chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

chaostracize's loc: is "Now coaching. PM me." This is verboten right?

Can a NL mod take care of it? I know we're not supposed to be messing with posters of other forums.

Thanks,

Surf

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

that's horribly horribly forbidden.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

It should not be considered modding outside your forum if you pm or change a posters location. That is across all forums. That should not really have anything to do with a specific forum (rakeback forum may have different rules). I would think the same holds true for a blatant spammer. If he has spammed several forums but not hit yours yet it should still be ok to ban him.

Thank you,

Jim Kuhn
Catfish4u
[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

this is all correct. i removed the location

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

Mat,

I don't mean to be a stick in the mud, but I really don't see any difference between:

blogging

and

blogging, see profile.

same with:

coaching

and

coaching, pm me.

everyone knows what they mean, even when they don't give instructions.

basically, i think that locations shouldn't be used for promotion, sales, spam, etc. i think that it would clean up the place a bit and end the confusion if we made that kind of rule. i dno, i'm more flexible on the blogging thing since many blogs are just blogs with no ads, but i don't like having to click through like a [censored] detective. if people want to know more about a poster they can look at their profile (assuming we allow all this stuff in profiles).

i dno, it might just be me, but i'm kind of sick of 50% of all locations being: coaching, blogging, buying w$, etc.

i understand that when we get some more formal coaching advertizing scheme in place it'll be easier to say this (and maybe eventually a 2p2 blogging thing), but still it would be nice if it were clearer.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

Cit,

I had been enforcing the rule in this manner for a while. However, no other mods were, and everyone I PMed to remove/change their loc thought I was an uber-nit. Eventually, I gave up.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

As I said when this was discussed recently, I don't have a problem with people putting an ad as their location. If it was up to me anything but scamy stuff would be allowed. However, if there's going to be a rule against advertising, I think it should be clear what is and isn't allowed both to the mods and to the posters. I'd suggest whatever decision is made be posted in ATF so that when posters violate the rule they can be pointed there.

Edit: maybe there should be a thread before we make a decision asking whether people are annoyed by ad locations

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I said when this was discussed recently, I don't have a problem with people putting an ad as their location.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't have a problem with mcdonald's employees handing out free burgers either

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

It comes down to effort. I removed signatures for this reason and just looked for a way to remove location, but couldn't find it.

If these locations bother you guys and it's worth the effort it will take to nail them one at a time, go for it. if it's too much a pain in the ass, screw it.


Ryan, can we remove the location option? If we can, do it.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I said when this was discussed recently, I don't have a problem with people putting an ad as their location. If it was up to me anything but scamy stuff would be allowed. However, if there's going to be a rule against advertising, I think it should be clear what is and isn't allowed both to the mods and to the posters. I'd suggest whatever decision is made be posted in ATF so that when posters violate the rule they can be pointed there.

Edit: maybe there should be a thread before we make a decision asking whether people are annoyed by ad locations

[/ QUOTE ]

Imo, the difference between blatantly asking readers to read your Profile or look at a website, and more subtly telling readers your "occupation", whether or not there are full details in your Profile, is where the line should be drawn.

I am happy to see "Coaching", but not "Coaching, see Profile; "Selling T$", but not "Selling T$, see T$Sales"; etc.

Your own Location of "Learning and teaching the game" is a good example of the subtle advert that I would be happy to allow, if I had the choice.

When it comes to non-profit-making matters, like referring people to an ad-free blog, I regard the above "rule" as a catch-all, admittedly, perhaps, more in the interests of moderators, in that we don't have to check out the blog to see if it is ad-free, and remaining so; and particularly so that other and new members don't see "see Profile" in Locations and use such references themselves, causing a knock-on effect and increasing moderators' workloads by them having to deal with nitty arguments as to whether or not profit and advertising is involved.

There are numerous "clever" Locations used by readers, so I would think we would all prefer to have to spend no more than one second reading them and saying to ourselves "ok", or "not ok - includes link", than having to go though some convoluted assessment procedure. Very little harm of any real consequence would result from this basic method of dealing with Location text, and is really how we have been dealing with it from the off.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am happy to see "Coaching", but not "Coaching, see Profile; "Selling T$", but not "Selling T$, see T$Sales"; etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be the traditional compromise on this issue, and I think it's perfectly acceptable.

Whatever the consensus is, I think posters should be made aware of it.

Daryn,

As to the argument that this hurts 2+2, I disagree for a few reasons. First, very few people if any who advertise in there locating could afford to advertise on 2+2 or would even be willing to should they not be able to use their location. Second, these ads help to build small poker related business, which as they grow will consider buying ads on 2+2. Finally, the effectiveness of the ads is related to both the frequency and the quality of the advertisers posts. If these ads hurt 2+2 advertising or mildly annoy certain posters, I think it's minimized by the positive effects to the extent that it's not worth it to offend some very good posters by forcing them to change their location.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

i'm one of the guys with coaching in my location so i can't really comment, but i'd really like a decision soon so i don't feel like i'm breaking rules.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I said when this was discussed recently, I don't have a problem with people putting an ad as their location. If it was up to me anything but scamy stuff would be allowed. However, if there's going to be a rule against advertising, I think it should be clear what is and isn't allowed both to the mods and to the posters. I'd suggest whatever decision is made be posted in ATF so that when posters violate the rule they can be pointed there.

Edit: maybe there should be a thread before we make a decision asking whether people are annoyed by ad locations

[/ QUOTE ]

Imo, the difference between blatantly asking readers to read your Profile or look at a website, and more subtly telling readers your "occupation", whether or not there are full details in your Profile, is where the line should be drawn.

I am happy to see "Coaching", but not "Coaching, see Profile; "Selling T$", but not "Selling T$, see T$Sales"; etc.

Your own Location of "Learning and teaching the game" is a good example of the subtle advert that I would be happy to allow, if I had the choice.

When it comes to non-profit-making matters, like referring people to an ad-free blog, I regard the above "rule" as a catch-all, admittedly, perhaps, more in the interests of moderators, in that we don't have to check out the blog to see if it is ad-free, and remaining so; and particularly so that other and new members don't see "see Profile" in Locations and use such references themselves, causing a knock-on effect and increasing moderators' workloads by them having to deal with nitty arguments as to whether or not profit and advertising is involved.

There are numerous "clever" Locations used by readers, so I would think we would all prefer to have to spend no more than one second reading them and saying to ourselves "ok", or "not ok - includes link", than having to go though some convoluted assessment procedure. Very little harm of any real consequence would result from this basic method of dealing with Location text, and is really how we have been dealing with it from the off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would also add, "no requests for pm's" to "no links".

After I wrote my earlier post, one of the first Locs I saw was Rika's, in which he had written something like "Buying T$ - please pm me". I felt I should change that to "Buying T$", which, although it doesn't make any difference to the gist of what he was saying, might stop others from arguing they could say "Rakeback - pm me", or whatever might be far more unacceptable to us.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

Leader,

the idea that they couldn't afford it is ridiculous, or at least when we have a good coaching directory will be. people are charging >$100/hr on avg for coaching, which means that omg, like 15 minutes of their coaching time goes to pay for one ad.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

meh. those are the best strat. posters and I feel if they post alot and give their time in the strat. forums it should be allowed to slide. Guys who dont make any strat. posts and strictly use 2+2 for self-promotion shouldnt be allowed. That makes things really inconsistent I know, but it wouldnt really be hard to tell who would fall into which category.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

leader,

another very bad argument. that's like saying stealing music is ok because the people who steal it couldn't afford it anyway, or wouldn't buy it.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

What if my location said - Now pming, coach me.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
Leader,

the idea that they couldn't afford it is ridiculous, or at least when we have a good coaching directory will be. people are charging >$100/hr on avg for coaching, which means that omg, like 15 minutes of their coaching time goes to pay for one ad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I wasn't referring just to coaching. Most coaches could afford a $25 ad or even $200 ad. The problem is that if the price for the top is anything close to that there'll be a line a mile long for the spot unless the list is basically hidden and gets little traffic. If you raise the price in relation to demand, it will be far to expensive for coaches like me to buy the higher slots as I don't charge anything close to 100/hour. Also in the end, I don't think allowing location ads reduces the likelihood that coaches will purchase spots on the list.

I'm not trying to paint coaches or bloggers as victims here. They certainly aren't entitled to advertise in there location here. I just think the benefits out way the annoyances.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
leader,

another very bad argument. that's like saying stealing music is ok because the people who steal it couldn't afford it anyway, or wouldn't buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel the situations are different as location advertising is different then the ads 2+2 sells. Seems to me it's more like walking around with a promotional t-shirt. We have the right to make a dress code, but I don't think it's worth it.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

what are you talking about? are we having the same conversation here?

2+2 sells ads, therefore any ad that i put in my location is taking away ad revenue from 2+2.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
what are you talking about? are we having the same conversation here?

2+2 sells ads, therefore any ad that i put in my location is taking away ad revenue from 2+2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we aren't having the same conversation. I think it hurts very little and is out weighed by other factors. I'm not sure if you don't think these factors are enough or if you just don't think they exist.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

i think mason should send me a check for $10,000. it's such a small percentage of his net worth, i just don't think it hurts him a lot at all, but it would help me out.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you raise the price in relation to demand, it will be far to expensive for coaches like me to buy the higher slots as I don't charge anything close to 100/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically, for 2+2 to make money (which is the point of this exercise), we should raise the price in relation to demand

sorry Leader, mat & mason's goals here are not the same as yours.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think mason should send me a check for $10,000. it's such a small percentage of his net worth, i just don't think it hurts him a lot at all, but it would help me out.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the latter. I disagree.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

All,

Does it really hurt anyone to let people put stuff like "coaching" there? I actually think it's pretty reasonable for 2+2 to allow people to have a little free ad in their profile. The amount of respect/value that ad receives will probably mostly be directly proportional to the contribution the posters make to the site. I think this is one of those scenarios where there's no real downside to giving members a free 40 characters or whatever of promotion.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

As I said, I have no opinion on this objectively, but leader, that's a poor argument saying that it's unfair to the smaller coaches. Your coaching rates do not matter here.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

we don't have any restrictions at all on profile information. the question is whether a location should direct others to go there.

I think the location should simply be removed.

or are you suggesting ads benetah the users name?

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

mat, i think a lot of people like the location, and it's fun. i dno about trashing it. mostly i have a problem with the idea of there being a difference between "coaching" and "pm me about coaching." whichever way the policy is, i think that it should treat those two things the same, because they are.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

Mat,

I think just about any policy you make would be fine here. I was just saying that I don't think it would really be a big deal at all if policy was that it was OK for locations say stuff like "see profile for coaching info!" or whatever type of mini-ad. And, in fact, it could even be positioned as a nice little benefit the site gives to people in exchange for their contributions.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
mat, i think a lot of people like the location, and it's fun. i dno about trashing it. mostly i have a problem with the idea of there being a difference between "coaching" and "pm me about coaching." whichever way the policy is, i think that it should treat those two things the same, because they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I'm imagining a bunch of locations saying I give x% rakeback. I'd rather allow people who have something to promote to say "check my profile" than to have them advertise something beneath their name.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, I have no opinion on this objectively, but leader, that's a poor argument saying that it's unfair to the smaller coaches. Your coaching rates do not matter here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's unfair. It was said that coaches could obviously afford the listing. So I pointed out that wasn't necessarily the case.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you raise the price in relation to demand, it will be far to expensive for coaches like me to buy the higher slots as I don't charge anything close to 100/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

so basically, for 2+2 to make money (which is the point of this exercise), we should raise the price in relation to demand

sorry Leader, mat & mason's goals here are not the same as yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the question is whether this hurts theoretical ad revenue over the short term some amount, the answer is yes. If that is what Mat and Mason believe should be the standard, then they should make a decision accordingly. I think it's deeper then that. Others disagree. The decision is not ultimately mine. I can only give what advice I think is best.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]


Ryan, can we remove the location option? If we can, do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not seeing anything in the panel that lets us do this. Chuck might be able to remove them by editing some code, though.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

I think removing location will be costly. People like putting stuff in the location field and there would be a pretty serious outcry from users if it was taken away. Nobody really dislikes locations, some don't care but nobody as far as I know hates them. So basically for a lot of users you would make their 2+2 experience less enjoyable. If that's true, then removing locations should also lead to some users leaving the site. I don't think it's such a big headache to warrant this.

While I hadn't really thought of it that way in the past I am inclined to agree with el diablo. If I make a lot of bad posts, I won't gain much by putting some small coaching advertisement in my location. If I am a good poster and make a lot of good posts to show that I know what I'm talking about then I will gain. So basically if the forums gain from your presence you get a large benefit, if they don't your benefit is negligible. So basically, allowing that would probably benefit the forums because people that want to get more into coaching will be inclined to post more and better stuff.

I think rakeback is a completely separate issue. People should not be able to spam affiliate stuff. The main difference here is that there really isn't the same benefit from incentivising good posting. Blogs could go either way. If 2+2 had some sort of blog setup, then that would be good.

I am 100% in agreement with Cit that "Coaching" is the same as "Coaching see profile" and I really don't understand how people could disagree with that.

Jared

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

I hope we don't have to delete the location field. Puting "coaching" in the location field took off because we gave off signals that we were ok with it. We could easily put a stop to it by saying its not ok, especially because most of the people doing it are established posters.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

I will chime in to say I am against removing the loc: field. It's just a little thing that 98% of the users have fun with. Carry on.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am against removing the loc: field. It's just a little thing that 98% of the users have fun with.

[/ QUOTE ]
agreed

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am against removing the loc: field. It's just a little thing that 98% of the users have fun with.

[/ QUOTE ]
agreed

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah.

Plz don't delete this. There's a reason there's a whole ton of mods, we can police the few people who don't use it appropriately.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am 100% in agreement with Cit that "Coaching" is the same as "Coaching see profile" and I really don't understand how people could disagree with that.


[/ QUOTE ]

If someone is looking for a coach, then you're absolutely right, and therefore there is no need to extend the currently accepted practice by agreeing to allow "see profile" to be included in the text.

It's the spammers and less reputable members that will use "rb see profile", or "girls see profile", etc, who will benefit by the use of "see profile", and have a time-wasting argument for using it and other manipulative phrases, once we spot it after who knows how long.

In fact, I have noticed very few "see profile" Locs, but, whenever I have, I have always asked the person to drop it. Not once has anyone objected, so I can't see any positive reason for suddenly changing what has been an accepted general policy, whereas I think there could be some new unwanted inconveniences in monitoring fair use with such a change.

Re: chaostracize\'s loc: - out of my jurisdiction
 

So it sounds like we're back to where we started, allowing coaching references and not "see profile"?

I really don't have a strong feeling about this. If advertisers start complaining, that will be a different story. For now it looks like "coaching" is fine with everyone and there's some question about "see profile?"

I'll make a decision after I see some more opinions.