About This Forum

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This rule does seem pretty poorly thought out. The *content* should be what determines if a link is "OK" or not; someone has already pointed out that this exact same content, pointed to by the exact same person, would be fine if the content were hosted at youtube. In this case, it should be obvious that an exception to the rule is in order.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rule seems very easily thought out. It's not worth the effort to check each site individually for content. Global rules make up in their efficiency what they might miss in individual instances of unfairness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because really this is all about just making things easy for moderators.

[ QUOTE ]
There are two very easy solutions here. A person can just copy and paste from his own blog, something that isn't very hard to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RLY? We're talking about a video here. Please show me the UBB tags for embedding a video. kthnx.

[ QUOTE ]
Or, a person can find a buddy to swap link referrals to boost traffic to their own sites. You popularize my blog and I popularize yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

No friends? Too bad, we don't want to hear what you have to say. Is it OK for me to post links to a spammer's site if he PM's me the address?? "Everybody likes a free ipod, click here!!!"

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're stupid enough to discuss circumventing rules in a thread that you know the mod is monitoring and then do it, you definately deserve a tempban.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pointing out a loophole in a stupid rule deserves a ban?
There is no rule against posting a link to someone else's website. Isn't this the exact channel that complaining about dumb rules should be done? Iron, you are letting this power get to your head again. I thought the purpose of this thread was to get some heat off of you from Mat. I know you don't like me since I have been calling for your head for some time. But this kind of power trip shows exactly why you are extremely poor at the judgement calls needed to be the moderator.

[Borodog]

I think he meant that if you *implement* the circumvention of the rules after discussing them publicly in a thread he is monitoring that would deserve the tempban, not the discussing of it.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he meant that if you *implement* the circumvention of the rules after discussing them publicly in a thread he is monitoring that would deserve the tempban, not the discussing of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. I reread it, it makes more sense. When my website is ready, I will notify a few people on 2+2 and if they feel it is worth discussing, they can do so at their own will.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
Iron, you are letting this power get to your head again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously ?? ... I think this has been repeatedly proven to be a false characterization.

[iron81]

1. Borodog is right. Bottom line is that moderators are supposed to use their judgment. If I played that kind of game in the Mod Forum they would rip me apart. Rules are not set in stone to stop that kind of gaming.

2. Rules against spam are not stupid. Before I started posting on 2+2, I posted in the Rec.Gambling.Poker newsgroup. For 10 years, that group was the number one online poker resource and many high stakes pros that we now recognize on TV not only posted there, but posted strat. Today, that site has been eclipsed by several forums, largely because it is infested with spam.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Iron, you are letting this power get to your head again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously ?? ... I think this has been repeatedly proven to be a false characterization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Proven? LOL. Iron doesn't like it when I criticize him. When he doesn't like it, he finds a minor infraction to ban me (and leave others who do the same untouched). Prove that.

[NeBlis]

you and I both have been banned FOR GOOD REASON. Just because something else was missed doesn't make it vindictive.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Borodog is right. Bottom line is that moderators are supposed to use their judgment. If I played that kind of game in the Mod Forum they would rip me apart. Rules are not set in stone to stop that kind of gaming.

2. Rules against spam are not stupid. Before I started posting on 2+2, I posted in the Rec.Gambling.Poker newsgroup. For 10 years, that group was the number one online poker resource. Today, that site has been eclipsed by several forums, largely because it is infested with spam.

[/ QUOTE ]


No one is saying that banning spam is dumb. If Nielsio links to an article in his own blog and has enough useful information in it, it is not spam. For example, someone posts something about the death peanlty. Nielsio posts summarizing his blog article (or video or whatever), and posts it. This is not spam. Ed Miller posts a link to an article on his own site relevent to discussion. This is not spam. Determining what is and isn't spam is a judgement call. I understand the concern about letting Iron decide to make judgement calls, since he usually has extremely poor judgement. However, I do trust him enough (for now) to know the difference between spam and quality links. The intent of the rule is to ban spam.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
you and I both have been banned FOR GOOD REASON. Just because something else was missed doesn't make it vindictive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Criticizing the moderator is not a good reason in my opinion.