kipper

Exactly, and per previous discussions, they weren't enforced then.
If moderators don't want to or are unable to devote the time to enforcing the rules, I'm sure there are numerous other FT members who would be happy to step up and help.

I get annoyed by the people who either don't participate in a conga that's set-up in S.P.A.M. for referrals, or who do that, but think they're special enough that they should be able to receive additional referrals, rather than sending those who want referrals to the conga in S.P.A.M., so that more people can benefit.

If we allow people to do that, where is the incentive to participate in, or start congas in S.P.A.M. and the motivation to follow those congas?

dhammer53

While the oldtimers know how to use this feature, new posters don't have a clue.

Canarsie

...then please refer them to here.

AA_EXP09

+1
After all, we already see adverts from FT, so why not see ones that benefit FTers?

kipper

There are many differences between ads from FT and ones in signatures. Ads on FT generate revenue for FT, and if you had FT Premium previously, you don't see ads, as they are blocked. Basically, you could, and will again eventually, be able to pay a certain amount to not see the ads at all.

For the ones that benefit only one individual FTer, well, it benefits 1 person, can perhaps not benefit the next person in line in the conga in S.P.A.M., and allows people to skirt around the whole idea of congas in S.P.A.M.

Jenbel

And do we have any empirical evidence that people who put their referral links in sigs actually get any responses?

In other words, is this a problem of perception, or one of reality?

kipper

If you were milking it, would you admit it? Why, when we have rules concerning congas, would we allow others to manipulate the system by using their signatures? Does it matter if there is proof that they are receiving referrals, when they're manipulating the system and showing that either the conga referral isn't enough to them, or that they simply don't care if there is a conga?

SkiAdcock

FWIW - I rarely read signatures of anyone. My guess is I'm not the only one. BTW - I'm not saying there aren't some issues w/ signatures, but I am saying my guess is 99% of FTers don't bother reading signatures. Of course I need to point out that's only a guess.

Full disclosure - I rarely read post counts either. Someone had to tell me when I reached 20K & 30K post counts respectively because while I don't read others' post counts, I sure as heck don't read my own.

FWIW - I just checked S.P.A.M. & there seem to be 2-3 conga lines per page, but what they're about is all over the place in terms of content. I'm not sure most folk who are promoting themselves in signatures are eating much into individual congas. But again I just heard about congas, don't really understand them, and am probably too lazy to start one - other than at a FT wedding

Cheers.

goalie

Agreed and perhaps a "re-review" of the signatures is in order?

As (imho) probably the case with most F/t'ers hence those signatures which "don't fit the guidelines" are still out there

Jenbel

So the answer is no, you don't.

And they aren't manipulating the system - they are acting within the rules of FT. That you don't like what they are doing morally does not mean they are in breach of the rules, nor they are manipulating the system.

Before you start asking others to enforce your moral code, I ask again, what is the benefit to be derived from doing so? You are asking others to undertake work on your behalf - as one of those being asked, I don't think I'm asking a great deal for a better quantification of the issue than 'I don't like to see it'.

There are many things I don't like to see on FT - I don't call for them to be banned however (ok, I'll admit (in the interests of disclosure), the one line link to a blog, I have suggested should be banned).

As a data point, I had a signature asking for support for a charity in which I'm associated with for a while. Wasn't asking for money, just for people to click through and vote for that charity. So far as I know, only one person did so - and that was someone with a similar interest in the issue to mine. If that's a measure of the effect that referral links have, then it's not a very big one and IMHO, does not warrant the work you are asking for moderators to carry out on your behalf.

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.

lo2e

I think there seems to be some confusion here as to whether referral links in a signature constitute a "commercial" post as defined by the FT rules? My own opinion is that they do, since the referral usually benefits the poster in some way, whether it's points, money, or some other "currency".

Or is there another rule that I'm missing that would prevent referral links from being posted in any forum other than S.P.A.M.?

So to bring this thread full-circle, if what I described above is the problem, does the TB want to a) eliminate the rule about commercial postings, b) keep the rule as is, or c) keep the rule and add referral links to the examples, d) keep referrals to signatures and S.P.A.M. only and nowhere else, or e) other?

Jenbel

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.

Jenbel

lo2e - they don't. Although it's not stated explicitly in the TOS (because we don't necessarily want to advertise the fact) it has been decided that a commercial signature does not make a commercial post.

kipper

The rules about congas and pure referrals in S.P.A.M., at least to me, serve to help the community, not just one individual. Shouldn't we try to help the community, not allow a few to reap all of the benefits?

As far as if people are receiving a benefit, I wouldn't expect those who are to chime in and admit that they are to demonstrate that TB should look at revising the TOS. Your experience is simply 1 experience, and does not prove or disprove whether others receive a benefit or not.

I could say the same thing about your usual, "asking others to do work." I realize this is a volunteer position, however I don't see how difficult adding this would be, when there already is a signature committee, and when posters could simply PM those on the signature committee when they saw something against the TOS, if the membership was made public. A committee usually signifies that there's more than one person responsible for it, so no one person would be required to do all of the "tedious" work themselves. Likewise, you argue against further limiting moderators, but then also argue against things like this that would give moderators more power. Which is it? I've cut the quote below so this post doesn't go even longer

So, just because a limited number of people are "complaining" about something makes them the minority and doesn't mean there is an issue? IIRC, even hot button topics like post counts in OMNI drew only a small fraction of registered FT members to the discussion. Simply because a small number of people participate in a discussion does not mean it isn't a problem. It may mean they've not seen this thread or don't realize that there might be a way to modify the TOS.