# Questions about the "other" boards **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [March 3, 2009, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133 "2009-03-03T12:31:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/41 "2009-03-04T18:49:46Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Since his first posting elicited the mod response - **that’s** why I’m questioning it. That’s incorrect. It was his third posting when I first stepped in and asked him to stop with the spam. His first and second links gathered no response (at the time) until it became obvious he was pushing an agenda. Then he was politely asked to follow the board rules. > [@](#): > > And in short, your second quoting of the rules would suggest that **Opal** should have gotten admonished for her acts (repeatedly) in that thread. To begin with, I haven’t read through Opal’s thread, nor do I recall you reporting it. It’s kind of silly to ask us why we didn’t do anything about a thread when you weren’t even sure if we saw it in the first place. Those kinds of gotcha games are tiring and serve no useful purpose. > [@](#): > > And, it seems that every citing of any other site would be subject to the same thing, then. I know you don’t want/mean to have folks running and asking if it’s ok to link to [cnn.com](http://cnn.com) or [us.gov](http://us.gov) to prove a point. And there’s no shortage of links to a wide variety of stuff. There’s a pretty bright line between linking to a site because it’s relevant to the conversation, and linking to one hoping to promote it. > [@](#): > > what I’m trying to get clear on is: How is a poster supposed to figure out which links you’ll perceive as spam and which are not (please again, the issue of **Baldwin’s** repeating it after being asked to drop it is a straw man in this question). _Especially_ since, I would believe the average poster to figure out that “if I have a financial interest in the cite, I’d best ask first”, would have included **Opal** but not **Baldwin** You’re misunderstanding what happened with **Baldwin**. As I explained above, he was asked to curtail the linking _after_ it became obvious that he was promoting another site; up until that point, his links were not commented on or restricted. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/42 "2009-03-04T18:54:20Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > There’s a pretty bright line between linking to a site because it’s relevant to the conversation, and linking to one hoping to promote it. > . Just hopping on this one. **Opal** _started the thread promoting a web site that promoted her artwork_ How on gods green earth is that **not** considered “linking to one hoping to promote it”? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/43 "2009-03-04T19:00:51Z")
And in answer to the “it was after repeated mentions”. His first link (unrbroken) in that thread elicited a warning by you **Skip**. Again - my issue that I feel you’ve not clarified is "Why was that particular one considered spam needing a warning to not do it again, and **Opals** not? as to why I didn’t report the Opal thing at the time - I only was led to that thread by another discussion later in time, where some one was upset at her link not being deleted. I’ve tried searching here for what thread led me there, but, well, you know what the problems are with the search engine. Without standing on my head, with one hand behind my back while squinting my left eye and using a telescope on the other, I cannot see why **Baldwin’s** link was considered Spam worthy of warning, and **Opals** is/was not. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/44 "2009-03-04T19:13:10Z")
Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown or whatever that quote is. Alternatively, it’s very simple. One was posted by **Opalcat** , gloried be her name. The other by a known troublemaker and malcontent. Can’t you see the difference? ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/45 "2009-03-04T19:19:40Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Just hopping on this one. **Opal** _started the thread promoting a web site that promoted her artwork_ How on gods green earth is that **not** considered “linking to one hoping to promote it”? No, **Opal** started a thread discussing how one of her pieces of art was featured on a web site. She then linked to that site, which is expected, because it’s relevant to the conversation. She didn’t even mention money until someone else brought it up and she responded. And reading through the thread now, I don’t see where she’s asking Dopers to buy her stuff. I do see her talking about her financial expectations in general, but she’s not asking anyone to buy her art. What she hasn’t done, and what **Baldwin** had, was link to the same site in numerous threads regardless of the link’s relevancy. > [@wring](#): > > And in answer to the “it was after repeated mentions”. His first link (unrbroken) in that thread elicited a warning by you Skip. With due respect, that’s incorrect: [ul] [li][First link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10889133#post10889133), 02-28-09, unedited and not mentioned by any mod.[/li][li][Second link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10892673#post10892673), 03-01-09, unedited until after **Baldwin** was admonished for spamming (a day later). [/li][li][Third link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10894021#post10894021), 03-02-09, the point in which I stepped in and asked him to stop. You’ll note that it wasn’t a warning, but a simple–but official–request. He received his first warning when he posted the same link immediately after I asked him not to.[/ul][/li] > [@Inner Stickler](#): > > Alternatively, it’s very simple. One was posted by Opalcat, gloried be her name. The other by a known troublemaker and malcontent. Can’t you see the difference? This, too, is silly. **Opal** has been on the [receiving end](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505002) of closed threads because she failed to ask permission. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/46 "2009-03-04T19:34:46Z")
> [@SkipMagic](#): > > No, **Opal** started a thread discussing how one of her pieces of art was featured on a web site. She then linked to that site, which is expected, because it’s relevant to the conversation. She didn’t even mention money until someone else brought it up and she responded. And reading through the thread now, I don’t see where she’s asking Dopers to buy her stuff. I do see her talking about her financial expectations in general, but she’s not asking anyone to buy her art. What she hasn’t done, and what **Baldwin** had, was link to the same site in numerous threads regardless of the link’s relevancy. > > With due respect, that’s incorrect: > [ul] > [li][First link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10889133#post10889133), 02-28-09, unedited and not mentioned by any mod.[/li][li][Second link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10892673#post10892673), 03-01-09, unedited until after **Baldwin** was admonished for spamming (a day later). [/li][li][Third link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10894021#post10894021), 03-02-09, the point in which I stepped in and asked him to stop. You’ll note that it wasn’t a warning, but a simple–but official–request. He received his first warning when he posted the same link immediately after I asked him not to.[/ul][/li]This, too, is silly. **Opal** has been on the [receiving end](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=505002) of closed threads because she failed to ask permission. So, Baldwin mentions the site in 3 places in threads of general interest over the span of 3 days, and that’s Spam. Opal’s mentioning several times in one thread places where folks can buy her artwork and REPEATS it in a second thread 2 days later (not in response to threads of general interest, but in her own self promotional threads) and that’s not. Odd, since you apparently also saw a problem with the second and closed it (though not removing links). Riiiiiiight. Since you closed the one, you saw a problem with it. You failed to delete the links, however. We simply really disagree, strongly. Given the lack of clarity, I would not feel comfortable linking to **any** other site for fear it would be considered spamming. It’ll be especially difficult to answer any call for cites, since [msn.com](http://msn.com) is obviously promoting NBC, etc. and even though I have absolutely no financial interest in NBC or any of it’s affiliates, it seems that personal gain is not at all involved in the evaluation of a link. Ya’ll have carved out an interesting niche. It’s only spam when we tell you it is. Got it. Makes it rather difficult to avoid, though. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/47 "2009-03-04T19:52:00Z")
> [@wring](#): > > So, Baldwin mentions the site in 3 places in threads of general interest over the span of 3 days, and that’s Spam. You’re overlooking the other three times he linked to it Monday, which finally resulted in warnings after **Baldwin** ignored requests to stop. The pattern is what made it obvious. > [@](#): > > Given the lack of clarity, I would not feel comfortable linking to **any** other site for fear it would be considered spamming. I guess you’ll do a poor job of presenting your arguments in that case. I don’t think anyone else is afraid of having any link deemed spam, so this would appear to be your loss. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/48 "2009-03-04T19:56:10Z")
Again. I strongly disagree with what y’all have carved out as your distinction. As for loss? We’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/49 "2009-03-04T20:06:55Z")
wring, do you really not see the difference between pimping your paintings and pimping a site that is meant to be in direct competition to this one? Or are you just hoping that TPTB admit to it so it leads to the next point in your argument? Opal has linked to that picture so many times that new links to it are some form of Carmen San Diego game already. Carmen was in [buymypainting.com](http://buymypainting.com) that day. Hurray for Carmen. Carry on. As pointed above, she also ran afoul of the anti-pimping rules very shortly after. Baldwin was dropping a link to domebo every other post and with domebo being a site meant to replace this one, it is no wonder that they decided to stop that at some point. The hubris of “we are not scared of the little splinter boards” can only go so long. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/50 "2009-03-04T20:10:15Z")
I don’t when folks aren’t admitting that she was “pimping”. And since most Spammers aren’t spamming with stuff that’s a competition to here, I don’t see the distinction as being relevant. Either you have a prohibtion against spam or you don’t. And I don’t see any classification that would include **Baldwins** and not include **Opals** , the contortions above included. But at this point, I will drop the issue. It’s clear to me that the clarification isn’t one that can be codified, and it will simply be the case “it’s spam if only if and when we tell you it is”. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/51 "2009-03-04T20:14:01Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > Baldwin was dropping a link to domebo every other post and with domebo being a site meant to replace this one, it is no wonder that they decided to stop that at some point. The hubris of “we are not scared of the little splinter boards” can only go so long. Out of idle curiosity, do you plan at any point to stop inventing reasons why people do things? ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/52 "2009-03-04T20:18:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Out of idle curiosity, do you plan at any point to stop inventing reasons why people do things? I, Sapo, hereby authorize Marley23 to change my username to “Sapo’s WAG about stuff” or any other change in my username or title that he deems satisfactory to cover the need for fineprint clarifying that what I am saying is just my opinion on how I see things. Sapo March the fourth of two thousand nine. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/53 "2009-03-04T20:21:07Z")
My mistake for indulging you, but regardless, I’m just wondering where you get your material. I can never figure out where it’s coming from. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/54 "2009-03-04T20:26:12Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > My mistake for indulging you, but regardless, I’m just wondering where you get your material. I can never figure out where it’s coming from. No outside source. Just how I see things. Works wonders predicting my kids’ interest in my dinner menu, sucks for their gameplay interests for a given night. It really is a mixed bag. ---
**Author:** ![SkipMagic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skipmagic/32/20706_2.png) [@SkipMagic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkipMagic)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/55 "2009-03-04T21:55:39Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Odd, since you apparently also saw a problem with the second and closed it (though not removing links). I left the links because it was reasonable to believe **Opal** would contact me (or another staff member) to receive permission. It’s happened before when charity threads were closed because of a lack of permission, and I saw no reason to remove the links when, in all likelihood, the thread would have been re-opened shortly, anyway. (Once permission was granted.) We understand that people are trying to do a good thing with charity threads, so we like to work with them as reasonably as possible. It didn’t turn out that way this time, of course, but that was the thought process. > [@wring](#): > > So, Baldwin mentions the site in 3 places in threads of general interest over the span of 3 days, and that’s Spam. When the goal is to drive traffic to and get people to sign up at another site, you betcha it’s spam. All he needed to do was ask permission to start a thread; instead, he chose to throw the link out in several threads, _regardless_ of the relevancy of the thread, and reacted poorly when he was told to follow the rules. He could have repeated his actions (with the same goal in mind) with links to my board, Una’s board, Opal’s board, the Snopes board, JREF, etc… and he would have been asked to stop just the same. > [@wring](#): > > Ya’ll have carved out an interesting niche. It’s only spam when we tell you it is. Got it. Makes it rather difficult to avoid, though. If you truly feel the situation is that difficult to understand, then I suppose we’ll be living without links from **wring**. Just don’t be surprised if you do link to [CNN](http://www.cnn.com) that no one comes down on you–much like it’s been the ten years this board’s been up and running. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/56 "2009-03-05T00:41:34Z")
I don’t see what your difficulty is here, **wring**. You are way off base here. He or anyone else could have asked for permission to start a thread promoting the new board. Instead, he chose to go about it all wrong. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/57 "2009-03-05T00:44:11Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > One was posted by **Opalcat** , gloried be her name. You have been here since '05 and have therefore missed a lot of ugly history between **Opalcat** and the management here. The quoted statement is beyond ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/58 "2009-03-05T01:15:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > No, I can’t. All right. Thank you for taking the time to answer my query. Cartooniverse ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/59 "2009-03-05T01:20:24Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > The quoted statement is beyond ridiculous. Eh, it’s ridiculous even in the absence of said history. Recent posts are sufficient to gauge that. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133/60 "2009-03-05T04:06:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I would say that a careful reading would note the specific references to board wars and threats. Given that Fathom actually had a Forum, in the early days, that was devoted to comments about the SDMB–many of them negative–for which no poster on the SDMB was banned and that identifiable SDMB members have submitted fairly nasty comments about other posters and staff at alt.fan.cecil-adams and misc.facts.straight-dope with no repercussions, I suspect that one can read “threat” in the most literal way. If one is organizing or suggesting a board war, a denial of service attack, or a threat to launch a lawsuit, then the SDMB is going to consider that grounds for banning. If one simply posts the thousandth “Mod A is a doodyhead” post on some other board, it is not going to be perceived as a threat and no action will be taken. > > Ed is free to amend my comments, but I figured I might allay some of your fears. This is in fact what I meant: threats to vandalize the site, sue the company, things like that. We have no intention of going after people because they criticized the SDMB in some other venue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-the-other-boards/488133.md?page=4)