[aussiesnack]

Arguable, but I don't think it's a slam dunk that replacing the multimillenial standard interface for connected text (ie. text!) with an entirely novel chain of multiple artificially separated UI widgets is either tangential or just to do with 'format'. Personally I won't read them, so at a minimum these links when unidentified merely waste my time, and presumably that of other irritated commenters here. Maybe they should be identified. My personal preference would be a large red banner with a phrase like ("Warning: this is not a real piece"). But a small less tendentious icon would also be fine!

[pvg]

Arguable, but I don't think it's a slam dunk

The guideline is not that the form is not annoying - some people, like you, will find it annoying not matter what. It's that the complaints about it are boring, repetitive and corrosive to the forum just as any boring and repetitive thing is. That's very much a slam dunk of truth.

multimillenial standard interface for connected text

This is pretty ahistorical.

[aussiesnack]

> The guideline is not that the form is not annoying - some people, like you, will find it annoying

I'm not arguing that the guideline can be breached when some people find it annoying. That would be silly.

I'm arguing that posting articles as trains of social media posts may not be tangential nor merely a matter of formatting. If that's the case (I agree it's 'arguable'), then complaining about them isn't in breach of the guidelines.

> This is pretty ahistorical.

Claiming that posting multiple social media objects is a mere 'formatting' alteration to our legacy of textual culture is pretty ahistorical.

[pvg]

complaining about them isn't in breach of the guidelines.

It is, the guideline was written specifically to address the repetitive twitter complaints - you can find this explanation in the mod commentary. Also, pretty much anything repetitive runs counter to the rubric of the forum and this complaint is very, very repetitive.

our legacy of textual culture

Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one.

[aussiesnack]

> you can find this explanation in the mod commentary.

If the guidelines are unclear, and arbitrarily rule non-articles in as articles, then they must be rewritten to make the fiat clear.

> Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one.

Irrelevant, as no-one made that claim. Your unevidenced insistence on your personal take on a novel tech as inarguably part of a historical tradition is just quiet shouting. I disagree, but agree it's arguable. You think it's not arguable, because it's obvious to you, and you believe what's obvious to you should be enforced.

[pvg]

If the guidelines are unclear

Hence the clarification. Hopefully it's clear now.

no-one made that claim.

You made the claim - "the multimillenial standard interface for connected text". There's no such standard.

[aussiesnack]

> Hence the clarification. Hopefully it's clear now

Nope. Just that you personally rule something as tangential that I claim is not. Your personal preferences aren't present in the guidelines (I've read them). If you wish them to be so, please rewrite the guidelines.

> You made the claim

I did not. I claimed that there is such a thing as textual articles, ie. an existential claim. I didn't claim that all text, or all articles, or all textual articles, share a single format. They exist, and claiming that something entirely different (a chain of social media objects) falls under the same head is false. Claiming that two different categories of things are, in fact, different, is not 'tangential', or related only to 'formatting'.