30/30 Rule

[Pyrrho]

[Nine]

I really don't see the issue with posting links so long as they are relevant to discussion. It doesn't make any sense to just blanket ban all links until 30 days are up.

[Minimalist]

I always thought the rule was directed against self-promoting links...(i.e., someone's blog or youtube channel.) But 30 posts was a long time ago for me so who can remember.

[Nine]

I always thought the rule was directed against self-promoting links...(i.e., someone's blog or youtube channel.) But 30 posts was a long time ago for me so who can remember.

Thats what I thought. After re-reading the rules I'm pretty sure Pyrrho is right. The No Advertising rule is meant to be for everyone the way its written now too. But I've seen people linking their stuff recently anyway.

[Jackalope]

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.

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.

[Pyrrho]

I always thought the rule was directed against self-promoting links...(i.e., someone's blog or youtube channel.) But 30 posts was a long time ago for me so who can remember.

That is the way I understood it from the exception written into the rules. But that is not the way it is enforced.

I would post a link to my edited post, but I have no wish to single out that particular moderator (in part due to otherwise liking that individual, but mainly because this is not about a specific moderator).

What prompted this thread was seeing other posts that have been moderated for violating the 30/30 rule, and although I cannot see what the links were, as they have been deleted, it seems that I am far from being the only person who bothered to read the exception written in the rules, who consequently thought that links were okay as long as they were relevant and not advertising some product or website.

[Jackalope]

@Pyrrho

I can certainly see where the letter of the rule and enforcement are out of sync. Hopefully this will generate some discussion amongst the moderators and bring the two into agreement.

[rexbeccarox]

It was me. In your case, Pyrrho, I removed the links because we don't like to encourage traffic to other sites, but then I decided it wasn't fair to you, so I reposted them in my own post. I didn't think that would be a big deal because they were pretty much interchangeable.

The thing is: in general, I treat 30/30 pretty hard-and-fast because it shouldn't be hard to wait thirty days and contribute thirty posts before posting outside links if a member actually wants to become a part of the community. We don't ban anyone over it, except in circumstances such as the ones Cthu described. I reposted your links because they actually did contribute to the conversation.

It's not a perfect rule, but we're just people like everyone else. We enforce it the way we see fit, and rarely are there problems as a result. I'm sorry you encountered one of the problems, but I feel it was rectified fairly.

[Nope]

I often wonder why the posters dont ask someonr else to post the link for them in a different post

[SteelCurtain]

The problem when it comes to "this is okay but that isn't" when it comes to new members posting links is that it will actually lead to more work for the moderators in having to explain themselves when someone's links get removed and someone else's don't.

It is easier for there just to be a rule that no one posts links until 30/30. It's easier for the moderators and is an effective weeding out tool for those who generally want to ask one question and don't have plans to come back afterwards, which is a major reason why someone would want to post a link in the first place. If you don't want to introduce yourself and become a part of the community, then fuck off anyways.

Besides, there is nothing on the internet besides videos that cannot be relayed by quoting. And even a video, if you care enough to have the discussion, can be summarized or you can give the Youtube search term.

I agree that the rule should be written in such a way where the intent is a little more clear, though.