New Rule Proposal: No Commercial Advertising

[livius drusus]

As you might have noticed, we had our first spammer (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1339) evacute her bowels on A&L the other day. Since the forum is slow moving, we've been providing premium free advertising on the index page, and even when things pick up we'll still be giving them Google points.

I've actually been thinking about creating a no spam rule since the viral marketing thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1189). The last thing we want is to do is get played for fools by the likes of those Court TV cocks just because vm and I are rule Nazis.

What do y'all think? If you approve of an anti-spam rule, do you have any suggestions wrt the wording?

[wade-w]

Such a rule wouldn't bother me in the least. I must admit I have been tempted in the past to pimp my father's novel, but I refrained because I feel such things are in bad taste. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees, and thus we have spammers.

[Socratoad]

I voted for a no-spam rule Liv. I have nothing to offer in the way of wording or implimentation as I'm a babe in the woods regarding such things. Hell my puter chips are hand hewn birch. However I'm sure we have lots of talent here, including yourself and vm.

[livius drusus]

Actually wade, one of the reasons we didn't create such a rule to begin with is the fine line between advertising and personal recommendations. We don't have a problem with a genuine member of the community pimping anything. It's the users who register just to flog some shit I'd like to edit within an inch of their lives.

That's why I put commercial advertising in the title, and I'd definitely like the wording of the rule to make that distinction clear. I'm just not sure how to do it myself. :shrug:

[Farren]

I voted other only because I feel its OK for longstanding members to mention their commercial endeavours. Straight up spam should be erased, though.

[lady cop]

no-spam rule, yes, of course, but heck i had fun with that one! it posted on another board, as they are wont to do, so i went over there and said "didn't i put you in jail this morning on FF?" *POOF* it's gone. :D ...in a way i'd hate to lose them because it's so much fun to abuse them! :SM:

[wade-w]

I understand liv. I generally try to hold myself to a higher standard than I do others. I don't always succeed, but I still try. I would personally feel uncomfortable starting a thread to promote something, but I do see that a genuine member of the community doing so is a different matter from someone who registers with the sole intent of pushing some product or site.

[livius drusus]

I voted other only because I feel its OK for longstanding members to mention their commercial endeavours. Straight up spam should be erased, though.

I totally agree about the longstanding members thing, Farren, although I wouldn't say straight up spam should be erased, necessarily. Editing and mocking appeals to me so much more. :tmevil:

[Zatarra]

I believe the decision about what constitutes spam should be left to the staff, such that they can enforce whatever the rules as they see fit.

[livius drusus]

no-spam rule, yes, of course, but heck i had fun with that one! it posted on another board, as they are wont to do, so i went over there and said "didn't i put you in jail this morning on FF?" *POOF* it's gone. :D ...in a way i'd hate to lose them because it's so much fun to abuse them!

Can't we do both? Seriously, I'm thinking the rule would involve a caveat along the lines of "if you register here solely to advertise a service or product, you hereby resign all rights to the integrity of your posts, threads and profile information". That way we could still have some fun. :chucks:

[lady cop]

Editing and mocking appeals to me so much more. :tmevil:
Machiavelli lives. heh heh heh ...let's fuck with them when they show up :popcorn: ....hey i have six weeks to mess around here! :comfy:

[livius drusus]

I believe the decision about what constitutes spam should be left to the staff, such that they can enforce whatever the rules as they see fit.

That's fair, David - on the whole, I don't think it's a very difficult call to make - but I'd still like to have a well-expressed rule to make our expectations clear.

[Dingfod]

I put "Other" but probably am as inclined to vote "No" for the reasons livius stated, I'd rather see them mocked and exposed. That way, if the participating members here want to hawk our eBay store or grandpa's book, they can still do it. Of course, if it becomes a problem because we are getting bombarded with it, then by all means, call out the Anti-Spam Brigade and fry that Spam. I love fried Spam.

[Zatarra]

I'd still like to have a well-expressed rule to make our expectations clear.
That is desirable. If you had possible options, we could vote on those perhaps.

[livius drusus]

I put "Other" but probably am as inclined to vote "No" for the reasons livius stated, I'd rather see them mocked and exposed. That way, if the participating members here want to hawk our eBay store or grandpa's book, they can still do it. Of course, if it becomes a problem because we are getting bombarded with it, then by all means, call out the Anti-Spam Brigade and fry that Spam. I love fried Spam.

Well, again, a yes vote does not equal instant deletion and banning. Ideally, the rule would be crafted in such a way to allow mockery and exposure of the pros as well as protecting members in a hawking mood.

Bombarding is already prohibited under the no flooding rule as it screws with site integrity.

[livius drusus]

I'd still like to have a well-expressed rule to make our expectations clear.
That is desirable. If you had possible options, we could vote on those perhaps.

That's a good idea. I started the thread before I had anything firm in mind, however, as part of my tapping the brains of the membership scheme. ;)

Just to get a rough draft out there, I'm thinking something along the lines of:

You may not register solely to advertise a product and/or service. Doing so may result in suspension of any and all forum rights.

[lady cop]

You may not register solely to advertise a product and/or service. Doing so may result in suspension of any and all forum rights.
ohhhh...that is good...but can we reserve the right to spank them? or tase them? or spray them or knee-strike them? or beat the bloody hell out of them? pleeeeeease Liv?

[livius drusus]

That's the point of keeping it loose, donchaknow. ;)

[godfry n. glad]

Can't we do both? Seriously, I'm thinking the rule would involve a caveat along the lines of "if you register here solely to advertise a service or product, you hereby resign all rights to the integrity of your posts, threads and profile information". That way we could still have some fun. :chucks:

Hey, I liked the look of this with the "resign all rights to the integrity of your posts, threads and profile information.".....

Yow... Now that sounds like fun.

I getta vote?

Damn, I'll have to check the top of the page again.

godfry

EDIT: I'm a bit...ambivalent. I voted "other". I think that we should be allowed to have our way with them and then they be thrown out into the snow, to find their own way home in the dark and cold. :muahaha:

[Goliath]

I think a rule banning advertising is a good idea, as long as it would allow people to post honest reviews and recommendations of products (and by "honest", I mean post such reviews and recommendations in such a way that it isn't viral marketing...hmmm...that's not so easy to define, though...I'll have to put more thinking into that).

[lisarea]

no-spam rule, yes, of course, but heck i had fun with that one! it posted on another board, as they are wont to do, so i went over there and said "didn't i put you in jail this morning on FF?" *POOF* it's gone. :D ...in a way i'd hate to lose them because it's so much fun to abuse them!

Can't we do both? Seriously, I'm thinking the rule would involve a caveat along the lines of "if you register here solely to advertise a service or product, you hereby resign all rights to the integrity of your posts, threads and profile information". That way we could still have some fun. :chucks:

Ooh! Ooh! I saw someone do that to one of the Court TV spammers!

Apparently, by the time the admin saw the thread, some users had already started commenting on it, so she edited the posts leaving the subject--probably Scott Peterson--intact, but changed the shilling part so that it panned Court TV's coverage. After that, the whole board joined right in, and the thread ended up just being about how much Court TV sucks. I cannot for the life of me remember where that was, though.

I voted "Yes," of course. I would also like to propose a rule that Wade has to tell us about his father's novel. Or, if that's picking on Wade too specifically, anybody whose dad wrote a book has to tell us about it.

Or kill two birds with one stone. Every new user has to make an initial post where they introduce themselves and tell us whether their father has ever published a book, and if so, what. Drive by spammers wouldn't bother, so they'd forfeit their accounts.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually advocate mandatory introduction posts.)

[Godless Dave]

anybody whose dad wrote a book has to tell us about it.

If you insist:

http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-site/icons/no-img-sm.gifPolymer Chemistry: Introduction to an Indispensable Science (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873552210/qid=1104135059/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/002-4513587-8121665?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
by David M. Teegarden

[livius drusus]

Okay how about this one:

You may not register solely to advertise a product and/or service. By doing so you resign all rights to the integrity of your posts, threads and profile information and accept that you may be used as a plaything by the legitimate membership of the forum.

[Socratoad]

Okay how about this one:

You may not register solely to advertise a product and/or service. By doing so you resign all rights to the integrity of your posts, threads and profile information and accept that you may be used as a plaything by the legitimate membership of the forum.

Brilliant, clear, precise and to the point. I love it. :yup:

No need even to mention that we have Lady Spam Cop in our corner, as anyone foolish enough to enter under false pretences will soon learn.

[freemonkey]

Okay how about this one:

You may not register solely to advertise a product and/or service. By doing so you resign all rights to the integrity of your posts, threads and profile information and accept that you may be used as a plaything by the legitimate membership of the forum.
Its a fine rule. I support it, plus like the idea of free and guiltless mockery. May I also suggest changing the spammer's link destination to something we like, that will make us smile, or give Goooooogle points to someone we like. Or something like that.

[viscousmemories]

I voted 'yes' because we will have a no-spam rule. :D

I have to say, though, that I am not comfortable with modifying login names or profile info, and I think it sets a really bad precedent for the admins to modify post contents to change the intent. I think something as simple as <spam deleted>, not something goofy, should be what we replace it with. I just think formalizing a policy of ridicule and mockery is not only unprofessional, but potentially embarrasing if we misjudge someone's intent.

So basically I support the rule as stated in liv's first draft, with the elaboration that we will suspend spamming user accounts and delete spam threads on site, unless the thread has already garnered responses in which case we will change the title to 'spam' and replace the OP with <spam removed> (or whatever). I think maybe we should even lock the thread at that point and let it drop, but I guess it wouldn't matter much.

These are just my immediate thoughts...

[wade-w]

I have to agree with vm here.

[Godless Dave]

I didn't realize any of this was supposed to be professional. But I'd be cool with editing the title to add a spam warning and changing links in the body of the spam.

[livius drusus]

Well, a non-flippant tone would definitely be more in keeping with the other rules which we did indeed try to make as professional as possible. All in all, vm's approach works just fine for me.

[Corona688]

I voted yes for a no-spam rule. It should be remembered that spam is unrequested product advertisements though, not all advertisements; there are many good threads here requesting advice on products, and it wouldn't do to throw out the drapes along with the rat clinging to them.

I agree that profile info shouldn't be modified. It could indeed be used for advertising, but, in a way, isn't that what it's there for? I link my webpage in my profile and see nothing wrong with that.

What SHOULD be modified, imho, is things that shove advertisements in people's faces. Post contents are things people clicked on, ergo stuff they chose to view; thread titles are things that appear automatically, that get shoved in our faces whenever we click on the forum view. I know people are uncomfortable with this, and I can see why, but if the rule for this is extremely specific, there will be nothing to worry about -- "Do not link a commercial web page in thread titles" ought to cover it nicely without infringing on anything else at all -- nobody but spammers needs to link commercial web pages in thread titles.

So the thread title is the only thing I'd ask to be modified to deal with our recent spammer. Every time that thread gets bumped, the board becomes an advertising tool, and we don't have to put up with that crap.

[Ymir's blood]

Spammers?

Hangin's too good for 'em.
Burnin's too good for 'em.
They should be torn into itsy bitsy pieces and buried alive!

:spamhammer:

[Godless Wonder]

Okay how about this one:

You may not register solely to advertise a product and/or service. By doing so you resign all rights to the integrity of your posts, threads and profile information and accept that you may be used as a plaything by the legitimate membership of the forum.
I suspect you were looking for "forfeit" instead of "resign."

[livius drusus]

So the thread title is the only thing I'd ask to be modified to deal with our recent spammer. Every time that thread gets bumped, the board becomes an advertising tool, and we don't have to put up with that crap.

That a very good point, Corona. I'm not sure thread title editing is sufficient, though, because whatever is being spammed in the OP gets indexed by search engines too, and that's providing advertising space on an even more extensive scale than the title.

I suspect you were looking for "forfeit" instead of "resign."

You're absolutely right. It doesn't look like we're going to be using that version as the official rule, but if we were, I'd definitely change "resign" to "forfeit". :yup:

[Corona688]

So the thread title is the only thing I'd ask to be modified to deal with our recent spammer. Every time that thread gets bumped, the board becomes an advertising tool, and we don't have to put up with that crap.

That a very good point, Corona. I'm not sure thread title editing is sufficient, though, because whatever is being spammed in the OP gets indexed by search engines too, and that's providing advertising space on an even more extensive scale than the title. Maybye, but modifying the thread title is something we can do without months of nitpicking about whether we're idealogically allowed to modify thread contents here. :P We don't need one big anti-spam rule, and if you DID make one, spammers would probably find a way around it quite swiftly. We need small, clear rules that don't set huge precedents and can be amended quickly.

[viscousmemories]

Maybye, but modifying the thread title is something we can do without months of nitpicking about whether we're idealogically allowed to modify thread contents here. :P
Hehe. Well we don't really have to worry about that. We aren't opposed to editing or deleting posts to remove content that violates our existing rules (child porn, warez, etc.) so we'll be just as comfortable removing content that violates the no-commercial advertising rule.

We don't need one big anti-spam rule, and if you DID make one, spammers would probably find a way around it quite swiftly. We need small, clear rules that don't set huge precedents and can be amended quickly.
Actually I think the opposite is true. With a broad rule like "no commercial advertising" we have a lot more flexibility to judge posts for ourselves. If some accused spammer wants to stick around and argue why his/her post doesn't constitute commercial advertising we're more than willing to have that discussion, but I think in most cases it will be self-evident.

At this point it looks like we're going to go with liv's first suggested rule or something very similar. She'll be here to give the final word on that soon. :)

[livius drusus]

How about this?

4. You may not post spam.

For example:
A solicitation to purchase a product or service posted in multiple forums and/or across multiple discussion boards.


It follows the formats of the other rules and although it leaves some room for interpretation, it's still your basic standard definition. Thoughts?

[wade-w]

Well, I'm not sure that definition is a very good one. What exactly do you mean by "multiple forums?" If you mean more than one of the forums on this board, then the recent spammer that (I assume) inspired this thread did not violate this rule. If, otoh, you mean multiple boards, well, I'm not sure that behavior on another board should necessarily be relevant here from an official, written into the rules standpoint.

Do we really need to define spam? It seems to me that what constitutes spam is fairly well understood, and I trust the current administration's integrity enough that I have no doubts that were a borderline case to occur, their decision would be something I could live with.

ETA: I crossposted with your edit, liv. Still, I think both of my objections to the definition still apply.

[livius drusus]

Those are fair points, wade. I wanted an example to match the format of the other rules, but I don't guess it's really necessary.

[Corona688]

That spammer's still there unedited and the thread is still in view, thus A&L is still functioning as that spammer's personal advertising engine. This is kind of why I suggested editing the title now -- it's something we can do, not just something we can argue about.

[livius drusus]

The simple version of the rule has been added and the spam removed from title and OP. Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion, and sorry for the slowness, Corona. We'll do better next time, promise. :)

[Corona688]

Thank you Liv! :) :1thumbup:

[Godless Dave]

As long as this thread is bumped, I'd like to point out that Polymer Chemistry: Introduction to an Indispensable Science (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0873552210/qid=1104135059/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl14/002-4513587-8121665?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) makes the perfect Valentine's Day gift for that special chemistry teacher in your life.

[livius drusus]

:giggle: