Terms of Service Revision

[Aaron Koehl]

Confession



Update, 2006-08-31: Since I spent the night at the emergency room last night (sister took a spill down the steps), I didn't get a chance to revise anything. Soo, that means this thread will continue until the end of the week. Note: As Keith mentions below, I'm looking for clarification of our existing terms. Baby steps.


Well, since I originally wrote the terms of service, I figure I should be the one to amend it. I've come to terms with the fact that I can be overly articulate or verbose. In this case, the terms were obviously open to several different interpretations. Hey, have you ever tried reading Slashdot's (http://www.slashdot.org) Terms of Service (http://www.ostg.com/terms.htm)? Yikes.

Anyway, I apparently failed in my original attempt to convey my thoughts on this section of the Terms (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/terms.php) clearly and simply.

This thread is open to suggestions for rewriting Section E part 3.

Please reference individual changes to the sentences or post your version in full. I'll review your suggestions and finalize the changes this evening.



E. Commercial Advertising
...snip...
3. External Linking

1. Links to other websites are allowed in posts.
2. In fact, they are encouraged.
3. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing, generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed to solicit commercial benefit are not allowed.
4. Links to other public or private forums are not allowed.
5. Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.
...snip...


Here is the setup (the facts behind what I want to convey):

1. I really dislike all the advertising I see everywhere I go. (One of the reasons I watch everything on TIVO). Our members have expressed the desire to keep the forums free of advertisement; In my experience, the advertising usually gets in the way of real information.

2. Unfortunately, SawmillCreek is recognized as a valuable advertising resource, and as such, companies and members do try to advertise from time to time; thus, we prohibit commercial links which are defined as: 1. those that can solicit commercial benefit; 2. those which are used solely to drive traffic to another site.

Determining What is commercial and what is not is a judgment call, but you usually know it when you see it.

3. With the exception of advertising, I really do think links add a lot to posts (and why I encourage them). For instance, my links to Slashdot at the top of this post are strictly informational, used to drive a discussion here in this thread.

4. In my professional experience with forums and the Internet, forum links become 'stale' (Page Not Found) with much greater frequency than other types of websites. (This is second only to "Marketing" pages, such as company specials, as well as product links to eCommerce sites, etc).

In an attempt to build archival value, I try to encourage interesting topics be posted here at the 'Creek in order to open up the topic to posts. Links to other forums tend to drive the conversation away from the Creek, rather than into it. (Not a hard and fast rule, but just my experience)

My inbox is full of inputs on how members feel about forum linking, both for and against. I am currently on the fence from my position when I wrote this 3 years ago. Once we reword the existing terms, I'll reconsider my position on forum linking, and take it from there.

SawmillCreek is a wonderful woodworking related archive. Without discussion, though, a thread topic isn't useful to the archive (except perhaps in the short run).

... ...

Now, all of the above doesn't need to be explicitly spelled out, but I do want the end result conveyed in the Terms.

So, yielding the floor...

[Steve Clardy]

Thank you Aaron!

I will look it over

[Lee DeRaud]

3. With the exception of advertising, I really do think links add a lot to posts (and why I encourage them). For instance, my links to Slashdot at the top of this post are strictly informational, used to drive a discussion here in this thread.

4. In my professional experience with forums and the Internet, forum links become 'stale' (Page Not Found) with much greater frequency than other types of websites. (This is second only to "Marketing" pages, such as company specials, as well as product links to eCommerce sites, etc).

In an attempt to build archival value, I try to encourage interesting topics be posted here at the 'Creek in order to open up the topic to posts. Links to other forums tend to drive the conversation away from the Creek, rather than into it. (Not a hard and fast rule, but just my experience)I suspect the conflict between #3 and #4 above is what has driven most of the recent discussion of forum links, in the sense that links "for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek" are encouraged...and then prohibited based solely on the type of website at the other end of the link, rather than the value/relevance of the link with regard to the discussion at hand.

And (IMHO) volatility is not really an issue: that phrase "sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions" by its very nature is describing a transitory activity, not an archival activity. Quite frankly, if archival integrity is really that important, the thing you need to prohibit is attachment links to personal sites and places like PhotoBucket.

I'm not going to attempt to wordsmith section 3 for you, but I think you can probably accomplish most (if not all) of your goals by replacing artificial restrictions on the link destinations with stronger wording to the effect that links are strictly supportive/supplemental and not a substitute for in-post content. The obvious discriminator is "Is this post readable without following the link?" Yes, there's some "judgement call" wiggle room in there: there will certainly be times when a link points to content on another forum which would be unwieldy (due to size) or illegal (due to copyright) to reproduce here directly.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Great idea, I applaud your effort.

One thing that is not discussed here is the dreaded E-bay links, are the OK or not?

Sometimes I see them pulled other times not.

What if member A says "I'm looking for a widget for my XYZ tool, anyone seen one?"

and member B replies "Hey they got one on E-bay at E-Bay Link "

Now that to me is helpful and serves a purpose, but some would say, why not just have B send A a PM? Well if you do that, no one knows that A got helped, and maybe some other member is also looking for a similar widget...?

I guess I just want to say that as the E-bay links, or Craig's list links are an area of confusion, as they sometimes get yanked, and sometimes are left alone, this area needs to be spelled out.

Is E-bay a public forum, private...... neither...?

Thanks for taking the time to do this, SMC can only benefit from a frank and open discussion.

Cheers!

[Steve Clardy]

My feelings on the ebay linking is that it is ok with me.
But, a couple of years ago when it came to a head, most did not want the links here. So it was determined there would be no linking.

I think it would best to provide a auction #, that way they could go to ebay and search the item #.

Have the tos reflect that linking to ebay is not allowed, but the auction # is allowed.

[Rob Bodenschatz]

My feelings on the ebay linking is that it is ok with me.
But, a couple of years ago when it came to a head, most did not want the links here. So it was determined there would be no linking.

I think it would best to provide a auction #, that way they could go to ebay and search the item #.

Have the tos reflect that linking to ebay is not allowed, but the auction # is allowed.

I'm assuming the only reason we even care about this is that having dead links will hurt search engine rankings. If that's true, Steve's suggestion is a good one. The same should be done with craigslist items. Or any other such site.

[Aaron Koehl]

(I will journal the following post as I take on suggestions)

Wed
11:55
Issue: eBay links (Steve Clardy)
Description: For the obvious "hey come check out my auction" reasons, we dislike linking to ebay auctions.
Current Status: Nothing in the TOS covering this yet, but as Steve points out, we polled the community and decided collectively that direct eBay links are not wanted. eBay auction IDs are permitted, but again, only to support discussion on the 'Creek.
Proposed Change: Add wording to the TOS.

12:03
Issue: Topic Integrity (Lee DeRaud)
Description: A good question in regards to linking is to ask, "Will this topic/thread/post stand on its own, without these links?". While this won't always be the case
Current Status: Nothing specific in the TOS, except measures to try to reduce the number of broken links by encouraging that links be submitted for discussion purposes, rather than as just traffic-inducing objects.
Proposed Change: ?? still thinking

12:07
Issue: Dead Links and Search Engine Rankings (Rob Bodenschatz)
Description: The primary issue with dead links comes with Lee's post (referenced just above this journal entry).
Current Status: Question raised, do dead links affect search engine rankings?
Proposed Change:

12:16
Issue: Linking to Other Forums (Frank Fusco)
Description: Disallowing linking to other forums may lend itself to the appearance of elitism.
Current Status: TOS prohibits linking to other forums.
Proposed Change: Hmm, I'm not sure how to combat this perception. I suppose it stems from my comment about not being able to moderate what we're linking to, which also has some merit.

12:20
Issue: Amazon (and other eCommerce links) (Stu Ablett)
Description: Links to products can go stale, but in this woodworking discussion environment, links to books and other related woodworking products are valuable content in the form of recommendations. The distinction to eBay auctions is that, unless you're the author, you're not gaining any benefit from linking to Amazon.
Current Status: Not prohibited in the TOS.
Proposed Change: None.

1:32
Issue: Short Version (Bill Cotey)
Description: A "short and sweet" paragraph at the top of the terms of service, similar to http://mimf.com/useragr.htm.
Current Status: Nothing in the TOS. This site is more restrictive, however, it does express some of the same.
Proposed Change: Add a summary at the front of the TOS

Thurs
8:49am
Issue: Posting deals from the local megamart (Matt Warfield)
Description: "One thing I'm a little torn about is when someone finds an awesome deal at the borg or where ever. Technically, it's commercial in nature. But it's also to good not to pass that information on to the greater population. PM's don't really fit that role and it would create a grey area in the overall TOS."
Current Status: Not prohibited in the TOS. This is covered under "Indirect Commercial Affiliation" in the TOS, Part E section 2.
Proposed Change: None.

Wed Sept 20.
9:56am
Issue: Disclaimer regarding linked websites (Damien Falgoust)
Description: May need to explicitly state that we are not responsible for content linked from SawmillCreek.
Current Status: Not explicitly stated in the TOS.
Proposed Change: We may have a brief legal review of the amended TOS, with additional disclaimers added to the bottom.

[Keith Outten]

There are no artificial restrictions concerning links in our TOS.

Making the TOS less restrictive will without a doubt cause nothing less than a flood of advertising.

Should auction numbers be allowed what will we do when a thread is started with a list of auction numbers and clearly is nothing but advertising someone's wares?

[Aaron Koehl]

Keith is right- most of our wording is just trying to get a handle on advertising, and making that policy unambiguous. Your post does bring the whole "letter of the law" vs "the spirit of the law" topic to mind. We do recognize the ambiguity, so I'm putting it out there for folks to give input on making it more clear to them. I've taken a look at some of the the other issues you raised and am adding them to my journal post as I can.

[Frank Fusco]

To respond fully is asking a lot. But you have offered to be open minded on this issue. Since I picked on you a bit earlier, I commend you for considering changes. I nearly quit SMC because of what I considered uneven and heavy-handed enforcement of confusing, self-contradictory rules.
Being one who subscribes to the KISS principal of doing things. I would suggest that a long disertation of rules is not necessary. A couple sentances would do it IMHO. Start with the current first sentance:
"It is our policy to support the free flow of information in a manner
best befitting the woodworking community at large." Then give a brief admonishment that such things as profanity are not permitted. Then stop. That should do it.
I believe that what happened with the current TOS is an example of the old story of a committee setting out to design a racehorse and ending up with a three legged camel. e.g. E.3.5. Links. just doesn't make any sense and does not explain what meaning (if any) it intends to convey.
But I'll elaborate with my opinions (MY OPINIONS) on a couple key points.
The advertising part is very difficult to control. Cussin' and discussin' tools is a huge part of threads here. Deciding where "advertising" begins or ends is, at best, foggy. I say allow discussions and links to products related to woodworking. Don't sweat it.
Other forums: To even suggest that other forums are not worthy of linking to here is arrogant and elitist. Links to other woodworking forums is in conformity to the opening sentance of the current TOS. Nothing more needs to be said.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Thanks for addressing that, I think the auction ID number is a good solution, and should be spelled out as such.

"Links to items for sale on E-bay are strictly not allowed, but listing the auction ID#, when it has something to do with the discussion is allowed"

or something to that effect.

Next item, (well last one for me, as I'm off to the Dungeon here to do some work)


Amazon.com

I often see and I've linked to books on Amazon. For example there is a VERY good book on setting up your bandsaw called "The Bandsaw Book" by Loni Bird (SP?) I've linked to is as I've found this book to be well worth the $13 they want for it in setting up and tuning a bandsaw.

Is this kind of thing allowed?

I guess to answer my own question, we could use the ISBN number, like auction ID#s..........?

(Amazon could be changed with any other online book retailer).

Now I'm off to the Dungeon to do some of this woodworking stuff!

Cheers!

[Mark Rios]

Great idea, I applaud your effort.

One thing that is not discussed here is the dreaded E-bay links, are the OK or not?

Sometimes I see them pulled other times not.

What if member A says "I'm looking for a widget for my XYZ tool, anyone seen one?"

and member B replies "Hey they got one on E-bay at E-Bay Link "

Now that to me is helpful and serves a purpose, but some would say, why not just have B send A a PM? Well if you do that, no one knows that A got helped, and maybe some other member is also looking for a similar widget...?

I guess I just want to say that as the E-bay links, or Craig's list links are an area of confusion, as they sometimes get yanked, and sometimes are left alone, this area needs to be spelled out.

Is E-bay a public forum, private...... neither...?

Thanks for taking the time to do this, SMC can only benefit from a frank and open discussion.

Cheers!


Hey Stu.....While there are some issues that have been inconsistant, and will no doubt be addressed, I must respectfully disagree regarding the ebay links. Yes they come up and are there for a time, but since I've been here they have never lasted. I've always thought that if they were up for more than 8 hours then the moderator was sick, busy or in a coma. :D Since I became aware of the restriction I've yet to see an ebay link stay linkable more than 12 hours.

I see no negative issues with posting an auction number instead of a link to an item, except a VERY slight inconvenience to the poster and any reader who may care to go look. Highlight the auction number and paste it in search box. Not a problem.

Just a boneheads thoughts.

[Lee DeRaud]

Current Status: Question raised, do dead links affect search engine rankings?Followup question: since we're explicitly not soliciting advertising, why do we care about search engine rankings?

[Aaron Koehl]

Followup question: since we're explicitly not soliciting advertising, why do we care about search engine rankings?


I have to reword this in my mind. If we were soliciting for advertisers, would we care about search engine rankings? Yes, I do believe we would. But since we're not soliciting for advertisers, does that mean we shouldn't care about search engines? I can't seem to jump to that logical conclusion, but I suppose it has merit.

I was unaware about dead links affecting search engine rankings, so this didn't play into my drafting of the TOS.

However, like any private website, we do want SawmillCreek to be searchable and linkable from the search engines. For instance, I use Google to search SawmillCreek (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/google.php) when I need more flexibility in my search criteria. We do want SawmillCreek to grow as big as it can grow, and search engines are usually the biggest entrance point to the 'Creek. The bigger our membership, the easier it is to keep SawmillCreek running, the easier it is to implement new features (serving a larger body), and the more content SawmillCreek can provide.

[Rob Bodenschatz]

Followup question: since we're explicitly not soliciting advertising, why do we care about search engine rankings?

To solicit new members, right? I don't remember how I found this site but it was probably due to a google search. I think we'd all agree that the more members, the better. Well, maybe most of us.

I don't really know much about that search engine stuff, though. Maybe dead links don't matter.

[Rob Bodenschatz]

I was unaware about dead links affecting search engine rankings, so this didn't play into my drafting of the TOS.


Not to hijack the thread but here is how google ranks pages:

http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

Be sure to read the last line in the article.

:D

[Rob Bodenschatz]

I was unaware about dead links affecting search engine rankings, so this didn't play into my drafting of the TOS.


I don't know if that's true or not. I read it recently (I think on SMC) but I don't want to put it out there as fact. I just don't know.

[Lee DeRaud]

IHowever, like any private website, we do want SawmillCreek to be searchable and linkable from the search engines. For instance, I use Google to search SawmillCreek (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/google.php) when I need more flexibility in my search criteria. We do want SawmillCreek to grow as big as it can grow, and search engines are usually the biggest entrance point to the 'Creek.I guess I'm unclear how search engine ranking could possibly affect searches internal to SMC, but your second point is well taken.

It would be interesting to know how much (or whether) broken links affect that ranking. I would expect broken links into SMC to be an issue for the search engines...broken links out of SMC is less clear.

(I'm assuming (and may be wrong) that 'search engine ranking' refers to where SMC will appear on the listing if you (for instance) google for "woodworking forum"...bottom of the first page, out of 103K hits, if anyone is interested.)

[Ian Barley]

I just don't see the ambiguity that others seem to in the existing text but I have a few thoughts to share, for what little they may be worth.

Ebay links are a problem. It is difficult to ensure that the post does not exist mainly to drive traffic to the auction. "hey - look at this really interesting item on Ebay" posted by a member of 5 years standing with 3000 other posts is a safer bet than one posted by somebody who joined yesterday and this is their first post. Personally I don't feel that I miss anything by them not being here and would rather it stays that way. Don't care about auction numbers one way or the other but would not like to see direct hotlinks.

Other Forums. Again the problem is the extent of the work involved in making sure that they are the kind of discussion that we, by coming here, have chosen to be involved in. Somebody posts a link today and the other forum is all lovely and friendly as checked by one of our mods. Tomorrow Sammy the spammer goes onto that forum which is not moderated and posts links to a bunch of porn sites. Everybody still happy?? The problem with forums is that their content is more variable and volatile than other types of websites that could be linked to. I believe that an explicit statement that links to other public forums are not allowed is perfectly reasonable and conducive to SMC maintaining the character that we work at creating here. If it makes me elitist to not want to be involved in a childish brawl then I am elitist.

[Steve Clardy]

Quote:
E. Commercial Advertising
1. External Linking

2. Links to other websites are allowed in posts, and encouraged, if they are submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.

3. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing, generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed to solicit commercial or personal benefit are not allowed.
4. Direct Linking to Ebay is not permitted. The Auction# is permitted, IF it pertains to the subject.

[ For instance ]
OP. Where can I find a cover for my 1953 14" bandsaw?
Poster #2. I seen one on Ebay the other day. Here is the #.
OP. Why does this Stanley plane so high priced? Item#
Poster #2. It commands top dollar because blah blah blah.

[Vaughn McMillan]

Thanks for addressing the TOS, Aaron. Seeing as how I was one of the people calling for changes, it'd only be fair for me to offer some assistance. I get paid to write unambiguous and concise text (although it's hard to tell reading my long-winded posts on SMC). Looks like you've got plenty of input for changes, but I was hoping to offer editing help if needed. Unfortunately, I've got a family emergency to attend to in New Mexico, so I simply don't have time to help. Maybe next time.

- Vaughn

[Aaron Koehl]

Hope everything turns out okay!

[Keith Outten]

Being one who subscribes to the KISS principal of doing things. I would suggest that a long disertation of rules is not necessary. A couple sentances would do it IMHO. Start with the current first sentance:
"It is our policy to support the free flow of information in a manner
best befitting the woodworking community at large." Then give a brief admonishment that such things as profanity are not permitted. Then stop. That should do it.

The advertising part is very difficult to control. Cussin' and discussin' tools is a huge part of threads here. Deciding where "advertising" begins or ends is, at best, foggy. I say allow discussions and links to products related to woodworking. Don't sweat it.
Other forums: To even suggest that other forums are not worthy of linking to here is arrogant and elitist. Links to other woodworking forums is in conformity to the opening sentance of the current TOS. Nothing more needs to be said.

Don't Forget!!!!!

Our TOS must address certain legal issues. Without key parts of the TOS SMC would immediately cease to exist. A couple of sentences won't cover our backside in a legal challenge.

Advertising here at SMC is currently not allowed outside of our Manufacturers Forums. We don't provide bandwidth and give our labor away for others to make money.

Other Forums often do not contain the kind of material that we feel comfortable linking to, let's not forget my earlier statement that SMC isn't a club just for men.

Any rule made must be enforced as best we can. Asking our volunteer Moderators to do more isn't an option unless we all agree to pay them for their service. Eliminating the rules will surely mean that most of our Members will leave.

.

[Frank Fusco]

Aaron said (in part) "I suppose it stems from my comment about not being able to moderate what we're linking to, which also has some merit."

Aaron, just the fact you are considering wanting to be able to moderate content of other forums strikes me as a totaly repugnant dictatorship mentality. Sorry to be so strong. We aren't Red China or North Korea and you aren't (I hope) ambitious to be that kind of leader. You are thinking about that philosophy, that is good.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Aaron said (in part) "I suppose it stems from my comment about not being able to moderate what we're linking to, which also has some merit."

Aaron, just the fact you are considering wanting to be able to moderate content of other forums strikes me as a totaly repugnant dictatorship mentality. Sorry to be so strong. We aren't Red China or North Korea and you aren't (I hope) ambitious to be that kind of leader. You are thinking about that philosophy, that is good.

Aw geez Frank, come on.........:rolleyes:

"Not being able to moderate what we link to"............

How the heck did you make the leap to Aaron having "a totally repugnant dictatorship mentality." Sheesh.......:confused:

From where I sit, Aaron is saying that the link content is not part of SMC, which means we have no control over it, which is stating the obvious.

How you then take that and suggest what you are suggesting, come on, cut Aaron some slack for crying out loud!

:)

[Mark Rios]

................let's not forget my earlier statement that SMC isn't a club just for men.



HEY, WAIT A MINUTE.................I had just worked up the nerve to start asking about hair transplants. This isn't Hair Club for Men??????????


:D :D :D









(just trying to lighten it up a bit):D

[Frank Fusco]

Aw geez Frank, come on.........:rolleyes:

"Not being able to moderate what we link to"............

How the heck did you make the leap to Aaron having "a totally repugnant dictatorship mentality." Sheesh.......:confused:

From where I sit, Aaron is saying that the link content is not part of SMC, which means we have no control over it, which is stating the obvious.

How you then take that and suggest what you are suggesting, come on, cut Aaron some slack for crying out loud!

:)

This was a continuation of pm between Aarnon and myself. Congratulating him on his just thinking about changing that philosophy is about all the slack he will get from me, for now. Simply questioning the value of other forums as being suitable/not suitable for SMC members is the definition of a dictatorship mentality. In our pms I accused him of trying to be the "Mommy" for the (adult) members of SMC. Sorry if that bothers anyone, it is as how I see it.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

This was a continuation of pm between Aarnon and myself. Congratulating him on his just thinking about changing that philosophy is about all the slack he will get from me, for now. Simply questioning the value of other forums as being suitable/not suitable for SMC members is the definition of a dictatorship mentality. In our pms I accused him of trying to be the "Mommy" for the (adult) members of SMC. Sorry if that bothers anyone, it is as how I see it.

Just a point Frank there is a reason they are called "Private Messages" :D

[Jim Becker]

Frank, it is clear to me that Aaron's (and previously Keith's) comments about forum content foreign to SMC has to do with genuine concern for our membership...which is of both genders and includes a bunch of folks who are under 18 years old...not "censorship" in the negative context the word can be used. There is dialog and goings-on that I certainly would not want my 11 and 7 year old daughters (who occasionally browse SMC with me) to see if I were to click on a link to another forum that is contained in a thread we were viewing. If it were just me, I'd be unhappy with such content, but I'd be less likely to be harmed or offended. Frankly ( :) ), this is one of the things I happen to like about the SMC community...it tries to act responsibly for the entire membership, including minors.

[Jeff Horton]

wanting to be able to moderate content of other forums

OK that statement has always bothered me too. I don't go as far as Frank though.

Every time I have included a link to another forum it has been yanked out by the same person. If the post was to something profane or a link to porno or advertising my business or something similar I could understand. The links I have included were very relevant to the subject, it was just on a competing forum.

Please don't say the mods can't check each link because the moderators spend as much (I suspect more) time deleting the link as it would take to click on the link and see that it was subject related. For the sake of argument lets just say they don't have the time or don't want too check every link.

I have a simple suggestion, Why not just ad a "Notify a moderator" button? Then allow links to other forums (and maybe loosen up on some of the others rules). Let the readers notify you if there is a problem. I have moderated on other forums and this worked extremely well. I was always amazed at how fast people would report posts that violated the rules. All the mods got the email and it was quickly taken care of. Very simple solution.

[tod evans]

i`ve had things explained to me thusly; it`s keith-n-aarons sandbox and if i want to play in it then i abide by their rules.....pretty simple. to me it shows concern that aaron has agreed to revise the tos so it better suits the forum as it currently stands, my understanding of the forum membership is that we consist of folks from all walks of life, both sexes, from 9-95 years old....so whats wrong with trying to keep the content of posts or links benign enough so that aunt mary and her 6y/o can contribute as well as those of us who are somewhat more abrasive? personally i could care less about e-bay links one way or the other but advertising gets my goat, if a manufacturer or importer wants to pony up with the cash there`s allready a forum for them to join as such. .02 tod

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

FYI :D

45900

Hey, I missed it for about 6 months before some one showed it to me :o

Cheers!

[Mark Rios]

This was a continuation of pm between Aarnon and myself. Congratulating him on his just thinking about changing that philosophy is about all the slack he will get from me, for now. Simply questioning the value of other forums as being suitable/not suitable for SMC members is the definition of a dictatorship mentality. In our pms I accused him of trying to be the "Mommy" for the (adult) members of SMC. Sorry if that bothers anyone, it is as how I see it.

Frank, a lot of us (most?) see it and understand it as being concerned with the type of content we, young and old, get when we click on a link. SMC doesn't allow certain types of content in it's house. And to assure that it isn't associated with that type of content, it doesn't allow linking to someplace where it may be present.

Personally, I don't see any need to make NEW policy. I have read the TOS and I feel that there is only a need for clarity. I have been rudely accused of asking for a "legal brief" on a cetain issue. Well, as stupid as the accusation is, there IS a concern here for "legal clarification". Keith wrote this in his last post,
Don't Forget!!!!!

Our TOS must address certain legal issues. Without key parts of the TOS SMC would immediately cease to exist. A couple of sentences won't cover our backside in a legal challenge.

So while I don't believe the issue that I was asking for clarification on is, necessarily, a legal one, there IS a need for clarification of certain terms, phrases and concepts SO THAT THERE IS CLARITY IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE ARE ASKED/MADE TO ABIDE BY, here in this place that some of us pay money to so that it can be maintanied. That way, if a disagreement comes up, there is a clear, concise place to go to for any dispute resolution, instead of relying on the capricious TOS interpretation of any mod that may be having a bad day or a fight with his/her spouse. Sometimes "Black and White" is a good thing. If there are rules, "Black and White" are THE thing. It sounds, to me, that Aaron is going to help us with that. Thanks to Aaron.

[Matt Warfield]

I agree with the limit on advertising. If advertising dollars aren't needed, then there's no need to have it and ultimately have this site become what the advertisers want. Just say no!

Ebay auction links - not necessary. Item # is perfectly functional.

For information in other forums, I see it both ways. But, would you send your kid across the prison floor to get the dictionary? There's a reason why the SMC was started - to get away from that behavior. Why invite it in to this sanctuary?

One thing I'm a little torn about is when someone finds an awesome deal at the borg or where ever. Technically, it's commercial in nature. But it's also to good not to pass that information on to the greater population. PM's don't really fit that role and it would create a grey area in the overall TOS.

Just my chunk of a dime's worth.

Matt

[Ian Abraham]

I have a simple suggestion, Why not just ad a "Notify a moderator" button? Then allow links to other forums (and maybe loosen up on some of the others rules). Let the readers notify you if there is a problem. I have moderated on other forums and this worked extremely well. I was always amazed at how fast people would report posts that violated the rules. All the mods got the email and it was quickly taken care of. Very simple solution.

There is one, top right of each post.

But I agree, it's use should be encouraged. No need for the moderators the check every link, just the questionable ones that members report.

The blatant adverts, the unsavoury sites and general spam can be cleaned up pretty easy and when a forum is kept 'clean and tidy' it tends to stay that way.

My suggestion, work on the 'spirit' of the forum. We dont want adverts and stuff thats not 'family safe', OK let that be the basic principle. The TOS must also contain "In the opinion of the moderators". Some things will be judgement calls on their part as to where the line in the sand stands. It's fair enough to discuss where that line is, but in the end it's their decision.

Cheers

Ian

[Glenn Clabo]

Frank,
Me thinks you protest too much. Here's a guy asking for our input and you have the cojones to say this is "totaly repugnant dictatorship mentality". Look up the words in that and tell us all how he fits. Holy smack you went beyond overboard on this one!

This a very good woodworking forum set up by great people who only wanted a calm...respectful place for all kinds of people who were tired of the crap that is flying around our lives. To say something like that is way over the top!

p.s. Sorry...but this has been a very long week with some VERY real problems. Why in the world are we having such a hard time seeing that some just want to make waves in the creek that has been a wonderful place for so long?

[Matt Warfield]

Aaron,

Given the legality concerns, is SMC in need of any funds for a legal review of the TOS after revision?

Thanks,

Matt

[Mark Rios]

Frank,
Me thinks you protest too much. Here's a guy asking for our input and you have the cojones to say this is "totaly repugnant dictatorship mentality". Holy smack you went beyond overboard on this one!

This a woodworking forum set up by good people who only wanted a calm...respectful place for people who were tired of the crap that is flying around our lives. To say something like that is way over the top!




OOooooooooohhhhhhhh......Glenn said "crap". TOS....TOS.....:D :D :D :D :D

(just teasin, of course)

[Lee DeRaud]

Frank, a lot of us (most?) see it and understand it as being concerned with the type of content we, young and old, get when we click on a link. SMC doesn't allow certain types of content in it's house. And to assure that it isn't associated with that type of content, it doesn't allow linking to someplace where it may be present.I fully understand that concern and support the intent behind it. What I have trouble with is the assumption that such content will exist in certain types of sites and not others. That may be a reasonable assumption, but I find it ironic that the general class of forbidden sites includes other moderated woodworking forums, some (most?) of which share members with SMC.

[Dan Oliphant]

I've been reading all of the threads on the TOS issues as they have evolved. Up until this point I wasn't going to comment because I don't see a problem with the TOS as written.
As some of you know, I had some concerns/issues, that I voiced back when we became member supported. After the debate had run it's course, my position was the minority, therefor I could continue to whine about it and annoy others unnecessarly or I could just get over it and continue to participate as an active member/contributor. My other option was to move on.
As Tod mentioned, this is Keiths' and Aarons' sand box that we all enjoy playing in.

Fine tuning the TOS is fine if truly needed, but to rewrite them for a minority of members (Just because they are vocal) is counter productive.

I do not find Kens' mod approach as offensive or dictatorial or heavy handed. For one, I am glad to see someone in his position not trying to be PC or pandering to anyone. He is not a machine, therefor some mistakes or inconsistancies are to be expected.

[Steve Clardy]

I see we are straying away from the main objective here.

The main objective is to give AARON ideas about what, how to change, modify the TOS.

I really do not want to see this one go up in flames.

[Jeff Horton]

Hey, I missed it for about 6 months before some one showed it to me :o

Cheers!

I will be darned! Thanks Stu.

I would say the graphic needs to be changed. Wonder how many other people didn't know it was there?

[Cecil Arnold]

Okay, my .02. I don't like advertising. I think links to other WW sites should be allowed, and encourage members to report to moderators when these links are, or approach, crossing over the "line," wherever that may be. So far as e-bay just posting the number should be acceptable, IMHO.

I do not like seeing entire threads deleted. I think a moderator who decides a thread has gone too far (and/or is in violation of the TOS) should consider finding a stopping point in the thread, locking it at that point and deleting the remainder of the offending content.

I also thing that PM discussions with moderators should remain private and if one or the other party decides he or she must make it a public issue, the entire exchange should be made public, not just a cherry picked message or two.

SMC is a nice place that most of us enjoy visiting on a regular basis. We all agreed to the TOS when we signed up. Like any document it may be time to make some changes, which Aaron has agreed to do, and I applaud him for making the effort and know he won't be able to please everyone.

My BA is in communications and I can assure you that writing clear, concise statements, while attempting to comply with legal requirements, is not an easy thing. I just hope Keith and Aaron don't get fed up with some of the childishness and decide to shut the creek down.

[Keith Outten]

I agreed that our Terms Of Service needed a tune-up, I don't agree that we need to be adjusting our policies. Clarification of the rules is in order here and I don't expect we will change any of the core ideas that have served us well.

In order to maintain the atmosphere that SMC is known for we need to stay true to our original plan. Should we allow serious changes the Creek would then become a different place altogether, this is not going to happen. SawMill Creek is different then most woodworking forums, by design. It was our intention to use Badger Pond as a model for our Community and that plan has worked well. The core group of woodworkers who were here in the beginning are still Members of SMC and their input has always been the guage I have used to measure our success.

Our goal here is to "clarify" the rules not change them. A few have suggested that our TOS is unclear concerning several points. Clarification of the rules is in order and Aaron and I have agreed to make an effort to address the text not the content.

As with the US Constitution it would take a majority of our Members to ratify any changes to our existing rules.

If anyone would like to be helpfull take any section of our TOS, rewrite it and post your proposal here in this thread where we can all review your suggestion. Remember, you can't change the intent of the rules but you can help us by making our rules more clear and concise. As Cecil has suggested it isn't an easy job.

Those of you who have determined that our TOS is vague and incomprehensible should not have a problem using your advanced skills to help us correct the problem areas.

.

[Matt Warfield]

I see we are straying away from the main objective here.

The main objective is to give AARON ideas about what, how to change, modify the TOS.

I really do not want to see this one go up in flames.

Thanks Steve. I was hoping the focus could remain at least in this thread. After all, the flowers are blooming and I just took out the trash and the daughter went to bed. Now where was I....

[David Duke]

I just don't see the ambiguity that others seem to in the existing text but I have a few thoughts to share, for what little they may be worth.

Ebay links are a problem. It is difficult to ensure that the post does not exist mainly to drive traffic to the auction. "hey - look at this really interesting item on Ebay" posted by a member of 5 years standing with 3000 other posts is a safer bet than one posted by somebody who joined yesterday and this is their first post. Personally I don't feel that I miss anything by them not being here and would rather it stays that way. Don't care about auction numbers one way or the other but would not like to see direct hotlinks.

Other Forums. Again the problem is the extent of the work involved in making sure that they are the kind of discussion that we, by coming here, have chosen to be involved in. Somebody posts a link today and the other forum is all lovely and friendly as checked by one of our mods. Tomorrow Sammy the spammer goes onto that forum which is not moderated and posts links to a bunch of porn sites. Everybody still happy?? The problem with forums is that their content is more variable and volatile than other types of websites that could be linked to. I believe that an explicit statement that links to other public forums are not allowed is perfectly reasonable and conducive to SMC maintaining the character that we work at creating here. If it makes me elitist to not want to be involved in a childish brawl then I am elitist.

Well said Ian, you just saved me a bunch of typing :D :D ;) !!

[Ken Salisbury]

Gee, I think I will get my 2¢ in :)

Direct links to E-bay auctions should not be allowed.

It goes directly against SMC's stand on commercialism. It is just another way to direct someone to an advertisement. Moderators would be required to check each link to insure it's validity to the subject matter of the thread in which it is posted. For someone to even suggest this is a trival task is pure foolishness. I personally don't want to spend my valuable time verifying the contents of E-bay auctions. If we allow them I can guarantee you it will get out of hand. Many of our members are E-bay sellers and if these direct links are allowed we will be inindated with them.

Links to any public forums should not be allowed.

In order to insure these links do not contain offensive material, platent advertisments, profanity, political or religious controversy, general personal bashing, etc, etc would necessitate a moderator review that forum thread. Now we all know how some forum threads can get very lengthy. If I wanted to spend my time at "BlueDot.com" I would simply go there and surf.

A reader can be directed to a specific forum by just posting "this has been discussed over at BlueDot, if interested go there and have a look"

Direct links that help the poster find materials, sources, books, or articles, etc that are germain to the thread topic are very helpful and should be allowed and encouraged as they have always been.

These links are usually easy to determine legitimacy simply by the URL. Some are not so clear and I usually go to the link and verify it's authenticity. I would whole lot rather chase these links than E-bay and forum links :) .


************************************************** **********************************

To eliminate confusion on links there only needs to be 2 minor changes to the TOS as follows:


3. External Linking
Links to other websites are allowed in posts. In fact, they are
encouraged. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing,
generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed to solicit commercial benefit are not allowed.

Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.

ADD:
Links to other public or private forums are not allowed.

Links to public auctions such as E-Bay are not allowed.


Ian Barley said it better than I could so I will quote him:

"Other Forums. Again the problem is the extent of the work involved in making sure that they are the kind of discussion that we, by coming here, have chosen to be involved in. Somebody posts a link today and the other forum is all lovely and friendly as checked by one of our mods. Tomorrow Sammy the spammer goes onto that forum which is not moderated and posts links to a bunch of porn sites. Everybody still happy?? The problem with forums is that their content is more variable and volatile than other types of websites that could be linked to. I believe that an explicit statement that links to other public forums are not allowed is perfectly reasonable and conducive to SMC maintaining the character that we work at creating here. If it makes me elitist to not want to be involved in a childish brawl then I am elitist."

As a member rather than a moderator I believe our TOS are simple, as they should be, however they were slightly ambiguous in the area of linking. The changes I suggest are also very simple and easy to understand. It is the "what" not the "why" we should be conveying. The "whys" can be debated until the you know what freezes over. Why make SMC a mirror of the many other forums on the internet. Basically it's what we came over her to avoid in the first place. Those who dislike this place so much can always spend their time on a forum more suitable to their liking.

As a moderator I have always tried to be fair and consistent in my actions. Terms like "heavy handed, dictatorship, censorship, etc does not even come close to describing my personality. It is extremely difficult for me to respond to such comments and still be diplomatic.

I can assure you that if we allow the unabated use of direct links, as some folks suggest we should, I will be out of here like the "Roadrunner". Not only as a moderator, but also a member.



I do not find Kens' mod approach as offensive or dictatorial or heavy handed. For one, I am glad to see someone in his position not trying to be PC or pandering to anyone. He is not a machine, therefor some mistakes or inconsistancies are to be expected.


Thanks Dan !!


Sorry to be so long winded -- it time for a Bud Light :D

[Matt Meiser]

Links to public auctions such as E-Bay are not allowed.

I would add a reference stating whether or not classifieds like Craigslist, etc are allowed.

Also, I am glad to hear we are not talking about changing the TOS but just clarifying the rules. I can't imagine how the moderators must feel as I don't have to deal with these discussions if I choose not to and I'm really getting tired of seeing the same thing rehashed by the same 10 or so people (out of 9000) over and over. Nothing is perfect, but the rules we have have served the creek well for several years now. In fact, perhaps it might give some meaning to some of the TOS rules if the TOS was prefaced with a little history on the creek and how we got to where were are.

[Rob Bodenschatz]

To eliminate confusion on links there only needs to be 2 minor changes to the TOS as follows:


3. External Linking
Links to other websites are allowed in posts. In fact, they are
encouraged. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing,
generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed to solicit commercial benefit are not allowed.

Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.

ADD:
Links to other public or private forums are not allowed.

Links to public auctions such as E-Bay are not allowed.


Looks good to me. The only thing I would question is if the craigslist-type sites should be included in the last statement. Maybe something to the effect of:
"Links to public auctions or classifieds sites are not allowed."

Could be worded better but I think you get my drift.


EDIT: Great minds must think alike, huh Matt?

[Matt Meiser]

EDIT: Great minds must think alike, huh Matt?

What are you accusing me of? :D

I also just thought that a statement that the decisions of the moderators and/or adminstrators will be considered final and not subject to public debate.

[Steve Clardy]

Ken. I'll need to go back through here, but I do not remember anyone stating, wanting direct linking to Ebay.

All I've ever wanted on the Ebay thing, was to get it in the TOS, to eliminate confusion to old and new members.

And as I have said before, as to the original TOS, is to clarify it, not change it completely.

Matt. I think that there are more than 10 members who do find the TOS confusing.:)

[Matt Meiser]

Matt. I think that there are more than 10 members who do find the TOS confusing.:)

I was refering to changing rules, not to clarifying them. I agree that it can be confusing, but understand them from being around.

[Jon Eckels]

I'm still a fairly new member here, and as a newer member you'll all probably discount my opinion, but here it is anyway.

The free exchange of thoughts and ideas is what the internet is here for. This may be your website, but IMO the guidelines you're describing for what is or is not a valid external link, is very similar to what China does for it's citizens.

Why should links to other forums be disallowed? Are you that worried about losing your members to another forum? This forum has far more going for it, that it shouldn't need to censor outside discussions to remain popular in the eyes of it's own members.

I can also easily think of many instances where linking to other discussions about the same topic would give folks a wider view of a topic. And since other forums will obviously have other members, there will also be other opinions, that could be very helpful in a discussion. Would you rather that entire threads be cut and pasted into SMC threads?

The original goal as I recall, was/is to quell advertising in it's many forms. To decide what it is you need to disallow, you first need to decide on what advertising is. My dictionary defines advertising as:

"To make public announcement of, especially to proclaim the qualities or advantages of (a product or business) so as to increase sales."

So. What would be a valid post then?

Here's a perfect example of a post containing advertising:
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showpost.php?p=423183&postcount=6
It contains a link to a product, and then to an online store, with a recommendation to buy. Well that would certainly fit the definition of an "advertisement". If the poster was instead, a celebrity, it would clearly be an advertisement.

But, at the same time, the poster doesn't have a directly public link to Festool or Bob Marino (at least none that I know about), and the post was very much on topic with the discussion:http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=41866
So it's ok right?

What about Sales Representatives that come in to answer questions? That would also be advertising wouldn't it? I know there are plenty of salesmen that visit the Creek, so what happens when they answer a question in a thread about one of their products? There may not be a link involved, but if their post at all describes a positive quality about their product, it wouldn't be a stretch of the imagination at all to say that they're advertising. Why should that be allowed? Perhaps members shouldn't be allowed to ask questions about any sorts of products at all? That way there's no chance of anyone ever being able to advertise and this golden system of limited discussion can continue! Remember, the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

I hope you can taste the sarcasm.

My point is, if you want to stop advertisers, stop the blatant ones. If it has to be debated on if something is an advertisement or not, then leave it alone. It's not worth the stress, or the frustration, on the parts of the members, or the mods.

[Ted Jay]

.................................

[Mark Rios]

I went back and reread this thread and a thought came to mind that I'd like to bring up.

I hope to speak for more than a few others and say that, while there are disagreements here in this thread that are getting hashed out and probably not everyone will be completely happy with the outcome, you bosses and mods have our (mine anyway) appreciation for your efforts. I just wanted to kinda throw this out to make sure that it doesn't get lost while the bosses and mods read complaint after complaint amidst the random helpful posts.

I'm not meaning for this post to seem like another "I love you Mr. Moderator" fest, just a reminder in the middle of a tough bit of extra work. The disagreements and personality differences will still be there but......here's an electronic handshake.....a guy-type shoulder bump.....and a Thanks. Even to Ken.;)



Okay, we now go back to the hashing out...................

[Ian Barley]

I'm still a fairly new member here, and as a newer member you'll all probably discount my opinion, but here it is anyway..Stick around a little longer and you will see that it does not work that way. Contribution is contribution regardless of its source.


The free exchange of thoughts and ideas is what the internet is here for. This may be your website, but IMO the guidelines you're describing for what is or is not a valid external link, is very similar to what China does for it's citizens. Not really. The last time I checked nobody asked for your passport when you typed in another URL to leave and go another forum of your choice. The free exchange of ideas can take place in all kinds of venues. Each venue will have its own conventions. Anybody who dislikes the timbre of one forum has plenty of other choices. I have made mine and you should make yours as well.


Why should links to other forums be disallowed? Are you that worried about losing your members to another forum? This forum has far more going for it, that it shouldn't need to censor outside discussions to remain popular in the eyes of it's own members. To restate an earlier post of mine. The simple characteristic that forums have that other types of sites do not (to the same extent) is volatility. Innocuous links today may become less so tomorrow and it is not practical to keep track of such changes. Nobody is seeking to censor outside discussions. Some of them are important and interesting and I am pleased that they take place where they do. But they remain "outside" of the purpose and business of Sawmill Creek. Lots of members is good but as far as I am concerned the people who are here are here because of the way it is. If we had just found the last person on the planet who shares our view of how a forum should be conducted then we should not change our ways to try and attract more.
...

The original goal as I recall, was/is to quell advertising in it's many forms... Among other things. Advertising is certainly not welcome. Neither is rudeness, profanity, pornography etc... The TOS are aimed at restricting all of these things and have done a pretty good job to date.


Here's a perfect example of a post containing advertising....Except that Dave does not, as far as any of us is aware, have a "direct commercial affiliation" as defined in the TOS. If Bob Marino had posted that (he wouldn't) then it would be deleted. Maybe Dave is Bob's dupe (I don't think that he is really) and if all he did was make posts like that quoted it would get noticed. Many people here have recommended Bob because of good experiences. Why shouldn't Dave?


What about Sales Representatives that come in to answer questions? That would also be advertising wouldn't it?.....Not really.

"Does anybody know the chuck capacity of the wibble-wobble 5000?" asks member 1
"12mm" answers member 2 who just happens to be the national product manager of the wibble-wobble 5000
= Not advertising

"Does anybody know the chuck capacity of the wibble-wobble 5000?" asks member 1
"The wibble-wobble 5000 represents a great leap forward in safety and functionality and is made entirely from compressed iguana eylashes and has a chuck capacity of 12mm" answers member 2 who just happens to be the national product manager of the wibble-wobble 5000
=Advertising

We have been dealing, successfully, with this issue within our TOS for a few years now and that kinda shows that they do roughly the job that we are looking for them to do. But I agree that they can be clarified as a way of reinforcing their effectiveness, not as a way of changing their intent.


My point is, if you want to stop advertisers, stop the blatant ones. If it has to be debated on if something is an advertisement or not, then leave it alone. It's not worth the stress, or the frustration, on the parts of the members, or the mods. I could not agree more.

[Keith Outten]

Our Terms of Service will be modified to specifically exclude links to auction and other classified sales web sites. Other than that our rules are not changing.

Aaron will also make an effort to make the TOS more clear and concise.

Long ago I offered to work on our Frequently Asked Questions to include some explanation of our policies. I have been making a few notes concerning the key subjects and will publish a new FAQ in the near future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record we will not allow advertising within our Forums here at SMC as long as it is Member suppported. There will be advertising in our new ShopTours module we are planning. The SMC Shop Tours will be a major bandwidth consumer and will require serious revenue to pay for server and bandwidth support. This is a business decision that I have made since SawMill Creek and our new ShopTours Module will both function as a division of my sign company (Northwind Associates), in the same manner that SMC has been owned by Hampton Roads Online since its inception.

[John Bailey]

I

I'm not meaning for this post to seem like another "I love you Mr. Moderator" fest, ..........

I would like this post to be considered an "I love you Mr. Moderator" post.

Thanks folks!!

John

[Matt Warfield]

I have been making a few notes concerning the key subjects and will publish a new FAQ in the near future.


That's a great way to provide work arounds to hard and fast rules in the TOS. For example TOS states: Direct links to auction sites are not permitted. FAQ offers: List auction site name and auction number as a reference.

Here's my hash at the clause for hyperlinks:

Direct links to material outside the realm of SMC and germaine to the topic at hand are permitted and encouraged with the following exceptions: (i) No direct links to internet auction sites. (ii) No direct links to forums or blogs. (iii) No direct links which fall under the advertising restriction of this Terms of Service. (iv) No direct links to any material which would be publicly rated 'R' or stronger. (v) No direct links to classified advertising sites.

Adding protocol for providing information to access auction, classified, and external forum material should be provided in an FAQ and not muddled up in the TOS. If I've said something different before, well then I've changed my mind. :D

Matt

[Jason Roehl]

...Moderators would be required to check each link to insure it's validity to the subject matter of the thread in which it is posted. For someone to even suggest this is a trival task is pure foolishness.
...
In order to insure these links do not contain offensive material, platent advertisments, profanity, political or religious controversy, general personal bashing, etc, etc would necessitate a moderator review that forum thread.
...


Ken, remember that you yourself (and Keith and Aaron) have stated in the past that this forum is largely member-moderated, which I think is good. Most of us appreciate all the hard work that all the moderators put in, but I think you may be a bit off base if you believe you would have to review all exterior links. Let us do that. We'd let you know if there was offensive content. There are enough members reading at various times throughout the day that nothing would get by for very long. The moderators have the SMC permissions necessary to remove offensive links or content, the members don't. But we can point it out, and 8000 sets of eyes will find it much quicker than than the 6 or so moderators we do have. That way, rather than the mods having to sift through all posted content, they are directed to what needs attention.

As for links going stale, I understand that they would be of no use for future perusal, but does that mean we can't benefit from their current value while the link is valid?

Aaron, I appreciate this thread--it's good to review the TOS from time to time to make sure it is still timely.

I would also make the open suggestion that if there are future threads related to how SMC is run, that the moderators let them run their course. We (the members) would make sure there is no profanity, name-calling and the like, but by allowing the discussion to continue, maybe something positive could come of it. When they get locked or deleted, there's no question that it appears to be heavy-handedness, whether it actually is or not. When they get deleted, then many can't learn from why the thread went south and adjust their own approach accordingly.

Or, post a graphic of a 1mm x 1mm box and tell the members to post their complaints there--and write legibly. :D

[Frank Fusco]

In certain circles, I am getting very unpopular. Others support my complaint. To my way of thinking, one person in a position of authority (whether public or private) trying to control what another adult reads is the antitheses of everything American. At the risk of insulting Aaron again, I believe that someone who believes he should control what others read has a major case of super-megalomania.
I am also concerned by the quick closing of threads that dare to challenge the people who run SMC. The moderating is not consistent. It has been said that posts with links to other forums are not deleted. Mine have been deleted.
But, as Tod pointed out, it is their sandbox. If the rules are not changed to conform to American values, I will have to decide whether to stay or go.
As a former newspaper editor and editorial writer, I may be more sensitive to this issue than others. Never have I, and never will I allow my (American) freedoms of expression to be trampled on.
I'll not comment further publicly.

[Bob Weisner]

A direct external link is against the rules , but would just posting an EBAY auction item number be against the rules? It would not be a true external link, such as typing ebay.com , just saying something like, " I saw a great tablesaw on ebay and this is the item # " I don't see that as a direct link because the person has to go to the other site and type in the item number to see what it is.

[Aaron Koehl]

Aaron said (in part) "I suppose it stems from my comment about not being able to moderate what we're linking to, which also has some merit."

Aaron, just the fact you are considering wanting to be able to moderate content of other forums strikes me as a totaly repugnant dictatorship mentality. Sorry to be so strong. We aren't Red China or North Korea and you aren't (I hope) ambitious to be that kind of leader. You are thinking about that philosophy, that is good.

Frank:

I don't see any suggestions on clarifying the existing terms of service here. However, I've given thought to your statements, so let me see if I can shed some light on your logical progression. Fortunately, we have the benefit of being able to learn from things that other people have invested lots of time thinking about.

I've included a link that I'd like for you to read. It's a good (imo) philosophical argument on the difference between moderation and censorship (http://www.communityanswers.com/responses.asp?ID=99) as it relates to online community building.

The question I pose is: On which side of this argument do you wish to stand? (Please do not answer)

Also, Moderators, please read!!
(Article credit: CommunityAnswers.com)
(Note: Link is to an article, not a discussion forum)

[Aaron Koehl]

A direct external link is against the rules , but would just posting an EBAY auction item number be against the rules? It would not be a true external link, such as typing ebay.com , just saying something like, " I saw a great tablesaw on ebay and this is the item # " I don't see that as a direct link because the person has to go to the other site and type in the item number to see what it is.

This is mentioned in my journal post. However, posting the article numbers are allowed, so long as they conform in spirit to our lack of advertising. Ken covers this pretty well with an example.

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

Aaron thanks for linking to that, it is a good read, and excellent food for thought.


As a former newspaper editor and editorial writer, I may be more sensitive to this issue than others. Never have I, and never will I allow my (American) freedoms of expression to be trampled on.

Frank, newspaper editors censor the news all the time, primarily by deciding what make the paper and what does not. Newspaper editors do not moderate the newspaper, so you were a censor! ;) :D

BTW, your valued "(American) freedoms of expression" does not exist here, except by the good graces of the people who own this "Private" forum.

Cheers!

[nic obie]

OK then, so if I understand this right, it's ok to mention ebay and the auction # but not create a direct link to it, and it's ok to mention a discussion at another forum but not link to it.

Sorry guys but that seems rather silly to me. The only thing that is being accomplished is creating more work for the forum reader.

I say allow the links and depend on the members to notify the mods. It will get done faster that way than banning links and waiting for the mods to read the post. Remember, members will break the rules anyway (inadvertently I'm sure ;). So matter what the rules say posts will have to be moved/deleted or what not anyway.

One other suggestion I have is to change the ! graphic to one that says, "Report this post". I might even help a bit to color it red too.

[Jim Becker]

might even help a bit to color it red too.

Um...it is red, more or less... ;)

45971

[John Shuk]

OK then, so if I understand this right, it's ok to mention ebay and the auction # but not create a direct link to it, and it's ok to mention a discussion at another forum but not link to it.

Sorry guys but that seems rather silly to me. The only thing that is being accomplished is creating more work for the forum reader.

I say allow the links and depend on the members to notify the mods. It will get done faster that way than banning links and waiting for the mods to read the post. Remember, members will break the rules anyway (inadvertently I'm sure ;). So matter what the rules say posts will have to be moved/deleted or what not anyway.

One other suggestion I have is to change the ! graphic to one that says, "Report this post". I might even help a bit to color it red too.

Since the forum here is free and the mods aren't paid maybe a lttle extra work for the forum member is justified.
I don't find it all that difficult to abide by the TOS. I've posted links to auctions and they were deleted. So if I really think it is a good thing to post I'll cut and paste the auction #. Cut and paste link or auction # = same amount of work really. If it says no links to other forums then for better or worse that is what I do. I have really tried to avoid saying that we shouldn't look a real gem of a gifthorse in the mouth. I don't see anyone's freedom of expression being trampled on here since there are alot of other forums on the web to say what you like.

[nic obie]

Um...it is red, more or less... ;)

45971


Bigger BIGGER pls Report this post

Good job Mr. Becker. I can see you've been doing this for awhile.

Much thanks :D

[nic obie]

[QUOTE=John Shuk]Since the forum here is free and the mods aren't paidQUOTE]

Hi John,

Maybe only the ones that pay should get to link?

Hahahahahaa

[Jim O'Dell]

Aaron, and all. If we intend to keep this site commercial free, and I agree that we should, then keeping the spirit of the current rules in place about not allowing direct links to advertisements or other forums should stand. It is not our place to govern what the other forums have on their pages...that is their duty. Opening up dirct links to those would create an additional burden on our moderators to have to look at all of them, then decide if they were appropriate for this forum. I believe having the direct links could be seen as endorsing the information. I agree with giving enough information for the others to find the information on their own. At that point, it is his or her responsibility to make sure if it is something they want to read, or have others with them see.
I have in the past, when answering someone's post looking for something specific, sent a PM with the direct link. That way I can help the person looking, not create any work for the Mods, and not run afoul of the TOS. Is it more work? Yeah, a little. SO??


I suggest clarify by saying something like: "Direct links to other forums or to commercial sites where something is offered for sale are prohibited. Links to articles related to the topic in a particular post is encouraged. If someone is looking for specific information on another fourm or on a commercial site, then please send any links via private message."
Hope this helps. Jim.

[Steve Clardy]

I suggest clarify by saying something like: "Direct links to other forums or to commercial sites where something is offered for sale are prohibited. Links to articles related to the topic in a particular post is encouraged. If someone is looking for specific information on another fourm or on a commercial site, then please send any links via private message."
Hope this helps. Jim
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Well stated Jim. Easy to understand.:)

[Jim Becker]

I think we have to be careful about the "direct links to commercial sites" mentioned in the previous two posts and consider intent as we do now. Prohibiting them entirely would be very limiting on the community to effectively discuss tools and materials. While we cannot allow businesses to advertise--direct promotional activity, it would be nearly impossible to exclude links to these firms. Consider how often folks will refer to something at Amazon, Grizzly, Lee Valley, etc...

Of course, this means that the community must continue to place their trust in the moderators and administrators to make judgment calls...and respect them for it.

[Per Swenson]

Sorry guys but that seems rather silly to me. The only thing that is being accomplished is creating more work for the forum reader.






Maybe I don't get it.

Nic, work is pushing a wheel barrow full of 12 inch concrete blocks
on a 20 degree grade. Pulling 22 foot rafters too a three story frame.
Getting your 16 year old to brush his teeth.
I do not think cutting and pasting qualifies.

Per

[Frank Hagan]

Here's my contribution to this issue:



E. Commercial Advertising
...snip...
3. External Linking

1. Links to other websites are allowed in posts.
2. In fact, they are encouraged.
3. However, links for the sole purpose of marketing, generating traffic to a site, or any other commercial advertisement deemed to solicit commercial benefit are not allowed.
4. Links to other public or private forums are not allowed.
5. Links should be submitted as references, for the sole purpose of generating or supporting discussions on SawMill Creek.


Eliminate #2 as it is redundant, and expand #1 to include the idea that the link should have some context with the post itself, as others have mentioned.

Under the current #3, include the phrase "affilliate links," after "generating traffic to a site," because these can be hard to spot. Many on-line retailers have affilliate programs, and I'm a member of a couple of them for my other sites (its how I support those sites). But when I post about something available on Amazon.com, I don't use my affilliate code in the link, and I link directly to Amazon.com and not my affilliate store. I'm always suspicious of posts by people to a site that is merely an affilliate of Amazon.com ... but you wouldn't know "InternetToolWorld.com" is really an Amazon.com affilliate until you click through and pay on Amazon.com's site. The affilliate gets from 4 to 8% of the sale, so its worth trolling forums and dumping links in, saying the product is the cat's meow, even if you have never used the product.

Finally, elsewhere in the TOS, you might consider eliminating the "meta discussions" about moderation issues. A reader who has a concern should PM the moderator first and not post in the open forums, as those greatly detract from the environment on SMC, and can embarrass the person who has been moderated. In the PM, the user can ask that the moderation issue be opened up for general discussion, but that should be the decision of the management team. Otherwise, you will get a lot of disruptive discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with the core topics that SMC should be about.

[nic obie]

Maybe I don't get it.

Nic, work is pushing a wheel barrow full of 12 inch concrete blocks
on a 20 degree grade. Pulling 22 foot rafters too a three story frame.
Getting your 16 year old to brush his teeth.
I do not think cutting and pasting qualifies.

Per

Hahahahaha per,

I said 'more' work. the key word was ~ More ~ .

I'm sure you don't do anything unnecessary to get the job done. I know I don't.

Anyway, this whole thing is moot as they will do what ever they want. If anything, this thread is just contributing tension. :cool:

[Steve Clardy]

Any progress yet Aaron?

[Damien Falgoust]

Other Forums. Again the problem is the extent of the work involved in making sure that they are the kind of discussion that we, by coming here, have chosen to be involved in. Somebody posts a link today and the other forum is all lovely and friendly as checked by one of our mods. Tomorrow Sammy the spammer goes onto that forum which is not moderated and posts links to a bunch of porn sites. Everybody still happy?? The problem with forums is that their content is more variable and volatile than other types of websites that could be linked to. I believe that an explicit statement that links to other public forums are not allowed is perfectly reasonable and conducive to SMC maintaining the character that we work at creating here. If it makes me elitist to not want to be involved in a childish brawl then I am elitist. All of these objections are categorically bogus. Let's address each of these arguments, and others like it, one by one:

1. A forum may change in character overnight, turning into a hive of scum and villany.

First of all, where is the objective evidence for this? I see it asserted plenty of times, but no actual concrete examples. Web forums aren't like radio stations that just change formats at the drop of a hat.

Secondly -- and this will be a recurring theme here -- the same exact thing could be said of any ordinary web page. SMC has no control over the content of any external website, whether it is a forum, a magazine, or a personal web page, or something else entirely. It is inconsistent to say it's a problem that a web forum may, post-link, decide to accept, say, porn ads, but completely discount that any web page, post-link, may decide to do the same.

2. Sammy Spammer may go post a bunch of porn links on an unmoderated forum.

Even if this were to happen, it is highly unlikely to be done in an existing thread. Spammers generally start new threads (usually with provocative titles) in order to maximize their exposure to the forum membership.

This argument also implies SMC's rule is overly broad: while there are several "wild west" unmoderated forums on the web, most of them are in fact moderated. Many disallow posting pictures entirely. I'm fairly certain that most other woodworking forums -- which are the most likely candidates for linking here -- are in fact moderated.

Finally, to reiterate my main point, this is true of other types of websites as well. Shall we disallow linking to personal home pages with blogs because the comments section will sometimes be abused by the unscrupulous?

3. Forum links often break, reducing their value as a source of archival value.

Well, welcome to the internet. Broken links are part of the landscape. If that's you're argument, you may as well ban all linking, because other web pages often do simply disappear into the void with no warning. If anything, forum content, due to its public-participation character, is more persistent -- less likely to die due to a forgotten domain name renewal or a magazine's decision to only show current content.

Plus, this argument makes the perfect the enemy of the good: yes, forum content may be unavailable two years hence, but it is available now and is thus useful in discussions taking place in the present day. Sure, it'd be great if it stuck around forever, but why shouldn't it be allowed as a benefit in the here and now?

4. The moderators would need to examine every facet of a forum linked, and they don't have the time.

Give me a break. You don't need to vet every page of every thread on a linked forum. If someone links to a personal web page, do you vet the entirety of that site as well?

If your concern is porn and the like, that can be checked swiftly by clicking the link and skimming the linked thread. Boobs are generally not hidden away on a forum that permits pornography.

Of course, the simpler and more sensible way to manage this is on a user-complaint manner: that is, you don't need to vet a site unless someone actually complains about the content. People who post links to genuinely objectionable sites should be taken out to the woodshed (this alone should be a sufficient deterrent).

The TOC doesn't contain a line to this effect, but it should (Hampton Roads may need better legal counsel): "SMC is not responsible for the content of any third party web site, and user disclaims any and all causes of action against SMC related to the content of any third party web site." The TOC does contain an acknowledgment that users are solely responsible for content they upload, and the definition clearly encompasses links. Further, I think both of those things are common sense. No one expects the mods to preemptively catch every nasty thing that might be seen on the internet; no one expects you to act as a nanny.

5. I surf SMC with little Suzy or Johnny on my lap, and don't want them to see something naughty.

To my fellow posters: for God's sake, exercise some common sense. You can see the url a link leads to by looking at your browser's status bar. If a link leads to a well-known woodworking forum, you're fine. If it leads to www.sexynakedwoodworkingforum.com (http://www.sexynakedwoodworkingforum.com), you might want to wait for little Suzy or Johnny to leave the room. And if you're not sure, then just make a mental note to come back to the link later when the kiddos are away.

I also note that this distinction doesn't make a lick of sense, because objectionable content can reside on forums and ordinary web pages. Why do you need the mods to protect you from www.sexynakedwoodworkingforum.com (http://www.sexynakedwoodworkingforum.com), but not www.sexynakedwoodworking.com (http://www.sexynakedwoodoworking.com?)?

(Please note, none of those links go to anything, although I'm sure a bunch of you wish they did. :))

[Damien Falgoust]

Finally, elsewhere in the TOS, you might consider eliminating the "meta discussions" about moderation issues. A reader who has a concern should PM the moderator first and not post in the open forums, as those greatly detract from the environment on SMC, and can embarrass the person who has been moderated. In the PM, the user can ask that the moderation issue be opened up for general discussion, but that should be the decision of the management team. Otherwise, you will get a lot of disruptive discussions that have absolutely nothing to do with the core topics that SMC should be about. I categorically disagree. As long as such discussions are placed in the proper forum (presumably, the support forum), they are fine.

We benefit from more discussion, not less. Public discussions of moderation practices and policies are a net benefit to the moderators (and thus to the forums), even if they are uncomfortable at times, because they help them to gauge the views of the membership.

And the existence of such discussions ought not to rest on the moderator's whim. Moderators are only human, and as such are unlikely to be able to objectively assess a complaint about their moderation. If you only allow moderators to open discussion of moderation practices and policies, you'll essentially never get such discussions.

[Damien Falgoust]

I suggest clarify by saying something like: "Direct links to other forums or to commercial sites where something is offered for sale are prohibited. Links to articles related to the topic in a particular post is encouraged. If someone is looking for specific information on another fourm or on a commercial site, then please send any links via private message." Does this mean I could not link to an article at a major woodworking magazine's website? All of them offer subscriptions for purchase at their websites, and many offer books and other media for sale as well. Indeed, the whole reason they offer the odd free article is to generate interest that will convert into a paid subscription.

[Glenn Clabo]

All of these objections are categorically bogus.

As a lawyer you may understand this....

You have the right to remain silent...everything you don't say from now on will not be held against you...:p

[Damien Falgoust]

Well, gee, I'd hope that pointing out obvious flaws in some not-so-well-thought-out rationales wouldn't be held against me in any case...

[David Rose]

This forum is not a democracy. It is privately owned. Is that a dictatorship? That is fine with me. We who support it here do so understanding that we must follow the rules. Yes, I support it, as I am willing to go along with the rules. If I don't like the rules, I will quit supporting it. I don't care if the "4-letter f-word (Ford)" is omitted and disallowed to be used. I am not a Ford person anyway, so that means nothing. :D But really guys, you who wish to have no control over what you say or do, please go away. I really don't believe that anyone exists who wants no control. I think the disagreement exists over WHAT is controlled and HOW it is controlled. I enjoy having a place where I do not have to have interaction to determine what is right or wrong. I enjoy having a place where it appears that I agree with most of it, and I can choose whether I want to stay. Isn't this simple? Go or stay.

I guess the point is, this is not a democratic location. I, among others, do not object to that as long as it does not creep into our areas of boundaries. I would much rather support those who support my ideals than those who do not. In other words, you can bounce around OUTSIDE my boundaries all you want. If you get inside them, them I start to have struggles. Much bouncing, and you are cut off.

Ken, I am sorry that you get caught in the middle. But I want to say that I highly approve of your performance. I think you are a "good" man. And I give you many thanks. And yeah, I miss some of the stuff that you cut. But that is OK, I will live with it.

David, who will fight to the death for freedom

[Steve Clardy]

Our Terms of Service will be modified to specifically exclude links to auction and other classified sales web sites. Other than that our rules are not changing.

Aaron will also make an effort to make the TOS more clear and concise.

Long ago I offered to work on our Frequently Asked Questions to include some explanation of our policies. I have been making a few notes concerning the key subjects and will publish a new FAQ in the near future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record we will not allow advertising within our Forums here at SMC as long as it is Member suppported. There will be advertising in our new ShopTours module we are planning. The SMC Shop Tours will be a major bandwidth consumer and will require serious revenue to pay for server and bandwidth support. This is a business decision that I have made since SawMill Creek and our new ShopTours Module will both function as a division of my sign company (Northwind Associates), in the same manner that SMC has been owned by Hampton Roads Online since its inception.



This will be a seperate web site? Or linked to SMC?

[Keith Outten]

Steve,

THe SMC shop tours will be part of the SawMill Creek domain so it will be linked to our Forums in various ways.

The SMC ShopTours will be physically located on its own server and have its own bandwidth. This will prevent any performance issues from crossing over between either of the servers, basically keeping our Forums from any slowdown due to increased shop tours traffic. There will be some increased value to our Forum via access to the Shop Tours database but this feature is still under developement as are others that we don't want to share just yet. It is not our intention to have just another web based shop tour site, what we are planning is way beyond that with a full-feature list that we think will be extremely versitile and efficient. Our Shop Tours will not be based on commercial software, Aaron is providing all of the programming and integration of web server to database.

The Shop Tours feature will have its own Terms of Service.

.