Originally Posted by
kipper
We're telling people in S.P.A.M. that they need to post referral links as a conga, and that they must disclose those links. However, by not restricting the referral link issue in signatures, we're allowing them to post their sometimes non-disclosed referral link in other forums, where they can, and/or will receive multiple benefits.
As I've said before, if people are unable or unwilling to do any additional work in regards to their moderator duties, I'd guess there are many others who would happily step up and give back to the community.
Ok, but I don't read SPAM, I don't use SPAM, and the rules specific to the SPAM forum are not actually part of the TOS. Why should I be bound by the rules of one forum I don't actually participate in and have no intention of participating in?
We have rules in Cbuzz about do threads. However, we can only ask that those rules be applied in other forums, and we have no way of enforcing them, because they are not TOS rules - if a mod doesn't want to do it, then we cannot make them. I see the SPAM rules as similar. It's great they are there for the SPAM threads, and they're really necessary for that forum, but it does not mean they are applicable outside of SPAM.
And we still haven't established if this is actually a benefit they are receiving - based on my experience promoting a charity, you get bugger all from people clicking on links in your signature. If the problem is one of perception - you and a very small number of other people don't like it, then I still say it does not warrant adding to moderator's workload unless you can establish a much greater effect than your own opinion.
Your usual canard about 'not wanting to do it resign and we'll find others to do it' ignores the fact that the moderator role is a volunteer role, and I don't think it's too much that we ask that the rules the moderators are required to enforce actually address issues, not perceptions and are reasonable to enforce. It would not be the first time that a section of the TOS has been amended when it was found too impractical to enforce, for no real benefit. I don't mind spending time and effort giving my free time when there is a clear benefit to doing so - but to be told I'm expected to do something as tedious as signature rule enforcement because a few people don't like a few people posting referrals - which may or may not generate any benefit - and from my own experience do not - I have to say feels like a large imposition for no real benefit. What is the benefit to FT - that a few members don't get upset that someone might be working the system? That's really all the benefit we can find for 'criminalising' a group of FTers who currently have perfectly legitimate signatures? Given the very limited number of people who are complaining about the issue, which is apparently prevalent (although I can't say I've actually ever seen such a signature), it would seem the complainers are very much in the minority. If TB is meant to represent the members, then surely on this they should consider that if the issue is so prevalent, and the number of those who don't like it are so small, then it would not be representing the members to ban it
I'd much prefer TB spend their time looking at posting links to blogs, as that's a bigger issue for FT in terms of the effects it has on the community.