Avatars, links, advertising........CHANGE IN RULES

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I'm not sure what to make of this one Leon. You know I hold you in the highest regard both as a person and as to the way you moderate this board.

But this one feels like the slippery slope that several of us feared when the banner ads were first installed. I think you've done a great job in allowing threads and posts that are unfavorable to advertisers to be freely written and retained on the board.

Here, though, is the first case that I can see that truly restricts content that is contrary to the interests of the advertisers - not any one advertiser, but their interests as a group.

I have objected here in the past to Bobby's use of this forum to promote his site at seemingly every opportunity, and can see where that kind of activity could really be abused by someone such that some restrictions become necessary. That kind of conduct would probably eventually be limited even without banner advertisers. But I've also noticed that he has cut way back on this. I thought his thread about the card restoration site was in good faith and a contribution to the board and hobby.

Yet that post would violate the new rule as written, because the site linked collects money. Any links to ebay auctions, Mastro or REA auctions, etc would also violate the new rule as these sites also collect money. Links to insurance providers, MJRoop boxes and all kinds of things would similarly be banned according to the rule.

I have no doubt that the new rule does and did not intend to prohibit links of this kind, but the rule as written does just that.

It seems like there is a distinction between what the advertisers get - their graphic ads prominently featured at the top of the page so that anyone even visiting the site will see them - and having plain (non-graphic) links to sites contained within threads so that a person has to specifically click on and read the thread to even see the links.

I agree that peppering many threads with promotional comments or links will blur this distinction, but other than that there appears to be a true difference between banner ads and site links.

Again, for emphasis, the new rule targets and prohibits content strictly on the basis of its adversity to the interests of the advertising group. The slippery slope is starting to feel more slippery.

Although I understand the basis for the new rule and the behavior it is trying to modify, it really seems to me like it is a clear step foward in a new direction.

I'm nowhere near wise enough to know how the various interests should be sorted out, and once again find reason to be grateful that I don't have the moderator's job to have to figure it all out.

Just my two cents worth. Sorry for the long post.

Joann