What's the deal with ACTA?

It’d be better if all Sam Green73 could do on his computer is hit delete. And maybe you could find a different way to get a hold of him?

Sandra Brown18 said:Why was my post deleted when I was just sharing a single video link?
It doesn't break any advertising rules, and it doesn't violate any copyrights.

🙄

Sam Green73 said:Any links posted in a discussion need to actually make sense and include an explanation.
You can't just expect everyone else to click on random links blindly.

Sam Green73 said:🙄

Why bother fighting the current when you can clearly see most people on this board have their own specific way of doing things? Wouldn't it just be easier for you to go with the flow instead of trying to force your own style on everyone else?

Honestly, just change the rule once we all get fed up enough.

Henry Hernandez7 said:Why insist on having things your way when so many users have their own style? Isn't it more logical for an individual to just adapt to the majority?

Well, feel free to change the rules once everyone gets tired of them.

Or just certain people???
At least we went out of our way to explain how to use hyperlinks properly.

And isn't it common sense to actually read the style guide before you start posting?

Are we really asking for much?

Charles Fox10 said:Or maybe just for some people???
We basically had to walk you through how to even add links to a post.

And isn't it just common sense to actually check the PDF guidelines before you start typing away on them.

Are we really asking for that much????

Look, it’s not really everyone, more like pretty much everyone. People are all over this thread wondering why their posts look wonky.

Like, I’ll say it again, wouldn't it be more logical to just make the rules work for the majority?

Henry Hernandez7 said:Well, it isn't everyone, just most people. Everyone in this thread seems baffled and wondering why their posts are being flagged.

I'll say it again. Wouldn't it be more logical to adjust the rules to fit the majority?

Last edited by Uncle Sam: 10/06/2011 at 2:03 PM. These rules have been in effect since then.

The rule you're complaining about actually makes sense. A post consisting of nothing but a single link without any context on what it's about is just... odd.

Users come here to debate. Expecting everyone to click a random link just to see if it's relevant is asking too much. It's a waste of time, especially if they've already seen it.

For example:

1. A post that breaks the rules:

http://www.example-us-site.com/thread/66911

2. A post that follows the rules:

http://www.example-us-site.com/thread/66911

Links aren't a substitute for actual writing. When posting a link, you should briefly explain what's behind it (a title, a summary, or a key quote). It needs to be clear how the page relates to the discussion.

One final question.

Which type of post is more polite, and which one actually contributes to a constructive conversation?

Your links suck.😉
Both of them follow the subforum rules perfectly.

stormybadger8 said:Hey, those links you sent over aren't actually working. I tried clicking through them a few times, but I just can't get them to load.😉
Both of them follow the subforum rules perfectly.

Yeah, that’s exactly right—those are two different examples, but they both point back to the same link.

Charles Fox10 said:Last edit by Uncle Sam: 10/06/2011 at 2:03 PM. These rules have been the standard since then.

And honestly, this rule you're complaining about makes perfect sense because a post that's just a single link with zero context is basically useless.

People come here to actually talk, and right now everyone's expected to click through some random URL just to figure out what the hell we're even discussing, which is a total waste of time if they've already seen it elsewhere.

For example:

1. A post that breaks the rules:

http://www.example-us-forum.com/thread/66911

2. A post that follows the rules:

http://www.example-us-forum.com/thread/66911

So, one last thing.

Which one is actually decent and actually helps move a conversation forward?

You messed up somewhere, both links are identical.

Sam Green73 said:Yeah, those are just two examples using the same link.

😵
I didn't even read the whole thing. I just noticed they were both the exact same link.🙈

Sam Green73 said:yeah, both those links lead to the exact same page

When I hit that top link, they both pop up at once, and they’re both just full of rules—honestly, there's more legislation stuffed in there than there is in the entire US Constitution.

Henry Hernandez7 said:You messed up, both links are exactly the same.

Yeah they are, but the difference is in the actual post.😳

Post 1:

View on reddit

Post 2:

View on reddit

Quote:

Links aren't a substitute for actual content. When you drop a link, you need to briefly explain what's behind it (a title, a summary, or a key quote). It needs to be obvious why that page matters to the discussion.

Bottom line:
In the second post, the point is actually stated, and the link is just there for the source.

In the first one, it's just a link, and honestly, you have no clue what it's even pointing to.😉

They look similar, but trust me, the difference is huge.

Now that we’ve untangled this mess, I’ll ask again.

Which post is actually civil, and which one adds more value to a constructive debate?

Charles Fox10 said:Now that we've cleared all that up, I'm asking again.

Which post is actually decent and actually helps the conversation move forward???

Obviously the second one, though if I or anyone else here tried to chime in with links or extra context, Resonator would've just nuked them anyway. Seems like he hasn't quite wrapped his head around how these rules work.

Posting a URL without any context is entirely pointless, especially when the link itself rarely even functions properly. As for the resonator support, I don't believe such posts belong on this forum.

shadowpilot8 said:Honestly, posting a random URL without any context is just a waste of everyone's time, especially when half the time it isn't even a clickable link. And regarding that resonator support thing—I'm with you, those kinds of posts don't really belong on this forum.

Better watch out, or you'll end up picking fights with everyone here.
What about those of us stuck using mobile data? Since following those steps is a total pain on a phone, does that mean we aren't allowed to comment either?

It isn’t about being contrarian toward a colleague—for instance, I recently argued against penalizing someone for failing to use multi-quote. However, simply dropping links without context goes against the spirit of this forum, and it is one of the few minor infractions I actually bother to flag.
If you're on your phone, just type a couple of sentences explaining what the link is about. It shouldn't be that difficult to format.

shadowpilot8 said:Seriously, just type a couple of sentences on your phone explaining what the link is about if making a proper URL is too much work for you.

Man, mobile users are just new age wannabes trying to play at being forum dwellers... don't even waste your breath on them.

A real hard core user always has their laptop ready to go. ☕

Kevin Williams56 said:Man, only those new age wannabe "forum dwellers" bother with mobile devices, honestly, no point wasting energy on people like that.

A real hard core forum regular always keeps a laptop within arm's reach. ☕

Total discrimination if you ask me.

Henry Hernandez7 said:This is straight-up discrimination.

Give me a break!

You want me to buy you a laptop too? You're the one choosing to browse on a phone and then trying to pin it on me!

Whatever. Go grab a laptop yourself if you actually want to be taken seriously around here... ☕