I know, I keep giving others the benefit of the doubt. You’d think I’d be cynical enough by now not to keep doing that.
So is “links must be descriptive, not just http://blahblah” a rule now, or what?
It would be more accurate to say you’re aware that it’s a rule now.
Note: these were not intended as rhetorical questions. Can I please have clarification? Posting http:// links has never been against the rules, as far as I can tell, which again is why I didn’t understand that to be part of Gary’s admonition, but rather a suggestion appended to his ruling on the descriptive title. If that’s no longer the case, can we have clarification on that point? Thank you.
As I understand it lissener, there is nothing wrong with having an http://… link, but if you do it should be described elsewhere in the post. Hasn’t it always been generally frowned upon to have a post that lacks any content other than a link?
Yes it has. But when such threads have traditionally only resulted in the thread being closed (if anything is done at all), and we have been told that a thread being closed is not a punishment, I can see how someone would be confused.
I don’t care about the Warning, really. But I do want to make a suggestion. If you guys are so dead set against these links without description, why not explicitly add that to the rules sticky? It would fit with #4 and #6.
I don’t think they care too much about the actual infraction, it was more that it was immediately done again yeah? Like normally there’s no drama with asking for medical advice, you do it, you’re asked not to, thread closed, no warning given. But if you were to immediately post another thread asking for medical advice, then the mods might warn you for not following mod instructions. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but that appears to be the thinking behind it.
Anyway, I’m not a mod so I’ll stop trying to delve into the workings of their BRAINS.
Confused enough to do it again right away?
FWIW, I both agree with this post and believe that Lissener is sincere in what he’s saying: he didn’t intend to break a rule with his second post, and the warning, giving sincerely, was misplaced. Lissener, I think your approach here–again, not intended to break the rules–is having the effect of raising mod’s hackles. If you apologized for breaking the rule but explained that it was inadvertant, they might be more receptive to what you said.
It has always been a rule that people should provide explanatory info for the nature of the link; it is preferable that they should also provide some sort of commentary about why they consider the link worthy of discussion. (If you don’t have anything to say about it, who else will? If there’s nothing to be said, please just submit it for Weird Earl’s.) I myself have closed threads – without issuing a warning – if the OP doesn’t say anything other than providing a link, even if the link is given with some info about what it’s a link to.
So, even if that rule isn’t invoked in every single freakin’ case over the last ten years, it is indeed a rule.
What lissener did was provide a link without any explanation or identification, then get lippy with the mod who asked him to provide additional information about the link, and who edited the thread title to make it clear what the link was about. Having been reminded of the rule, which he chooses to pretend he’d been utterly unaware of during his tenure here, lissener then turned around almost immediately and did exactly the same thing again. He saw it as a joke; a moderator saw it as ignoring mod instructions. That was what the warning was for, not for providing an unadorned link, which is not in and of itself a warnable offense. (There would be ways to do it that would be warnable, of course, under “ignoring mod instructions” or “being a jerk,” and you are welcome to experiment with discovering where that line is if you’re willing to accept the consequences of guessing wrong.)
In summary:
It is a rule for everyone that you should indicate where a link is going, just as it is a rule that thread titles should be descriptive.
If a moderator finds your thread title unclear or your link inadequately identified, your best course of action is to accept the additional info that the moderator adds to your thread title or link. If you have questions about what he or she has done, or about what he or she has said about what he or she expects from you, raise those questions in ATMB, don’t immediately turn around and do the same thing again “as a joke.” That puts you at risk for getting warned for ignoring moderator instructions.
These guidelines apply to all posters at the SDMB.
12-15-2009 in Cafe Society
Has it? I’ve been here for a little while now, and I never knew that it was a rule. It’s good etiquette, yes, but I never knew that it was carved in stone.
“Carved in stone” meaning “will get you a warning if you ignore,” no, you are correct – but it will get you a request from a mod to not do it in the future. If you ignore that request, you will risk getting the thread closed, and perhaps a warning, depending on how you handle the request.
“You” meaning “anyone who posts here,” not just lissener, for those who are still not clear whether he is being targeted here.
From the thread title, I got the impression that what I would find in the link is a shining cock.
What I got when I clicked the link was a depiction of a shining cock.
Seems perfectly descriptive to me.
So I confess I’m with Lissener here and do not see what the infraction was supposed to be. We’re supposed to describe our links. He described his link. What’s the problem?
ETA: Ah… is it because “cock” is ambiguous?
Just to expand on this a little, there are conventions and matters of etiquette here which, when you violate them, will not get you a warning for a first or even an occasional offense. It does become a problem, however, if a particular poster continues to violate these conventions repeatedly, even after they have been reminded of them by a moderator.
For example, if you post a thread in GQ that is more appropriate for another forum, I will generally move it without comment. If someone posts an inane question, I will often let it pass. However, if a particular poster keeps doing these things persistently, I will remind them of forum etiquette and start closing the threads. If they still continue, I may issue a warning to ensure that they get the point.
lissener has developed a habit of posting MPSIMS threads with nondescriptive titles and blind links. A few other examples:
In the most recent one, Gary politely reminded lissener of forum etiquette and asked him to refrain from posting blind links in the future. Gary did not warn **lissener ** for posting the link. lissener expressed his intention not to follow Gary’s instructions (which his initial response in that thread indicates he understood). When lissener came back and posted yet another blind link, I warned him for failure to follow Gary’s instructions, not for just posting the blind link.
While not the most popular threads, they got 7, 15, and 20 non-moderator responses respectively (and god knows how many views). And, unless I missed it, no one except the moderator said anything remotely negative about them. So, their “sin” can’t be that they waste electrons - people do read them.
Okay, but you also mention that people may ‘report’ such posts. Rather than insisting that lissener, and anyone who might emulate his style, change their (occasional) posting format, why not either ignore those who report such threads or, better still, tell them to mind their own business and simply don’t open the thread if they’re worried what they might find. For gawd sakes as I said here, they should accept that they’re not in grade 2 anymore and stop taddling, or tattling, or whatever.
I agree that the lippiness was inappropriate, but I don’t agree that it was a blind link: the thread title told what you’d find there. Can you elaborate on this?
Daniel
“Shining COCK,” is that the one you mean? That doesn’t give an idea what people wilol find if they click on the link. Nobody would guess from the title that the link leads to a picture of a rooster painted on a motorbike.
No, not originally – Gary changed it so it said “Shining Clock”. But when lissener posted it, all it said was WANT.