Terms of Service Revision

[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 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!

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...

ScreenHunter_084.jpg

[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...

ScreenHunter_084.jpg

Bigger BIGGER pls Report this post

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

Much thanks

[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.