this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
28 points (100.0% liked)

Chapotraphouse

14284 readers
651 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Please. When starting posts that mentions "the other big thread today" or "discussions elsewhere" etc, can we please kindly provide LINKS to said discussions.

It is just impossible to follow what is going on if you are even a few hours late or the feed doesn't show you.. search doesn't work there is no way to find out.

but why should I even need to search. why not just help the reader along?

by way of leading by example, I'll link to the most recent such post: https://hexbear.net/post/7766227 but this is continually going on and I ?believe? even OP of that post has said as much in the past.

As a secondary part of this norm, I will suggest that if a post is made that doesn't adhere, someone else would make a comment which includes the relevant links. and everyone ought to upbear it and OP as a matter of cordiality will edit their post to include it when they see it.

Hope that makes sense.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hermes@hexbear.net 5 points 16 hours ago

a-little-trolling we love vague posting /s

Good idea! I think this rule/norm should actually extend past just metaposts to news/pop culture related stuff. As an example, this post should note the context around the referenced comment in the body of the text, e.g. "this is about the BAFTAs". When I first read that post I forgot about the controversy the comment was referring to, which confused me for a while as I thought he was making a totally different argument.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 5 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

This is a good point. I will link the two previous threads in the post body of that post.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 3 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

@hellinkilla@hexbear.net I have added links to both previous posts discussing the subject to the post you mention here.

I think I wanted to avoid encouraging directly transferring the arguments from prior posts, but that was probably ridiculous to think. I think you're right the links should have been there.

[–] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

ty! obviously it is intending to carrying the arguments from prior posts and pretending otherwise is just passive aggressive. shit posting pride

too bad you are agreeing, it is nonconducive to the minor strugglesession that could potentially dig this in. probably need to repost regarding someone who'd hate it. without drama and conflict could anybody notice?? I hope so.

[–] LeninWeave@hexbear.net 3 points 16 hours ago

ty! obviously it is intending to carrying the arguments from prior posts and pretending otherwise is just passive aggressive. shit posting pride

Honestly, by that point I was feeling pretty wrecked and might not have been thinking clearly. I think I thought too much direct reference might be seen as shit stirring and make things worse, which I don't think was correct.

too bad you are agreeing, it is nonconducive to the minor strugglesession that could potentially dig this in. probably need to repost regarding someone who'd hate it. without drama and conflict could anybody notice?? I hope so.

lol. Quick, let's find something to argue about!

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 3 points 16 hours ago

New norm: not the same as the old norm