(February 21, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: I was told, when I posted a link, that I needed a moderator's prior approval to do so (and a moderator deleted the links from my post). However, if you read the exception above, there is no mention of getting a moderator's prior approval.
I believe the moderator was mistaken to tell you that. You *can* get moderator approval before posting links within 30/30, but it is by no means a requirement.
(February 21, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Most of the links that people are apt to present, are to articles and such things, with no intent to get someone to buy anything.
It's not just commercial advertising that is prohibited. "Advertising" includes links to blogs, youtube channels, and anything else that's intended to drive traffic away from AF to other sites. We are a discussion site, not a link farm, mirror site, news aggregator, or anything else of the sort.
I agree that the line as to what's acceptable is somewhat subjective, but I'll give you my perspective on it. Linking to an article without giving your own summary and argument for/against - OK. Linking to an article saying something along the lines of "Hey guys, what do you think of this?" - not OK. When the link/video is the bulk of the meaningful content, it's very clearly over the line.
I'll also note that 30/30 violations are generally not a big deal. We edit out the links, and most of the time, there isn't even so much as a verbal warning. Where people get in real trouble is when, after being made aware of the rule, they continue to violate it (often, by editing the post that was moderated and restoring the link), or attempt to skirt the rule by posting a link that is not a link (i.e. "go to myblog(dot)com").
The entire reason the rule exists as it does today is because of the enormous level of past abuse.
