Dispute with mod

Never said it was solely text nor has anyone that I have seen.

At least you acknowledge that other sources are there to back up actual discussion.

I'm a user of this site, it's not contentious to me at all. The definition of link dump seems to only perplex a certain type of poster

Without a user adding the discussion part. Both of your examples are the same thing. A link dump

One person's link is another person's dump.

This thread has descended into an audition for wannabe mods.

Seems Beasty has become more even handed in his moderation ans some here don't like it.

How about a poster backing up a post that was being questioned with a comment 'straight from the horses mouth' and a youtube video? All the context is in the thread already, what more comment would be needed to turn it from a link dump to a constructive post?

With embedded tweets and links that give a preview of an article, sometimes it's very easy to work out what's being said,

There seems to be an issue where bans become exponentially worse on 2nd or 3rd offence. Unfortunately this is counter productive when bans are handed out so generously and rules are strict and numerous. So my Rapey Don comment led to my 3rd ban which is a week long but in reality, a heads up message from a mod would have been plenty. So I guess my next infraction will lead to a two or three week ban and if that happens I'd be in two minds about coming back. Longer bans aren't a good way to get posters back on track and keep discussions civil, they just encourage contributers to leave the site.

English or Spanish mods??

What would a heads up message tell you that a weeks ban, or the 2 bans before it won't? All are a way of telling you to modify your posting style, there won't be another infraction if you do.

I honestly don’t know the Mods and Admins put up with this tto be honest.

No support from owners, abuse from users and expected to be online at all hours and no pay.

Someone else said, one day there will be a 404, everyone else will go about their business and the Mods/Admins will be left annoyed that they gave up so much personal time for this.

We're all adults here and the mods could take a pragmatic view of things. There's absolutely nothing a further ban is going to teach me my about my 'posting style' or anything else. Again, I wasn't taking the piss and my ban was due to a throwaway term and wasn't even the main point I was making so if I'm banned again it won't really be any skin off my nose; there are plenty of forums to talk about current affairs on.

Not all X links posted though are embedded here ( have to be renamed as Twitter in order to do so which not everyone knows ) and in many cases people have to copy and paste the link to view what you are calling the summation. As for that summation ..is it clear who is writing it and whose opinion it is ? If I am discussing with you I want your opiniin not some blogger or some analyst .

Also very often embedded summations do not describe what is actually contained in the link which may be a complete time waster . Not saying you would post something like that Flaneur but it happens .

Also , why should a reader on a DISCUSSION forum have to open links on sites they don't subscribe to / don't want to subscribe to ? Same as with paywalled articles from regular or dodgy sources , no point talking about work arounds , there is a reason they are not allowed here .

If Boards is to allow the above , it will soon become a "post your picture here,

no comment " site on many threads with those who don't want to be reading X or other poorly moderated content from other sites, bombarded with it if they want to continue the conversation .

I don't think its a big ask to discuss / explain your link in order to be inclusive ? I see you did try .

As for "dumbing down " surely the whole point of not allowing link dumping is to to avoid just that scenario which is common on other sites ?

Sorry posting late but as BBoC said it really was a beautiful day !

It was embedded.

The description in the tweet was clear.

It was in the flow of conversation.

It had a shot of Kamala Harris and Brett Baier in the frame.

I gave my thoughts on it, concise as they may have been.

"I enjoyed this".

The description in the embed was clear, "Kamala Harris takes him down!"

I said that this would encourage me to watch the full video.

I praised her for not taking any of his sh*t.

(I have said all this already, but apparently, it bears repeating.)

Also , why should a reader on a DISCUSSION forum have to open links on sites they don't subscribe to / don't want to subscribe to ? Same as with paywalled articles from regular or dodgy sources , no point talking about work arounds , there is a reason they are not allowed here .

To put it simply, they don't have to. I don't subscribe to twitter (anymore). I can still view videos and see tweets embedded on boards.

They don't even have to play the video I embedded, although many did as it had over 20 "likes". Those people had no problem seeing that it wasn't a "linkdump".

If Boards is to allow the above , it will soon become a "post your picture here, no comment " site on many threads with those who don't want to be reading X or other poorly moderated content from other sites, bombarded with it if they want to continue the conversation

But boards DOES allow the above. On many, many, (dare I say it), MOST threads. Just apparently, not on the one I was warned for, because I had the audacity to think people could use their good sense and see that an embedded link, called "Harris takes him down", with a still of Brett Baier and Kamala Harris, mid interview, in a thread where the previous 10-20 posts had been discussing the FOX interview, didn't require a further description from me as I would have (wrongly, according to the site administrators) assumed that people could put 2 and 2 together and come up with 4.

As for "dumbing down " surely the whole point of not allowing link dumping is to to avoid just that scenario which is common on other sites ?

No mod or admin has given me a straight answer as to if I had posted the following, would the warning have been issued.

"The following embedded link contains a clip from the FOX interview between Harris and Baier"

And if that's all they wanted the post prefaced with, then yes, it's dumbing down boards. It's very obvious what the short clip was about.

There's also the fact the we can't call an adjudged rapist, "a rapist" in a thread bout his run for President is further proof. We still have his supporters say, "It was only sexual assault", like that somehow makes it better.

By the way for the people complaining that the new rules were brought in to make life easy for the (volunteer) moderators. Of course they were!

Thank God for that, because the reason stated that it was because a vocal minority of users wanted the rules changed didn't make any sense whatsoever.

Hard for me to fathom but obviously not you L.

I’m definitely interested in what is going on there but not as passionate as some people in Ireland seem to be.

Not saying it’s wrong to feel passionate about it just that it baffles me the amount of peoples thoughts and worries are engrossed in it.

Anyway as you were comrade.

Hard for me to fathom but obviously not you L.

I’m definitely interested in what is going on there but not as passionate as some people in Ireland seem to be.

Not saying it’s wrong to feel passionate about it just that it baffles me the amount of peoples thoughts and worries are engrossed in it.

Anyway as you were comrade.

Nothing would have changed had not a vocal minority complained, excessively, about “how things were” on the site.

That isn't why the rules were changed though.

No we are hopefully all held to the same standards ... the point I was making is that there are more posters who didn't got a ban for years suddenly were on the wrong end of the stick.... Now add the fact that moderators felt CA was moderated to strict and applied changes to address this issue. Clearly more posters are being sanctioned after the changes made. To me it doesn't make any sense.

You know what a link dump is.

Context in the thread doesn't change that

You tried to explain it .. but it didn't make much sense

One must expect from participants in the discussion that the Kamala vs Baier interview was a big thing ... it was a discussion point for a couple of pages .. some argued she did poorly, others found she did great... an important section of that interview was that the interviewer tried to pull a fast one and Harris wasn't having it .... that little clip showed that .... that is the context ... everyone participating in the thread knew what it was about ..... Again CONTEXT is the key .... if a moderator would have followed the discusson that person would not have reached the conclusion of link dumping .... if said moderator only checked a report post while waiting in some airport lounge it maybe have looked different