Rules

[ag]

As I am now the moderator here, just a few rules.

1. Any econ related messages are fine, be they Marxist, Austrian, or whatever other heresy you might think of

2. As follows from my previous remark, all sorts of judgemental statements about econ theories are also fine, as long as they don't become personally insulting.

2. Personal insults are not fine, and from this moment on will be deleted without warning.

[MaxQue]

As I am now the moderator here, just a few rules.

1. Any econ related messages are fine, be they Marxist, Austrian, or whatever other heresy you might think of

2. As follows from my previous remark, all sorts of judgemental statements about econ theories are also fine, as long as they don't become personally insulting.

2. Personal insults are not fine, and from this moment on will be deleted without warning.

3 is after 2, not 2 is after 2.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

As I am now the moderator here, just a few rules.

1. Any econ related messages are fine, be they Marxist, Austrian, or whatever other heresy you might think of

2. As follows from my previous remark, all sorts of judgemental statements about econ theories are also fine, as long as they don't become personally insulting.

2. Personal insults are not fine, and from this moment on will be deleted without warning.

3 is after 2, not 2 is after 2.

Are you insulting the moderator's counting skills?

[k-onmmunist]

Austrian

Yay!

[ag]

As I am now the moderator here, just a few rules.

1. Any econ related messages are fine, be they Marxist, Austrian, or whatever other heresy you might think of

2. As follows from my previous remark, all sorts of judgemental statements about econ theories are also fine, as long as they don't become personally insulting.

2. Personal insults are not fine, and from this moment on will be deleted without warning.

3 is after 2, not 2 is after 2.

Are you insulting the moderator's counting skills?

You know that there are three kinds of mathematicians? The ones who can count, and the ones who can't

[Derek]

As I am now the moderator here, just a few rules.

1. Any econ related messages are fine, be they Marxist, Austrian, or whatever other heresy you might think of

2. As follows from my previous remark, all sorts of judgemental statements about econ theories are also fine, as long as they don't become personally insulting.

2. Personal insults are not fine, and from this moment on will be deleted without warning.

3 is after 2, not 2 is after 2.

Are you insulting the moderator's counting skills?

You know that there are three kinds of mathematicians? The ones who can count, and the ones who can't

I've been saying that for thousands of generations. Oh man I must be in the latter category.

[ag]

Update on the rules. There've been complaints recently, that people cite copyrighted material in full, which would appear, at least to some, to be dubious. I am not a lawyer, nor am I an admirer of the copyright law in its current shape, but I'd rather not get into the interpretations of fair use and such. So, from now on, if you want to cite the entire text, please limit yourself to citing the first paragraph of any article, followed by a link. Of course, if you want to make a point about a particular passage, feel free to cite that passage, no matter where in the article it is. But avoid wholesale cut and paste.

If violations of this rule are reported to me, I will let the poster modify it first. If there is no modification within a reasonable period (say, 12 hours), I shall modify it myself.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Hey guys,

Just want to let you know I'm the one who'll be messing with you

Enjoy.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just a word about copyrights/attributing

A word about proper attributing.

Sometime ago I've simplified the rules of attribution for the what-ifs sake, while trying to satisfy the requirements set by Dave. Here's how it works:

Not all Wikimedia Commons images can be used simply by providing a link.

For example this file:



Can only be used if you credit the author.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en


It, therefore, should look like this:


Source: Wikimedia Commons. Author: Richard David Ramsey


If there's a clear public domain in play, as with this image:



You simply need to write "public domain" or "PD" in description:



Wikimedia Commons (PD)


The same rule apply to non-commons images. Unless said image is either public domain, or free for use with crediting the author, it'll be considered a violation and dealt with pronto.

Here's an example for non-commons PD image:

 

Proper attribution:



Florida Memory (PD)


I'll not be checking unsourced/improperly attributed pictures. These will be removed.

One more important note: you have to provide a link to a page from where you took the photo, not an image link.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Incidentally, for a picture on the WIkimedia Commons, if you click on the "Use this file on the web" link, you'll be able to get some BBCode you can simply copy and paste, like so:

John Bel Edwards Richard David Ramsey [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

TRUMAN 58-766-06 National Archives and Records Administration. Office of Presidential Libraries. Harry S. Truman Library. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

It's attribution is a bit more verbose than Kal's minimum standard, but it'll certainly do and requires very little effort since you only need to copy and paste,

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Haha, I was just about to copypaste your post

[buffalobillsfan4444life]

We need Lassiez-faire economics