Suggestion on Links

Given the interface on this new forum, perhaps it is time to revisit the requirements for posting links. The vast majority of them show a synopsis when we post the link.

It is redundant to have to repeat it, like posting what somebody said in a twitter then posting the actual twit.

And a synopsis is not quoting part of the article and can be of any length (outside of here).

Most of the links speak for themselves.

The amount of synopsis of the poster has been reduced, BUT there still needs to be suffecient commentary by the poster of what their thoughts on the information, and enough to give people something to discuss.

If a link is to a 10 page article and the only commentary is 10 words – no that’s not going to cut it.

Aso if it is just basically a twitter re-tweet, those are deleted as well. This is a discussion board and not an extension of twitter (same if a person post a tweet that has a link to an article, it get’s deleted, they can post a link to the article and follow the rules on links.)

Why? I can sum up War and Peace in 10 words.

You missed the point about the twitter.

That link is a synopsis. Who, what, where, when.

See this is a perfect example of a delete . . .

No commentary, just a link.

You didn’t let me finish.

What kind of commentary do you need to see? “Thoughts and prayers”? “Ban guns”?

Or you could put under it as synopsis and commentary.

Another shooting at a nother school. STEM in colorado. looks like two in custody an adult male and a juvenile male. Interesing that BOTH were students at the school. This particular school is a charter school and had kindergarten through 12 grade on campus.

It’s really not that difficult.

I don’t understand your first sentence.

What purpose does that serve?

It doesn’t say both of them are students at the school, it says “authorities believe…”

So if we cut and paste

Authorities believe that the two suspects behind the incident at STEM School Highlands Ranch – an adult male and a juvenile male – are students of the school.

That’s commentary and necessary?

What value does that add?

Is it really that necessary and if so why? Do we believe that anybody on this board is incapable of clicking on a link and reading it for themselves?

Real slow


Most reasonable people would think a casual discussion forum would not need these archaic rules from a decade ago, if ever.

The rules and stubbornness on Twitter are especially odd.

“Real slow”? What did I do to get that patronizing ■■■■■ Anytime you want to take your toy mod badge off and debate me on any topic, any topic at all. All you have to do is call.

You have a nice night.

Nice work.

1 Like

The druge report reference has been made since before I was a mod –

Now that twitter is a “thing” and more and more people are just linking to a twitter post, it’s the same thing. This isn’t druge and it isn’t twitter. Post something that adds to the discussion, with commentary on it.

And if the person is commenting on a link imbeded in a tweet either one of two things has happend: A) they clicked the link and read it but for some unknown reason only wanted to link to the person on twitter. or B) the poster didn’t really click the article link and is only basing their commentary on someone elses synopsis of the article.

Can you communicate WHY this is so important?

This is literally the only forum I have been on with these kinds of rules. It’s kind of bizarre at this point, tbh.

It’s a discussion board. If a person on twitter wants advertising they can pay for it (unless they are really well know aka president or politician).

Giving commentary on information in a link has always been required, and will be until the owners of the board choose to do something different.

When were the current rules set and/or have they ever been reviewed/modified? Do the owners actually write the forum rules, or delegate it? Seems like it might be a good time!

Why do people want to be lazy?

Really I want to know. Why is it so hard to read an article, and give YOUR opinion on it to start discussion? It’s not that difficult. As was just proved by a thread that was deleted then re-started with actual commentary on the articel (barely enough) but it’s there now.