It does. The requirement to provide a link is preceded by the word "and" meaning that it is in addition to the requirement to "credit the source" or "give a brief recap".
In any event, this is not an issue which will be decided by scrutinizing the precise wording or punctuation of Flyertalk's rules as if they were a town ordinance. The purpose of the rules is to promote civil discourse. This topic has proven contentious, with exceptionally rude behavior which some readers may not have seen because it has been removed.
The function of moderators is to make judgments. We have drawn a bright distinction between writing about blog content and writing about bloggers to make it simple. If you think a moderator has acted incorrectly in a specific case feel free to contact us privately.
Not to be pedantic, but the two phrases are linked by "and/or", not "and" - not the same thing and perhaps an important distinction for copyright purposes (which is the heading for that item). But that wasn't really my point....
I'm not questioning any specific action(s) - I have no clue about any specific deleted post content, but am uncertain about the vague "mis-characterization of a blog post" being judged as improper or not. Does this mean that if someone cites an article and states their interpretation of the author's article, thoughts, etc. that this would be disallowed if someone disagrees that it's a valid analysis or summary of the article? That would seem to be a very subjective and slippery slope if so. If you simply mean a blatantly false statement attributed to an author, that's obviously (and proveably) wrong. But whatever it is, it seems some of us would honestly like some elaboration of this point.
Originally Posted by
kokonutz
What if a blog becomes or is bought by a 'large corporation?'
Randy sold out! Is saying so a TOS violation? His company is pretty big.
Frugal Travel Guy loves affiliates more than information. He is part of a huge corporation. Is saying so a TOS violation?
Why is the size of the commercial points and miles service provider relevant at all?
I know we aren't supposed to talk about moderation. But the standard seems to be getting more subjective rather than more clear.
If I get dinged for a TOS violation again it will be for a long (possibly permanent) time, so I think it's only fair that we understand not just what the subjective rules are but why they are.
In the meantime, back on topic, I see that the more selfish bloggers (I guess I can't say who since I might get dinged for violation the rules) got a $30 fare at the Phonecian killed this morning. Yay.
What were once one-man blogs are now sometimes still named the same, but are a trademark of a corporation, or may have many different authors writing under the website name. Where an FT'er has a handle with the same name, how does that work when referencing posts on the website - whether authored directly by the FT'er or not? I don't know the answer, but it's a good question.