What happened to discrepancy?, the posting of links Options

[Spirited Away]

Why I'm here.

The Community Guideline states:
ADVERTISING
Starting a topic for the sole purpose of advertising is not allowed. You may not solicit via Private Message. Signatures may only contain references and links to personal pages, such as your blogs and profiles; references and links to anything that is not personal, such as websites and forums are not allowed.

"Strictly" following the rules would mean any link posted in debate or news means spam/advertising. Yet it is argued by another member, E-Man, that such links are "allowed because it is [a] source [that] is not advertising or promoting a certain cause or company. You are simply citing where you got your facts or story from." However, that is deviating from the community guideline rule itself, and not "strictly" following.

According the definition agreed by iRock cB, if a link is posted so that it would provide information for a cause, it would be okay. So why is the topic "save the la mesa" censored even after I explained that it could be means for providing information?

I remember clearly that Jusun meant for staff to be lenient in the lounge, but what happened to that proposed leniency by the leader of this community?

[*This Confession*]

Actually its funny how you actually posted this, because mods are discussing on making a new form of advertising. And IrockcB made the topic talking about it.

Anyway, I really don't have a problem with that topic. I was thinking it would have been like a debate topic so I avoided it til' tonight. I think it would have been better off in news in the first place then the lounge. It was a problem in his own community and the link to help him would have been fine to have in news.

I guess it could be considered advertising in a way, hes kind of begging for signatures and posting it in the forum could perhaps be advertising or spam -shrugs-

I think were going to change the wording around in the advertising thing, so a form of advertising is for a business or something. But if it is for a cause or something news related to go along with the topic for the news forum only. Then its fine to have the link.
Its for a good cause I suppose, so it should just be in news.

Maybe change the rules of the news for good causes and news type things.


Mostly, since you only pretty much directed it to looking down on IrockCB you could have put that part in the moderator performance.


I thought this was in feedback not by-laws

[Spirited Away]

Looking down on iRock cB? Hardly. If I looked down on someone, he/she would definitely know and I would be warned more than likely. I'm not one for subtlety.

Perhaps this belongs in feedback, but since this is a proposed amendment to "strictly" following the rules AND a call or DISCREPANCY, I thought it'd get better reception here. Move it where you want though.

The wording of the Community Guidelines do not need to be changed, it's how moderators enforce the rules that needs to be changed. If you were here long enough, Jusun has said that staff should be lenient in the Lounge. Because iRock cB was so adament that he/she was strictly folowing the rules, I just wated to point out that he/she wasn't doing that at all.

[*This Confession*]

I know what Jusun said, but since then being to lenient in the lounge would be a bad thing. With a lot of things that have happened in the past. Although I don't think you really exceptionally active then. Since I haven't seen you around a lot til' now? Maybe its just me?

I don't think Brenden is doing a bad job, but he is part of the newer people that are on staff, and at first he did questions some of his actions he took as a mod and asked others for opinions before taking any big action that may look bad on his part. I think it was fine what he did, but now a few days later I guess it took a turn. I think how it has ended up that your taking it a little to far. I mean were trying to clear up the problem and make it for the better.

[Spirited Away]

I know what Jusun said, but since then being to lenient in the lounge would be a bad thing. With a lot of things that have happened in the past. Although I don't think you really exceptionally active then. Since I haven't seen you around a lot til' now? Maybe its just me?

I don't think Brenden is doing a bad job, but he is part of the newer people that are on staff, and at first he did questions some of his actions he took as a mod and asked others for opinions before taking any big action that may look bad on his part. I think it was fine what he did, but now a few days later I guess it took a turn. I think how it has ended up that your taking it a little to far. I mean were trying to clear up the problem and make it for the better.

So you're saying that because I haven't been around, I'm a bad judge of character? Fair enough, but censoring a link when it wasn't for advertisement is not. Arguing that it was advertisement and saying that he was "strictly" following the rules isn't right either. I don't know how Brenden is doing as a mod, but last I checked, members were allowed to voice their opinions on things that are questionable. And, clearly, this was a questionable situation.

Also, I'm not saying that this Brenden is a bad moderator. NOT AT ALL, this is only one isolated incident and I do not think that it's fair to say that he's a bad mod only because of this. I only mean to point out the mods should use discrepancy and show leniency as Jusun has suggested. If you think that showing leniency is a bad idea, why don't you talk to Jusun? Do Admins agree?

I'm taking it a little too far? I supposed I am, but being on staff once, I know that not taking things a little too far will not get things anywhere at all.

[*This Confession*]

Okay, I don't think anywhere I said that your being a bad judge of character. I think its fine if you want to voice out your opinion and everything. Fine by me, everyone has to do it sometime. Leniency is fine to a certain extenet. Some other people did post in there that it could be advertising.

-shrugs- I know you were on staff, I've had people PMing me about it for the past hour.

But I'm just going to drop this for now, I don't feel like dealing with it personally. Its not really my part of the forum to really be in the middle of. If something out of this goes further I'll come back though. And I'll read everyones reply and think about them because I enjoy doing that.

But for now I'm going back to myspace forums, or go post somewhere else.

[*Libertie*]

Fae, I'm really glad you brought this up. This is definitely something that needs to be taken into consideration, because right now I DO think the no advertising rule is enforced a little too strictly.

Right now, it'd be advertising if I posted something like, "Hey, looking for a good laugh every couple of days? Check out Penny Arcade, it's really funny," or something like that. But if no one had ever posted a link to Penny Arcade anywhere, I probably never would've found it. So it's kind of ridiculous to remove any links to websites other people think are cool.

I completely agree with this. Is it honestly advertising if you just think a website is cool and want others to look at it? In Entertainment, I once posted a link to a flash video. Was that advertising?

So where do we draw the line? What is considered advertising? This needs to be more clearly defined.

edit; Case A:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=153224
Obviously advertising. Member has one post, might not even be a real person, comes just to post a link and then leave.

Case B:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=153271
Just a random topic that was made recently. Nothing wrong with sharing something you think others might enjoy, right?

Case C:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14636
Big Book of Resources. Enough said. This is a collection of helpful links OUTSIDE of CB, but are we really going to flip out and delete the topic because it's advertising? Well, obviously not, because it's still there. It's a pretty old topic.

The word Fae used, discrepancy. Same thing we went through with the "createspam" issue, we shouldn't be adhering strictly to a rule that obviously leaves some room for flexibility. By flexibility, I mean that when we were put on staff, it was assumed that we have brains and can think for ourselves.

One thing, if you aren't sure about something, do keep a copy of the link you're removing.

[technicolour]

Whoa whoa whoa..how could the BBOR be considered advertising? We're not saying OMG CLICK HERE! ... Its there for reference. Same for links in debate. They're reference...not advertisement.

[*Libertie*]

^I'm not saying it's advertising. I'm using that as an example.

edit; My point is that it is a collection of links to sites that are outside CB. Is that a bad thing? No! Should it be deleted? Not at all! That's not at all what I'm trying to say. But how does it make sense to delete other things that are completely harmless when we have a pinned topic in Graphic Resources that completely contradicts what we're doing?

For example, if someone posts a really helpful link to a place with great photoshop tutorials in the Lounge, rather than closing the thread and removing the link, we move the post to the BBOR. Yeah?

[technicolour]

I always thought competing meant that whatever site someone was displayed offered Layouts, Scripts, Graphics yadda yadda yadda ; basically all the same stuff we do. Most of those sites are personal sites/domains that offer the brushes as goodies.


For example, if someone posts a really helpful link to a place with great photoshop tutorials in the Lounge, rather than closing the thread and removing the link, we move the post to the BBOR. Yeah?

Yessssssss. That would make sense.

[Spirited Away]

Okay, I don't think anywhere I said that your being a bad judge of character. I think its fine if you want to voice out your opinion and everything. Fine by me, everyone has to do it sometime. Leniency is fine to a certain extenet. Some other people did post in there that it could be advertising.
-shrugs- I know you were on staff, I've had people PMing me about it for the past hour.
But I'm just going to drop this for now, I don't feel like dealing with it personally. Its not really my part of the forum to really be in the middle of. If something out of this goes further I'll come back though. And I'll read everyones reply and think about them because I enjoy doing that.
But for now I'm going back to myspace forums, or go post somewhere else.

I just guesstimated where you were going with the "you haven't been around much". It would have been okay though, because not being around does make me a little blind to how people are.

I don't know Brenden at all and if you say he's a good mod, then he must be. I just didn't agree with the censor. I was about to check for the link when it was taken out and the reason was advertisement... and that irked me.

Dani, I'm just as confounded as you are, but I didn't think the line should be drawn off at "save the la mesa". I suppose links that intend to persuade people to make a purchase would definitely be advertising.


Edit: Wow, you did your research.

[smoke]

Fae, I'm really glad you brought this up. This is definitely something that needs to be taken into consideration, because right now I DO think the no advertising rule is enforced a little too strictly.
I completely agree with this. Is it honestly advertising if you just think a website is cool and want others to look at it? In Entertainment, I once posted a link to a flash video. Was that advertising?

So where do we draw the line? What is considered advertising? This needs to be more clearly defined.

edit; Case A:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=153224
Obviously advertising. Member has one post, might not even be a real person, comes just to post a link and then leave.

Case B:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=153271
Just a random topic that was made recently. Nothing wrong with sharing something you think others might enjoy, right?

Case C:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14636
Big Book of Resources. Enough said. This is a collection of helpful links OUTSIDE of CB, but are we really going to flip out and delete the topic because it's advertising? Well, obviously not, because it's still there. It's a pretty old topic.

The word Fae used, discrepancy. Same thing we went through with the "createspam" issue, we shouldn't be adhering strictly to a rule that obviously leaves some room for flexibility. By flexibility, I mean that when we were put on staff, it was assumed that we have brains and can think for ourselves.

One thing, if you aren't sure about something, do keep a copy of the link you're removing.

Yes! I agree 100%! haha. I've been saying that all along. But guess what? It hasn't been revised YET so we should follow the rule as it stands. Yeah Holly, I posted that advertisement topic up backstage a while back and we haven't really gone over it well, which is why I removed that link for now.

I honestly do think it needs to be looked at! We're arguing the same point here Fae, haha. But like I said, a rule is a rule and until it is revised or what not, I will follow it but I am all for revising it and the leniency issue. Thanks for bringing this up though! I really appreciate your input! I guess you could say the debate and news topics are more of an "unwritten rule" if you will, haha. We should add that in there so that there's no further confusion. Thanks again. You remind me of myself. Always trying to think of ways to make the community better!

[*Libertie*]

Kristina - I edited the post, "competing" isn't necessarily the best term to use.. The main point is that it was a similar concept, links to other sites posted by other users, but it's accepted.

And to open up discussion and get feedback, what is and isn't considered advertising? Does anyone disagree with the idea that just sharing interesting links with the community is/should be acceptable?

As Fae said, posting a link trying to get people to make a purchase is advertising.
Posting a link for the sole purpose of trying to get hits is advertising.

Anything else?

[technicolour]

Well, with that La Mesa topic, it was persuading them/us to sign a petition. Should persuasion count as advertising? I personally think it is..but..yeah.


Dani- Ah. Gotcha. Sorry Im being nit-picky. I dont mean to. ><

[smoke]

And to open up discussion and get feedback, what is and isn't considered advertising? Does anyone disagree with the idea that just sharing interesting links with the community is/should be acceptable?

As Fae said, posting a link trying to get people to make a purchase is advertising.
Posting a link for the sole purpose of trying to get hits is advertising.

Anything else?

I don't disagree. I believe I said in the save la mesa topic that I personally didn't really agree with removing it, but I have to abide by the rule. If I didn't say that, I meant to because I was thinking it, haha.

I'm really, really glad I did remove that link now because it lead to this topic. I've been trying to get this issue going but it looks like it actually took an example to do so and of course Fae because people respect her a lot more than they do me, I'm sure.

[Spirited Away]

Well, with that La Mesa topic, it was persuading them/us to sign a petition. Should persuasion count as advertising?
Dani- Ah. Gotcha. Sorry Im being nit-picky. I dont mean to. ><

Persuation to sign a petition, not to make a purchase. Else, persuading people that you are right by posting a link as a source in debate should be "oust", too. I can relate the two ideas if anyone care to oppose.


geez, i'm a dork.

Brenden, I am glad you did not take my creating this topic to heart because I'm not pointing the finger at you, just at how the rules are enforced by using you as an example (it was convenient). But please try to get the link back. Actually, I wanted to see if La Mesa is going through the same thing my YMCA in Houston did with the government. I think I'll just look for it online.

This post has been edited by Spirited Away: Sep 23 2006, 11:59 PM

[smoke]

^ Certainly. And we are going to discuss this backstage, don't you worry. I've already PMed the user who created the la mesa topic and hopefully he can create a new topic in the news section until we can get this issue cleared up and possibly allow those types of links. I'll be supporting it in any way I can.

[demolished]

I don't disagree. I believe I said in the save la mesa topic that I personally didn't really agree with removing it, but I have to abide by the rule. If I didn't say that, I meant to because I was thinking it, haha.

I'm really, really glad I did remove that link now because it lead to this topic. I've been trying to get this issue going but it looks like it actually took an example to do so and of course Fae because people respect her a lot more than they do me, I'm sure.

Can I ask you a few questions? Before I start questioning you, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just want to know.


What does advertisement really means to you?
How does posting a link is advertising or not?
How do you abide the rules and use your appropriate judgment at the same time?

Rules aren't everything. Rules aren't always right.



Moderators should always use reasonable judgment.
They have a right to use it.
And, you probably heard something similar like that.

[*Libertie*]

Rules aren't everything. Rules aren't always right.
Moderators should always use reasonable judgment.
They have a right to use it.

Okay, this is the point I've been trying to push all this time. We SHOULD be able to use good judgment. I don't know why we don't. Why is it not okay to suspend someone without issuing a verbal warning first if they've done something bad enough to deserve it? Why isn't it okay to leave a topic open that might be considered borderline spam for just a little while longer because people (and by people, I mean more than just a small group) are having a good time?

Same thing - why aren't we allowed to make a call when a link is posted as to whether or not it's advertising? The rule doesn't state that ALL links should be removed, just those that are blatantly advertisements.

This isn't anything new! As moderators, we should all be able to decide for ourselves what is and isn't right.

HOWEVER, this has proven to me that we as staff apparently aren't all on the same page when it comes to the advertising issue. For that reason, I do feel like this is a rule that should be clarified.

Going back to what Fae said, should we limit advertising JUST to links that persuade someone to make a purchase? Are there other things that could be considered advertising?

[KissMe2408]

Rules aren't everything. Rules aren't always right.
Moderators should always use reasonable judgment.
They have a right to use it.
And, you probably heard something similar like that.

Can I just say thank you for saying that?

It really all comes down to mods using good judgement.
Obviously if someone posts, "hey! you want a free mini ipod! click here!" [link]
You're not having to purchase anything, it's free you know. But there isn't a mod on here that wouldn't close that topic and take out the link.
When somoene is leaving a link for reference purposes and citing something they said, or giving further information, then yes, we leave it open. When I create topics for a certain movie or book, usually I will leave a link in there to it's official website. When people bring up topics in "News" I almost expect and think it better when people leave links and cite what they say.

And yes there are other things considered as advertising. You don't always have to be making a purchase. "Click here for free ____" "Hey, here is my resume for computer graphics, _____"

But again, each case is different, and ultimately it takes good judgement.



Another thing, what about in Entertainment, when people say "Have you ever heard of the band ______. They are awesome, amazing.....here is a link to their myspace."
I usually don't have a problem with that, but I'm not sure if anyone else does, because if you want to get down to nit picks, it could be considered as advertising.

[*Zatanna*]

I'm coming into this so late, but did read through the thread. I'll skip to this -

Going back to what Fae said, should we limit advertising JUST to links that persuade someone to make a purchase? Are there other things that could be considered advertising?

I'm not insullting anyone's intelligence by posting these definitions as I'm sure you all know what the meaning of the word advertising means, but for a visual, I'm going to use a few definitions.

1. to announce or praise (a product, service, etc.) in some public medium of communication in order to induce people to buy or use it: to advertise a new brand of toothpaste.
2. to give information to the public about; announce publicly in a newspaper, on radio or television
3. to call attention to, in a boastful or ostentatious manner

I would definitely remove a link to and close the thread of anything that would be encompassed by #1. It is blatently (in my opinion) against the Community Guidelines as now written:

ADVERTISING
Starting a topic for the sole purpose of advertising is not allowed. You may not solicit via Private Message. Signatures may only contain references and links to personal pages, such as your blogs and profiles; references and links to anything that is not personal, such as websites and forums are not allowed.

Having said that, according to these particular rules, #2 and #3 could potentially fall into the same catagory, even though one could feasibly start an informational thread without any intention of selling or advertisting, per se.

Some examples of threads I would, in my best judgement, remove links from and close:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=152277
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=152277
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=152378

Those seem fairly obvious though, right? Well, I think so at least.

Some example of threads I would, in my best judgement, not remove links from, but keep open in case the thread starter really wanted some discussion on a subject, but didn't know any better (as far as linking to a site that might sell something):
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=152495
Now unfortunately, link has been removed but please take my word for it that a link to a game selling site was there. However, since it's a topic I thought people might have input on, it was left open but the link was removed. TOTAL judgement call though.

One more iffy:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=152386
Ok, so it seems like it could have been pretty informational, but unfortunately since the poster had exactly 2 posts and both contained information regarding the links that were provided, the links were removed and threads closed. The topic starter never returned either.

I probably didn't use the best examples. My point though is that perhaps too much is left to be decided and the rule(s) are not explicit enough (which I think has already been brought up).

I think blatent advertising is a no brainer, and should have links removed and topics closed. In my opinion, I think anyone who starts a thread for the sole purpose of pimping their site should have links removed and topics closed. However, if someone is posting a link but is at least appearing to want some discussion, either don't remove the link or retain that link somehow (maybe but it in your personal notepad? does anyone actually use those?) but definitely do not close the thread. If after a few days (or a couple days) no one is responding or the thread starter doesn't return, go ahead and close it. Often, the adbots have 1 or 2 posts and you can pretty much tell that they're posting for one purpose and one purpose only.

I think I'm rambling. Yes, I am definitely rambling.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

I have a question..
What about in Technology? Like when someone asks for help looking for a specific product..

Examples:
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=153117
http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=152539

Would that count as advertising?

[*Zatanna*]

No, Elaine. At least not according to the Advertising rule as currently written. Those topic starters would not be falling under the category of "Starting a topic for the sole purpose of advertising [is not allowed]."

That's my very humble interpretation, at least.

[smoke]

Can I ask you a few questions? Before I start questioning you, I'm not trying to be an ass. I just want to know.
What does advertisement really means to you?
How does posting a link is advertising or not?
How do you abide the rules and use your appropriate judgment at the same time?

Rules aren't everything. Rules aren't always right.
Moderators should always use reasonable judgment.
They have a right to use it.
And, you probably heard something similar like that.

You can ask me anything! That's what I'm here for. And I wouldn't think you were being an ass. I am really open minded and appreciate any feedback.

Advertising to me is anything that is trying to persuade someone to go to a certain site that isn't a personal website. Point in case, the La Mesa topic was trying to persuade people to sign the petition. Looking at the current standing advertising rule, that was advertising. And in the definition that Rebecca provided, it would have fallen under both #2 and #3.

Your second question confuses me. "How does posting a link is advertising or not?" Please rephrase that. I honestly do not understand what you're asking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you meant "How does posting a link make it advertising?" In that case, if you look at the current rule, any link that isn't a personal site in the main topic is indeed advertising. Do I agree with that rule? No. And that's why we're here today. To revise it. But simply going against a rule just because it's against my own judgment is stupid. What then would be the point of having rules and guidelines at all? Sure, I disagree with it and I have expressed that numerous times but until it is revised, I have to follow it. If we all went on our own basis of what each rule meant, we'd get nowhere and there would be chaos everywhere. Kind of like the spam issue I brought up a while back. It was so confusing to everyone what exactly spam was because every mod had their own take on it. One mod would think something was spam and another would not and another would think something completely different. Now we all have to follow the same rule so it prevents further confusion.

For your third question, it really is a tricky situation. It's hard to try and use your own judgement. I'm sure if you were a mod, you'd understand. You make some people happy and others you don't. To some I made good judgement in removing that link and to others I did not. It's all a matter of opinion. You can please some people some of the time, but you can't please all people all of the time.

I may have made a bad choice, but honestly, I think it was worth it. Look at where it's getting us now. We're finally discussing things that have been bothering us for a while now. That makes it worth while to me! I expressed my opinion on the spam rule a while back and managed to get it revised. I was very, very happy when Fae brought the issue up. A lot of people will listen to her. This very issue has been bothering me as well and I have often discussed it with other mods. People have told me "Stick to the rules and you can't go wrong." I've followed that and it seems to be working quite well. But rules are certainly not perfect. Neither is any individuals judgement.