What happened to discrepancy?, the posting of links Options

[Spirited Away]

Why I'm here.

The Community Guideline states:
ADVERTISING
Starting a topic for the sole purpose of advertising is not allowed. You may not solicit via Private Message. Signatures may only contain references and links to personal pages, such as your blogs and profiles; references and links to anything that is not personal, such as websites and forums are not allowed.

"Strictly" following the rules would mean any link posted in debate or news means spam/advertising. Yet it is argued by another member, E-Man, that such links are "allowed because it is [a] source [that] is not advertising or promoting a certain cause or company. You are simply citing where you got your facts or story from." However, that is deviating from the community guideline rule itself, and not "strictly" following.

According the definition agreed by iRock cB, if a link is posted so that it would provide information for a cause, it would be okay. So why is the topic "save the la mesa" censored even after I explained that it could be means for providing information?

I remember clearly that Jusun meant for staff to be lenient in the lounge, but what happened to that proposed leniency by the leader of this community?

[Spirited Away]

Looking down on iRock cB? Hardly. If I looked down on someone, he/she would definitely know and I would be warned more than likely. I'm not one for subtlety.

Perhaps this belongs in feedback, but since this is a proposed amendment to "strictly" following the rules AND a call or DISCREPANCY, I thought it'd get better reception here. Move it where you want though.

The wording of the Community Guidelines do not need to be changed, it's how moderators enforce the rules that needs to be changed. If you were here long enough, Jusun has said that staff should be lenient in the Lounge. Because iRock cB was so adament that he/she was strictly folowing the rules, I just wated to point out that he/she wasn't doing that at all.