Timeline for Is it inappropriate behaviour to post links?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2015 at 13:26 | comment | added | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | @LarryHarson 1. Dilaton received no warnings whatsoever as far as I recall. 2. There's no way you can gauge a user's motive (I've already explained mine), and there are no parasitic drains, I've explained a couple of times that this is good for PSE as well. But I guess I could abide by the current policy, even though it isn't really documented anywhere... | |
| May 3, 2015 at 20:50 | comment | added | Larry Harson | @Dimensio1n0 Rather than flagging Arnold's comment as promotional spam, I thought it would be more helpful getting him to give an answer and then removing the comments afterwards; with my second comment, I've now removed it because it was just arrogant laziness on my part. Also, I don't see any evidence that people are automatically banned for posting links; it's only when it gets to the point that the motive ends up a blatant parasitic drain on the development of physics stack exchange itself, despite the poster being repeatedly warned over this by the very fair moderators here. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 8:39 | comment | added | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | banned for this reason, given that none of the pre-texts apply to the issue. | |
| May 3, 2015 at 8:35 | comment | added | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | @LarryHarson Could you explain how this comment suggests clarification or provides background information about questions? Or how this adds anything to the existing discussion? My point is that it's not practical to implement the rule you cite. Also, the issue is that users shouldn't be | |
| May 2, 2015 at 22:40 | comment | added | Larry Harson | @Dimensio1n0 "Comments are just for clarification, suggesting corrections and possibly providing background information about questions.": what don't you understand about this? | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 11:13 | comment | added | Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir | It isn't link-only answers, it's comments with links. What you suggest is OK, but I still think that a suspension is a very knee-jerk and harsh measure. It's also somewhat anti-competitive to say that it "sucks the lifeblood out of the site". Let me clarify this - PO is not, nor is meant to be a competitor to PSE. We don't follow SE's "Q&A" model, PO is a platform to support an academic community, that includes an open peer review platform and a discussion forum. There's no reason for PSE to treat PO as a competitor, it's got different goals, it's a wholly different site. Both goals are eq | |
| Apr 23, 2015 at 10:21 | history | answered | John Rennie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |