling, which you were doing. Which you were doing in this thread by not posting in Moderation, in my opinion. Stirring up General because you disagree with a moderator's decision is hardly the best way to bring attention to your perceived injustice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/moved_sm.jpg General => Moderation

Wha? I thought I did post this thread in moderation. I even checked it after I posted. Not sure how it ended up in general, but thanks for moving it.

back to topic at hand, how is providing information and naming the source trolling? Are links to the source now mandatory? Regardless I DID provide a link, just as I promised. Now I am accused of trolling for fulfilling that promise?

Should I consider all unlinked factual claims trolling?

back to topic at hand, how is providing information and naming the source source trolling? Are links now mandatory?
I only saw you give the name of the institute that allegedly compiled the numbers you quoted. You didn't give a specific link to the numbers, themselves, so nobody could double-check if you were lying about the numbers.

Regardless I DID provide a link, just as I promised. Now I am accused of trolling for fulfilling that promise?
You gave a specific link? I didn't see it. Which post was this in?

Nevertheless, that doesn't excuse your deliberate refusal to provide a specific link when asked for one. (See below.)

Should I consider all unlinked factual claims trolling?
Failing to provide links for factual claims is usually considered bad etiquette and is usually only frowned upon. But then, that cause for this is usually just innocent negligence. You, however, seemed to state a pretty clear intention in this post (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8440218&postcount=22) to not post a link to the specific data. This suggets premeditation. This suggests that you're just trying to get a rise out of people. This suggests that you're making stuff up just to make people mad. This suggests trolling.

I haven't issued an official warning against you, yet, but you are getting close to it.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

On 14-03-2005, 7:42 PM, you posted your original thesis. For 33 posts, you continued to taunt and evade questions regarding the validity of your data. This went on for all of that day, then the topic faded from interest.

Today, 5 days later, you revived the topic with a link to a registered site, pointing to a 2002 article of 445 words, most of which are hidden behind a registration window which requires a payment of $2.95 for a single article.

Yeah, you're a troll. Cogitation made no error.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Moderator Team

Sorry, but sometimes I have to leave - as I did when the thread was going. It took a while for me to re-find it - but I felt compelled to provide the promised info.

I didn't realize the Wash Post charged for archives. I do have the full and complete text of the article which I could post if you wish.

As far as making it up - well, I didn't and I've shared the link now to prove it - just as I promised. I was sincere when I suggested that everyone was making the most interesting contributions. I was concerned that posting the link would result in a discussion over symantecs instead of the substance of the thread. Being evasive isn't quite the same as trolling, particulary when I promised to provid the info at a later post specifically because the contribution made by the other posters was of such high quality. Then I got called away and lost the thread.

It can never be said I didn't follow through with my promise to provide the info, and if you wish and allow I will gladly post the article in it's entirety.

Just so you know, I do have to leave now. I may be out for a few days. Weekend stuff to do. If you want the info don't be angry if I don't put it up for a few days. C-ya.

Sorry, but sometimes I have to leave - as I did when the thread was going.
All the more reason to post a link to information at the start of the thread.

I didn't realize the Wash Post charged for archives. I do have the full and complete text of the article which I could post if you wish.
In cases like these, yes, post the full article. Also provide a traditional bibliographical citation: Name of the journal, the date of the issue, and the page number (or starting page number if it's a multi-page article).

As far as making it up - well, I didn't and I've shared the link now to prove it - just as I promised. I was sincere when I suggested that everyone was making the most interesting contributions.
Just a side note: Intent is hard to judge over the Internet. Sadly, though, many Moderator judgments require knowing or estimating your intent. If we have to assume things about your intent, then we will sometimes assume bad things about your intent.

I was concerned that posting the link would result in a discussion over symantecs instead of the substance of the thread. Being evasive isn't quite the same as trolling, particulary when I promised to provid the info at a later post specifically because the contribution made by the other posters was of such high quality.
I consider this argument specious. First, the conduct of others has no bearing on judgments of your own conduct; the high quality of other posters in that thread does not excuse the trollish quality of your own posts. Second, you refused to link your specific source, so there was effectively no substance in your thread to begin with. Third, you did actively and negatively respond to requests to link to your specific source of information; don't assume that your promises necessarily count for anything.

It can never be said I didn't follow through with my promise to provide the info, and if you wish and allow I will gladly post the article in it's entirety.
If you are prepared to post the full article text and provide a proper citation to the specific article, then go right ahead and repost the topic.

Just so you know, I do have to leave now. I may be out for a few days. Weekend stuff to do. If you want the info don't be angry if I don't put it up for a few days. C-ya.
Not a problem. You don't have to repost the topic, but if you do repost the topic, then repost it whenever you have everything ready: a hyperlink to the source or the full text with a proper citation.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

If I may toss out some side information with the Washington Post deal...

I nab webfeed from several sources, including the Washington Post and the Washington Times. From what I've learned, most papers (including those and NYT and the Chicago Tribune) allow free viewing of current news articles. Most require registration, but it's free (supply e-mail, essentially).

However after about a week or so, they start charging. This is something worth keeping in mind when quoting from newspaper sources. Also, even when supplying the source the first time around, it's generally considered polite to let people know that registration is required, even if it's free.

Thanks gentlemen, yeah, registration sux. More and more websites are doing this. Een if it is free it still means you get spammed.

I wouldn't resurrect a closed thread w/o mod endorsement, but even with I'm not sure I feel like it. I frankly expected it to sink to the bottom fast anyway, but still wanted to post the info. If I do another one it will include other info as well - many other folks found and posted very interesting info form the source I sited. That was the exciting part. However, being on dialup for now, it is am immense pain in the arse to surf even a few pages while creating a thread. If you have broad-band give thanks. I don't get mine back until July. I'm going through FPS withdrawl!

Thanks all for the exchange

-B0z