bhatnasx

FWIW, I think that signatures should not be allowed to have links at all...and if they do have links, they should definitely not be allowed to have commercial posts.

I think the policy changed a while back to allow links/commercial type posts for 1 major reason (and this my assumption, not facts):

Mods were not actively enforcing the previous TOS because it was a pain in the neck to do so, so rather than actually enforce the "law", the "law" changed to suit the norm.

kipper

If your assumption is the reason for the change, it tells me that there's something broken in the system. Rules shouldn't change simply because it's a pain to enforce them how they are written. It's like saying, "This poster violates the TOS once a week. Rather than edit or delete their post every week, I'll just ignore all TOS violations because it's easier."

Canarsie

FlyerTalk members should support each other in any way possible, and I have long advocated that patronizing each other commercially should be included as part of that support — as long as FlyerTalk members have significantly contributed to the community and supported fellow FlyerTalk members as well.

I realize that “significantly contributed to the community” and “supported fellow FlyerTalk members” can be rather vague and interpreted in different ways by different FlyerTalk members, but I will leave that up for discussion.

kipper

Which FT'er would you prefer to support? The one who posts a referral link in a conga, after participating in said conga, or the one who posts their referral link in their signature, bypassing the conga?

kokonutz

I think you said to more clearly than I did.

But I agree with you. It seems the rules were made to fit the practice rather than the other way around.

According to Jenbel, this is how we got where we are:
Is the rule that was created to fit the practice a best practice? Evidently it was not vetted through the TB process but rather was a unilateral Randy decision.

It is still not clear to me why the TOS gets so complicated in sig lines in a way it is NOT complicated in posts.

I would tend to think applying all TOS requirements to sigs (including the commercial links TOS) would be best practice. Mods apply those standards to every post every day.

So I come back to this:

bhatnasx

My assumption is based on the numerous times I RBP'd signatures with commercial links & no one did anything about it.

The challenge was the following (IME as a Mod & my assumption as a member):

1) A member would have a signature that violated the TOS
2) Another member would see this & use the RBP to report the TOS violation
3) That RBP only went to the mods of the forum (or Senior Mods if it wasn't a moderated forum)
4) The mod of the particular forum or the Senior Mod didn't feel like taking the time to address what was clearly a commercial link as it wasn't an issue with their forum in particular
5) It doesn't get addressed...or it does...and if a mod did send a note to the member or bothers to log it in their records (which I'm sure mods don't log EVERY time they have a communication with a member, but only when they suspend or "verbally warn" a member) they sent a note, no one is actually monitoring it unless that same mod keeps an eye out for that poster again
6) Everyone moves on
7) It's determined that rather than regulate what kind of links/signatures are being used (are they links to commercial sites, referral links, links to threads about FT Do's, or links to their photo albums or even links to their profiles on MilePoint), to just allow all links since no one wants to bother policing it.

So the solution? Either 1) Get rid of all links....OR....2) Get rid of all signatures...because no one has the time or inclination or energy to monitor links & determine whether they are commercial in nature or not.

Personally, I'd vote for #1 if it was technically feasible (which I assume it is, but don't know).

tom911

Sounds like you're saying that if the moderators don't have time to deal with signatures, it's best to not have signatures. I think the non-problem signatures here on FT far outweigh the problem signatures, however you define them. If the moderators aren't doing their job, replace them. The solution is not to eliminate signatures because the moderators don't like dealing with them.

SkiAdcock

Thank you for your input. It's good to hear from all members, but we appreciate those who are new who take time to provide us their thoughts.

Cheers.

goalie

Well said ^

Im'm not saying it's best not to have signatures if the moderators don't have time to review posts with signatures but if the moderators truly don't have the time, then my question is why and again, if truly not enough time, add more moderators or add more folks to the signature review committee

kokonutz

It seems to me, just from reading these threads, that at some point a 'sig police' group of mods was assigned the task of handling all sig complaints.

I would assume that means that all such complaints get forwarded by the forum mods to the sig mods.

So those sig mods ought to be be able to enforce to whatever TOS the TB creates.

But who the hell knows.

Like I said, that's why I hate this issue. It lays bare the problems with the disconnect between the 'deciders/recommenders' and the 'controllers/enforcers.'

kipper

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

oliver2002

Here's one idea: why not turn off the display of signatures for all members by default? Those who want to be bombarded by sigs, evil or otherwise, can choose to do so by going in their profile and checking the box? Thats what I do when signing up on any bbs: look to switch off all the annoying matter: avatars, signatures, ads, etc by whatever intended or unintended way...@:-)

goalie

Interesting concept and I like it ^ as (in theory) that would start everyone with a "clean slate and (again, in theory) make it easier to "police" (assuming all 400,000 members don't turn this option on all at the same time ). So with that, I'm wondering if a pop-up box (or sub-check box) stating something along the lines that one agrees that by showing their signature, they agree to abide by the rules set forth in the ToS (not that it would mean much but still...)

Jenbel

We don't have time to 'review posts with signatures' as there are thousands of such posts made everyday.

If there were a system that all posts with signatures got trapped and had to be manually reviewed by mods, then mods would probably spend all their free time reviewing posts and clicking to free them onto the boards. And of course, that would make for terribly disjointed conversations, as posts would be appearing out of sequence.

At the end of the day, are signatures really such a massive problem that we want to effectively stop mods having time to read FT, because all their time is spent approving posts with signatures in them? There are actually very few signatures which cause concern - there are a fair few which get pulled up for formatting breaches but fewer ones are found to be in breach.

It just seems like it's an artificial problem, being promulgated by a very few people, but where the solutions will impact on many more people's enjoyment of FT. Our elected representatives are meant to represent the majority, not the minority, and do things for the benefit of FT, not a few folks who want to exercise control.

(And if mods had to sit and approve thousands of posts everyday, I'm sure there would be complaints about the levels of censorship on FT and frankly, quite rightly too )

David-A

[I've never heard such chains referred to as a conga before, good term..]

But to respond to your point:

Assuming I am reading a posters signature, them I'm probably making use of (reading) usefull content they have posted in a thread somewhere. Personally I would much rather support thouse who make usefull contributions on FT than someone participating in a conga, even if that means someone (not contributing much) is missing out.

I'm fine with conga threads, and people wanting to pair up, etc. However you need to remember signatures should be small.

But general FT posts should be on topic and usefull. [I don't think any of us want to see comercial posting.]

If they are so, then I don't see the problem with people promoting/linking to their own travel blogs etc in their signatures. Signature visibility will be proporitonal to contribution.

To be honest, I don't personally mind if they even had affiliiate links to their airlines of patronage in their sigs either - just so long as sigs are small, and people are not begging/asking for them to be clicked. [And they are not too big or blinking.]