We’ve never interpreted that rule that way, and it would be totally impractical to do so.
Obviously.
So it can’t be taken that way. That’s informing people and it wouldn’t be a reasonable interpretation of the word promote.
What is a reasonable interpretation of the word promote then?
I think the word promote suggests an effort to raise money or drive traffic to a site, for example. That means the primary purpose of mentioning the website or starting the thread is getting people to fund the campaign or buy a product or increase traffic. If the sites are mentioned as citations or examples in a discussion of types of websites, those things aren’t the primary goal. In some instances I’m sure it’s a fine line in some instances, but I think that would work as a guideline.
So, in a thread about a tv show, a link to a website where you can purchase the DVDs would be promotion or information?
But that may not have been the intent of the Kickstarter thread; it seemed to merely to raise awareness of a documentary that potentially was to be made.
So out of curiosity – assuming the request *would’ve *been approved, if ultrafilter were to ask now, would you allow the same post in a new thread?
Or because he was a naughty boy and didn’t go through proper channels, is his cannonball forrrrrever banned?
It depends on the context. If it’s a thread asking if the show is out on the DVD, it might just be information. If it’s a general discussion of the show, that sounds more like spam. Most of us already know that Amazon exists.
ultrafilter was posting about the campaign to fund the documentary, not just the documentary itself. The thread was called “Kickstarter for a documentary on James Randi.” I admit it might not be easy to distinguish between a thread about a crowdsourcing effort and actual promotion of that effort, but if people are going to post threads that are basically about fundraising efforts, we want them to go through us so we can ask questions if necessary and make sure it’s not something inappropriate or about something we don’t want on this board.
Yes.
That’s a really, really fine line the administration is drawing (or is it still being discussed and the line still amorphous)?
And it is “better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission”, though I’ve been known to knowingly mangle and twist quotes when it serves my purpose.
Nothing about “the line” is changing. We’re discussing what rules apply to sites like Kickstarter.
Every single time someone has quoted that line to me after doing something they knew to ask permission for, I told them that they were wrong, and that they weren’t forgiven.
I hate that saying.
Which means they got to do what they wanted, and suffered mean looks from you. Compare that to their alternative: no mean looks and no getting to do what they wanted; or doing what they wanted and ultra-mean looks. Begging forgiveness afterward is often worth the cost, no matter your feelings on the saying.
That said, I think the rule is being interpreted too harshly here. Talking about a kickstarter for a documentary seems very much like telling about an upcoming movie. To see the Randi documentary, you have to pay the Kickstarter; to see the theater movie, you have to buy a ticket. In both examples, the OP is focused on the content of the movie. The only reason the Kickstarter one contained Kickstarter information, including a link, is that folks are less familiar with the process for exchanging money to watch a movie via that format.
If the Randi documentary were in theaters, and the OP had contained a link to a list of theaters where it was playing, it seems to me that it would have been exactly equivalent to the OP as posted. Would that be verboten?
So you’re confirming that it was definitely better for them to just go ahead and do something without asking you first since you would have said no.
The saying doesn’t mean “Don’t worry, you’ll be forgiven” it means “If you don’t want to create obstacles for yourself, don’t give someone a chance to give you one.”
To me it means, “I’ll do it anyway, and if she/he gets upset I’ll just promise not to do it again.” Some obstacles are there for a very good reason, and most aren’t there just to make it harder for you.
It’s also useful when dealing with a pointy-haired boss. Solve the problem first, THEN let the boss tell you it can’t be done.
You don’t have to pay the Kickstarter to see the Randi movie. If I wanted I could wait for it to come to theaters or buy a DVD or watch it on, say, HBO depending on how it’s released. And when you buy a movie ticket, you pay a defined amount of money.
No. We’ve probably had threads like that for movies in very limited release.
Perhaps I’m being slow, but it seems to me that all those differences work in this case’s favor. The only difference is that the OP here suggests mass, rather than individual, action in order to enable everyone, rather than an individual, to see the movie. But unlike the hypothetical theater thread, people who don’t want to engage in the action can still see the movie, so the required action is unnecessary for any individual reader. Both the real and the hypothetical threads have their focus on the content of the movie.
I don’t think the goal of the “no calls to action” rule are served well by the mod actions in this case. Perhaps the letter of the rule is served, but certainly not the spirit; and in serving the debatable letter of the rule, twickster has denied us an interesting, relevant thread. As a compromise, perhaps the thread could be reopened, absent the link, so that the movie could be discussed?
I’ve seen (and contributed to) threads where someone asks “Where can I buy such-and-such a part”, where everyone responding gives their favorite company website for buying that part. Is this in violation of the bolded part, or is that on the right side of the ‘fine line’?
Actually, that’s the entire point of the saying. You know Pointy won’t give you permission, because you know he either won’t understand the problem, or won’t understand that the proposed solution is the best (or only) solution, so it’s better not to give him a chance to object before hand. Present him with a fait-accompli and get forgiveness retroactively, due to success, rather than ask permission, get refused, and watch the preventable failure happen.
In other words, it really doesn’t apply to this MB, or especially this situation.