RE: 30/30 Rule
February 22, 2015 at 2:57 am
(This post was last modified: February 22, 2015 at 3:20 am by Napoléon.)
I don't really understand why people struggle to get this rule.
I may be biased, because I was in large part the guy who wrote it up, but it's basically "don't post links unless it's relevant to an ongoing discussion". It's really not hard. The reason for it perhaps being so wordy is that, it's just trying to describe the ideal. Out and out preventing everyone new from posting any links at all, really would be a bit too constricting, and not only that would probably double the amount of work we have to do. Not all links break 30/30, and I suspect a great many go under the radar because they're used as they're allowed to be. Within discussion.
Also, I don't buy at all the narrative Alice is describing:
The percentage of people in that bracket who left as a direct result of the 30/30 rule is impossible to determine. For starters, the 30/30 rule has only really been the way it has for the past year or so. Second, I still don't think 30 posts is all that much. If someone is going to leave over the fact they can't post a link about something they so desperately want to share with us, then frankly, what are they doing here in the first place? If they're that desperate, wait the 30 days. Get involved in some discussions. It's really not difficult. It's not even like people can't post a link. The 30/30 rule says it's not advised until you've reached 30/30 sure, but as long as it's posted with the intention of discussion, it's all good. So with all that in mind, the only people who would actually not be interested in posting on this forum, due to the 30/30 rules, are probably people who we would not give two shits about anyway, because they don't give enough of a shit to have a discussion with us, which is all the 30/30 rule is intended to promote.
Just to add to what CD is saying here, an OK post would be something like this:
A post that breaks 30/30 however would look more like this:
Like CD said, it's somewhat subjective, but for me, it's still pretty obvious what's okay and what's not. I think if anything is to be changed with the rule itself, it should perhaps be to simply encourage new users to explicitly ask for permission first if they're unsure about the rule.
But honestly, the 30/30 rule hasn't ever been a big issue anyway. I think it more just exists to promote the right kind of etiquette from new users.
I may be biased, because I was in large part the guy who wrote it up, but it's basically "don't post links unless it's relevant to an ongoing discussion". It's really not hard. The reason for it perhaps being so wordy is that, it's just trying to describe the ideal. Out and out preventing everyone new from posting any links at all, really would be a bit too constricting, and not only that would probably double the amount of work we have to do. Not all links break 30/30, and I suspect a great many go under the radar because they're used as they're allowed to be. Within discussion.
Also, I don't buy at all the narrative Alice is describing:
Alice Wrote:Member pages 56 to 94 have between 30 and 10 posts... and that's a lot of members who may have become more active participants had the 30/30 rule been not so difficult to reach
The percentage of people in that bracket who left as a direct result of the 30/30 rule is impossible to determine. For starters, the 30/30 rule has only really been the way it has for the past year or so. Second, I still don't think 30 posts is all that much. If someone is going to leave over the fact they can't post a link about something they so desperately want to share with us, then frankly, what are they doing here in the first place? If they're that desperate, wait the 30 days. Get involved in some discussions. It's really not difficult. It's not even like people can't post a link. The 30/30 rule says it's not advised until you've reached 30/30 sure, but as long as it's posted with the intention of discussion, it's all good. So with all that in mind, the only people who would actually not be interested in posting on this forum, due to the 30/30 rules, are probably people who we would not give two shits about anyway, because they don't give enough of a shit to have a discussion with us, which is all the 30/30 rule is intended to promote.
(February 21, 2015 at 4:26 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 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.
Just to add to what CD is saying here, an OK post would be something like this:
Quote:Hey guys, I found this cool video about some blah blah blah (just imagine I'm saying something relevant)
Here it is:
He's basically talking about (insert whatever he's talking about).
I don't really agree with this guy because (insert reasoning here). What are your opinions?
A post that breaks 30/30 however would look more like this:
Quote:Hey guys check this out:
Like CD said, it's somewhat subjective, but for me, it's still pretty obvious what's okay and what's not. I think if anything is to be changed with the rule itself, it should perhaps be to simply encourage new users to explicitly ask for permission first if they're unsure about the rule.
But honestly, the 30/30 rule hasn't ever been a big issue anyway. I think it more just exists to promote the right kind of etiquette from new users.
