Terms of Service Revision

[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 !!

[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

[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?

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...83&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.

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.