Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted?

Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? (/thread-9599.html)

Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - JJJ - 08-15-2015

I would appreciate some pointers from the vets on this board, as a recently joined rookie. Slack appreciated.

What source is considered so obvious and intrinsic to members that it would be considered an insult to post stories here? Some examples:

1. Stanford Daily
2. Bleacher Report
3. Sports Illustrated
4. Yahoo
5. SF Chronicle/SFGate
6. SJ Mercury News
7. GoStanford.com
8. Facebook posts by Football/Basketball/Baseball/VBall/Golf etc teams
9. Rule of Tree
(I won't list GoMightyCard since that would be an insult; everyone sees that.)

I would appreciate any insight, so as not to insult anyone inadvertently.
8)

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - BostonCard - 08-15-2015

Unless it has already been posted, nothing is so obvious that it shouldn't be posted.Â Not everyone can browse every source, so anything that is relevant is fair game.

BC

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - admin - 08-15-2015

(08-15-2015, 11:14 PM)JJJ link Wrote:I would appreciate some pointers from the vets on this board, as a recently joined rookie. Slack appreciated.

What source is considered so obvious and intrinsic to members that it would be considered an insult to post stories here? Some examples:

1. Stanford Daily
2. Bleacher Report
3. Sports Illustrated
4. Yahoo
5. SF Chronicle/SFGate
6. SJ Mercury News
7. GoStanford.com
8. Facebook posts by Football/Basketball/Baseball/VBall/Golf etc teams
9. Rule of Tree
(I won't list GoMightyCard since that would be an insult; everyone sees that.)

I would appreciate any insight, so as not to insult anyone inadvertently.
8)

The correct answer is option 10, none of the above.

As Boston Card mentioned, we prefer not to have duplication of previous posts, but other than that, everything is fair game. The worst that can happen in the case of a duplicate is that the admins move it into a thread where the topic has already been discussed. Both the duplicate and any previous messages remain.

Bleacher Report is frowned upon, but permitted. This is because many consider its articles, and particularly its carousel-style lists to be clickbait, rather than informative reporting. Again, it is permitted, however.

There are only two basic rules for information from other sources:

1. We prefer not to link to information behind a paywall.
2. Don't cut and paste items verbatim beyond what would be considered fair use. Instead, excerpt some relevant portion, and provide a link to the original item.

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - JJJ - 08-15-2015

Thank you Boston Card and Administrator. Didn't know about the Bleacher Report rep. I just get their email on Stanford once a week. Any drop of water is appreciated in a drought!

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - ca245 - 08-16-2015

Some newspapers (LA Times, Mercury News) limit non-subscribers to 5 or so "free reads" each month. If you link to an article in such a newspaper, a CARDboard member may or may not be able to read the article, depending on the individual subscription status or number of "free reads" used up.

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - Rally - 08-16-2015

(08-15-2015, 11:14 PM)JJJ link Wrote:I would appreciate some pointers from the vets on this board, as a recently joined rookie. Slack appreciated.

What source is considered so obvious and intrinsic to members that it would be considered an insult to post stories here? Some examples:

1. Stanford Daily
2. Bleacher Report
3. Sports Illustrated
4. Yahoo
5. SF Chronicle/SFGate
6. SJ Mercury News
7. GoStanford.com
8. Facebook posts by Football/Basketball/Baseball/VBall/Golf etc teams
9. Rule of Tree
(I won't list GoMightyCard since that would be an insult; everyone sees that.)

I would appreciate any insight, so as not to insult anyone inadvertently.
8)

Posting questions about what not to post? :)

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - Mick - 08-16-2015

It's not that you shouldn't post about the Civil War, but if you do, realize that you're in for a lengthier exchange than the Battle of Port Hudson.

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - Rally - 08-16-2015

(08-16-2015, 03:31 PM)Mick link Wrote:It's not that you shouldn't post about the Civil War, but if you do, realize that you're in for a lengthier exchange than the Battle of Port Hudson.

For a fun way to while away the next three weeks, post something pithy about how coffee fueled both sides in the Civil War (see what I did there?Â Keeping it neutral so as not to rile up the Yanks.) and how graphene could have affected the outcome.

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - Mick - 08-17-2015

(08-17-2015, 08:42 AM)garvin link Wrote:We used to have a lot of arguments about Dana Delany vs. Uma Thurman, but after Uma's nose began blotting out the entire city of Cleveland in satellite photos, that one was pretty much resolved.

Apparently we refused to add Sandra Bullock to that conversation, given her insurmountable lead...

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - Hulk01 - 08-17-2015

The opinions on female beauty expressed here, other than Hulk's, should not be trusted:

1. Cathleen Caballero
2. Claudia Cardinalle
3. Penelope Cruz
4. Audrey Hepburn
5. Natalie Portman (esp with the white wig in Closer.)
6. Grace Kelly (to avoid accusations that no blondes need apply)

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - Rally - 08-17-2015

(08-17-2015, 11:08 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The opinions on female beauty expressed here, other than Hulk's, should not be trusted:

1. Cathleen Caballero
2. Claudia Cardinalle
3. Penelope Cruz
4. Audrey Hepburn
5. Natalie Portman (esp with the white wig in Closer.)
6. Grace Kelly (to avoid accusations that no blondes need apply)

Lord am I glad I wasn't around for that one.Â Some of you may be glad, too.Â How could no one have championed the most beautiful woman of all time, at any age, Sophia?

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - jacketree - 08-17-2015

[Image: Uma-Thurman-Plastic-Surgery-Nose-Job.jpg]

I wouldn't exactly kick either the before or after version out of bed for eating crackers. I mean we already have ants everywhere in our house.

I mean wait. No. That is not what I mean. I mean that while saying so is apparently against the rules, Mrs. Jacketree is the most beautiful woman of all time at any and all ages.Â (We are on the record here, right?)

My daughter found some old VHS tape of our wedding and early child rearing days (trips to Disneyland, Christmases, Easters and so forth) and we still have a VHS player for some reason.Â I said something to the effect that her mother was pretty hot back in the day.Â Obviously 25 years have done no harm to her radar-like hearing from four rooms away through two closed doors.Â You'd think she would take that as the compliment it was.Â :(

Re: Rookie question: what is considered so obvious it shouldn't be posted? - martyup - 08-18-2015

(08-16-2015, 03:35 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=12524.msg124627#msg124627 date=1439764276]
It's not that you shouldn't post about the Civil War, but if you do, realize that you're in for a lengthier exchange than the Battle of Port Hudson.