New guideline for the LOT?

[Bidet to you sir]

Now before I say this I'd like to add I have broken this possible guideline in the past.

What I want to suggest is is that we disallow LOT threads with low effort/info original posts, obviously dependent on how much analysis etc can be made.

For example

bad OP:

OBAMA, a retrospective!

Post:
LINK TO NEWS STORY
ONE SENTENCE OPINION
DISCUSS

good OP:

OBAMA, a retrospective!

INITIAL COMMENT
LIST OF ACHEIEVEMENTS AND FAILURES SO FAR
NEWS ARTICLES FOR EACH CLAIM AND WHY
POSSIBLE AREAS OF DISCUSSION LISTED
PERSONAL OPINION ON EACH ISSUE
OVERALL OPINION

Obama being a difficult topic thats fair enough.

lower content posts would be allowed for example under these criteria

VERY SPECIFIC VERY MINOR NEWS STORY

PERSONAL OPINION



Thats ok, because theres not much to be discussed.

I hate that we get abortion, evolution, existence of god, iraq war, israel palestine, election etc threads with incredibly low content starters, not only does it force the other people to basically make a thread you were too stupid/lazy to contribute to yourself but also usually leads to lazy arguments themselves because most threads start with a comment about the OP.

If the OP is well sourced and very comprehensive, unless the other person replying is a complete moron or using a hell of a lot of logical fallacies or completely ignoring your actual point to make their own one without even acknowledgement of your own , you're probably going to get a detailed response back.

Although those are actually other things I'd like to see cracked down on, but most people don't agree that the LOT should be moderated based around how people argue, more often than not we get modding based on what people argue, which I dissagree with.

But the first is what matters most, maybe more effort into the starts of threads will actually lead to more healthy discussion to begin with, instead of saying "oh you missed post number 14 on page 13" when someone makes a comment despite their argument already having been shown faulty, you'll be able to do the better thing and say "you didn't even read the damn OP did you?"

[hisak]

Yeah, these are good guidelines to follow. More threads like your example for a good OP would of course be nice to see.

Although I also think that good OPs are more likely to generate good discussion, and will therefore stick around longer. Opening posts that don't generate discussion will wither and be forgotten, so I don't know if enforcement is even necessary.

[Bidet to you sir]

On current events a bad OP can mean a topic isn't discussed at all that should be.

Unless you'd accept that if people consider an OP very poor we can ask for mod permission to make our own version?

[hisak]

Unless you'd accept that if people consider an OP very poor we can ask for mod permission to make our own version?

Sure, that's reasonable.