Copy/Paste spam or plagiarism, in Self-Defense and...

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The post I'm reporting includes this:

Destroying/Looting Justice Center Portland
https://streamable.com/1j6fof
Looting small business in Portland
https://streamable.com/bfs08c
Destroying/looting small business Portland
https://streamable.com/adfxxt
Looting Louis Vuitton store
https://streamable.com/f4ysu9
Driving stolen cars into stores – Portland
https://streamable.com/o1w92j
Destroying Chase Bank – Portland
https://streamable.com/o1wtom
Setting Chase Bank on fire – Portland
https://streamable.com/nanakz
Destroying/Looting Apple Store – Portland
https://streamable.com/2wncgk
Looting in St. Paul
https://streamable.com/6fouwt
Looting Shoe Store
https://streamable.com/60v3xh
Looting apple store
https://streamable.com/1wzq39
Looting North Face store – NYC
https://streamable.com/ux7djn
Nike Store being looted – NYC
https://streamable.com/6sdcb3
Looting in Union Square – NYC
https://streamable.com/jiz3zd
Looting T-mobile store
https://streamable.com/ag5kwc
Shop owner saves store from looters with a firearm
https://streamable.com/5oj1jl
Business owner defends his store from looters with a firearm
https://streamable.com/pmdjkb

A quick Google assured me that the list of links and summaries is not Ostroeuropa's own work:

https://www.bestsouthwestguide.com/news-from-the-web/421-national/9510-links-to-over-70-unedited-rioting-videos

My appeal is firstly that links are essential to good debate, and no post should contain an unreasonable number of links.
"Gotchas" based on not reading one of the links are unreasonable, and do not constitute debating in good faith.

Secondly, this is plagiarism. Copying a list of carefully curated links from elsewhere on the internet, without attribution, is plagiarism.

Thirdly, this is spam. Ostroeuropa should not be allowed to advertise an ideology with so little effort. And copy-pasting to make a long post should not be allowed anyway.

[Ostroeuropa]

I disagree this counts as spam given that the point being made is the frequency and volume of the incidents. It is crucial to the point being made that it be lengthy enough to pre-empt accusations of these incidents being rare or isolated. Further, the section quoted does not comprise the majority of the post and effort has gone into the post to contextualize the list in question and put it into the argument being made rather than simply throwing the list out.

As for plargiarism, I don't claim this list is my own work and I think it's fairly obvious that the list was acquired from elsewhere. However, once again, I'd point to the fact that it is not the majority of the post, and that it only an element within the post used to bolster the arguments made therein.

Given that the spam and plagiarism rules are instituted to prevent low effort copying and pasting of things, I argue this post cannot qualify given that this post is not characterized by that.

My appeal is firstly that links are essential to good debate, and no post should contain an unreasonable number of links.
"Gotchas" based on not reading one of the links are unreasonable, and do not constitute debating in good faith.

Firstly, this aspect of your report relies on assuming future posts not yet in existence will be made in bad faith as a "Gotcha". Pre-crime isn't a thing.

Secondly, I don't expect you to watch the links. You either accept that they're probably true, or yes, it is on you to watch them and argue they aren't. I have provided the evidence for the volume, frequency, and scope of what I argued, and that is the argument that was being made.

Not allowing me to do this means that I would be asked to provide evidence of incidents in isolation, which could then be dismissed as isolated sequentially. This way, the central claim "This is something that happens a lot" can be proven.

I would agree with your report if it contained the links in question were in and of themselves the point being made by the post rather than merely being used in service of the point being made. I'd also note that long posts containing a huge amount of links on a particular topic are relatively normal, off the top of my head thinking of an example, when someone is challenged to prove "Trump is racist", such posts can often be lengthy and comprise dozens and dozens of links to incidents supporting that claim across the stretch of his presidency. And I don't find that disagreeable.

If you wish to challenge the claim, you may do so, but it is on you to argue why the evidence provided is inadequate. The evidence has been provided. The sheer weight of the evidence is such that I do not expect people to actually watch all the links, merely to accept that they contain what I say they do. If you have a problem with that, you can in fact watch them, but that's a burden you're taking on yourself and it's not my fault.

[Neutraligon]

I am confused, this is a link to multiple examples of protesters causing damage, which was what Ostro was pointing out. The fact that there is a large number of links is part of their argument to the harm that is being done, and is not spam. Nor do I see how this is plagiarism. From what I can tell not actionable, though that may change if you explain further. That being said Ostro, maybe you can spoiler the list of links?

[Ostroeuropa]

I am confused, this is a link to multiple examples of protesters causing damage, which was what Ostro was pointing out. The fact that there is a large number of links is part of their argument to the harm that is being done, and is not spam. Nor do I see how this is plagiarism. From what I can tell not actionable, though that may change if you explain further. That being said Ostro, maybe you can spoiler the list of links?

I'll do so now, thankyou.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I am confused, this is a link to multiple examples of protesters causing damage, which was what Ostro was pointing out. The fact that there is a large number of links is part of their argument to the harm that is being done, and is not spam. Nor do I see how this is plagiarism. From what I can tell not actionable, though that may change if you explain further. That being said Ostro, maybe you can spoiler the list of links?

Plagiarism: I found the same links and description of them, on another site. It was not credited in Ostro's post. This is a substantial quantity of someone else's work.

Spam: Because they are links, offered to advance an argument not "for anyone interested" there are just too many of them.

[Luna Amore]

I am confused, this is a link to multiple examples of protesters causing damage, which was what Ostro was pointing out. The fact that there is a large number of links is part of their argument to the harm that is being done, and is not spam. Nor do I see how this is plagiarism. From what I can tell not actionable, though that may change if you explain further. That being said Ostro, maybe you can spoiler the list of links?

Plagiarism: I found the same links and description of them, on another site. It was not credited in Ostro's post. This is a substantial quantity of someone else's work.

Spam: Because they are links, offered to advance an argument not "for anyone interested" there are just too many of them.

I'm having a hard time seeing that as plagiarism. It's a list of links with basic descriptions. It's also from an off-site source, so unless they complain to us directly, I'm not inclined to go policing every unsourced piece of text on the site.

If it was only a post containing a long list, it'd be a lot easier to read it as spam. But Ostro didn't do that. The links are supplemental to a larger and more substantial post.

If this was a request for a second opinion, second opinion is not actionable.