# SDMB registration agreement as of 12/6/2002 **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 6, 2002, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970 "2002-12-06T17:51:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/21 "2002-12-07T03:14:39Z")
> [@](#): > > . Do not post spam, including but not limited to…, or other messages primarily intended to promote a…, event (except Straight Dope-related events), website, or other entity or activity, whether or not money is involved. I’m pretty sure I know the answer (it’s OK), but in light of the disclaimer that hovers in MPSIMS, I have to get the word: We can still organize Dopefests via MPSIMS? ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/22 "2002-12-07T04:29:26Z")
Just out of curiosity, I ran the current agreement and the previous agreement through Word’s document compare. Ed has shown all new/changed text in bold, as Esprix has surmised. ---
**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:** [December 7, 2002, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/23 "2002-12-07T04:39:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > \*\*I’d like to ask, what, specifically, _changed_ from the last update? Was the bolded part the changed part? Maybe changes should be highlighted in red or something. I think it would be helpful for us peons. > \*\* Here are the first two sentences from the OP: > [@](#): > > The agreement below spells out the rules by which SDMB users are expected to abide. Changes since the last version are indicated in **bold**. Haj ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/24 "2002-12-07T08:22:16Z")
Well, don’t I feel stupid. Um, thank you. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/25 "2002-12-07T08:35:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > \*\*\ > This sounds not only wonderfully acceptable, but is encouraged. As long as it isn’t an 1880 tome on manufacturing a better bong, or growing more potent opium poppies. Or something like that. \*\* **Whew!** One of the reasons I’m doing this is because I want Doper reactions to the book. It’s a work on comparative religions that I’ve not found a good modern counterpart to. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/26 "2002-12-07T13:11:45Z")
> [@](#): > > “Naa-naa, we don’t need a reason anyway. So, boogers on you.” Ah, yes, the SDMB Administration, that bastion of intelligence and maturity… 😃 ---
**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:** [December 7, 2002, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/27 "2002-12-07T14:58:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Gah! So does this mean I need to change my sig? I have a link to a webpage (for a retail company) that contains a commercial that my boyfriend did. I only did it because I found it entertaining, and I thought other people could giggle at it. (I really could care less about promoting the product.) I don’t excessively use my sig anyways, so it won’t be a big deal. You raise a good point. Let me give a two part answer. (1) The new rule is intended to limit posts **primarily** meant to promote something - we don’t want to discourage people from posting links to illustrate a point, answer a question, call attention to an interesting site (assuming there is no ulterior motive), etc. (2) Commercial links in sigs are a somewhat different matter. In general we discourage them - we don’t want sigs to be used for advertising. Sometimes we ask people to remove commercial links from their sigs; other times, particularly when the sig is used only occasionally and the poster doesn’t appear to have a personal financial interest, we let it slide. That said, if we had a sudden rash of commercial links showing up in sigs, we might impose a blanket prohibition. We’ll just have to see how it goes. > [@](#): > > I’m pretty sure I know the answer (it’s OK), but in light of the disclaimer that hovers in MPSIMS, I have to get the word: We can still organize Dopefests via MPSIMS? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![hardygrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@hardygrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardygrrl)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/28 "2002-12-07T15:51:42Z")
Like **Skerri** does, I have links in my sig. They’re to two of my boyfriend’s columns that I found interesting (annd showed his personality 🙂 ) . I don’t specifically promote the site as in “go to [blahblah.com](http://blahblah.com)!” Is that ok? Look below and let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Skerri](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Skerri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skerri)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/29 "2002-12-07T16:11:19Z")
Oooh. **Ed** answered my question. Thanks, Ed! I promise not to be gratuitous in pointing it out. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/30 "2002-12-07T16:53:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Links to websites posted in support of an argument, or those of general interest to the community here, are, as they always have been, eminently acceptable. Unless, as I said, the frequency of it becomes, in our opinion, too great and the nature of it, in our opinion, is too promotional. **My assumption** is that links to other boards, websites, etc., regardless of the poster’s connection to them, are acceptable and encouraged where the object is to answer a question or amplify the topic under discussion. So if a GQ on a given astronomy-related topic gets answered, but there’s more of general interest on that topic, **The Bad Astronomer** would be welcome (and encouraged) to link to the page on which he discusses that topic, even though it’s his site. If **tomndebb** is aware of extensive discussion in Fathom’s Grand Forum closely related to a brand-new GD OP, he’d be free to mention that discussion, even though he’s the moderator of that Forum. I note that just today, in response to a question raised in the “Ask the Catholic” thread in GD regarding why Catholics don’t recognize Old Testament characters as Saints with a capital S, I linked to a thread over on the Pizza Parlor where an Orthodox Christian had posted capsule biographies of O.T. saints recognized by the Orthodox Church – and I felt that, despite my role over there, I was primarily benefitting the discussion here in doing so, not promoting the board I’m part of the administration of unduly. I would understand this rule as applying more to a poster posting a link to the website where he rants about his personal _bete noire_ or _idee fixe_ whenever anybody posts anything even tangentially related to his monomania. I’d welcome some official confirmation of this interpretation, to guide in making future posts of this sort. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/31 "2002-12-07T17:15:20Z")
Polycarp - I will officially confirm your interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Tir\_Tinuviel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@Tir\_Tinuviel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tir_Tinuviel)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/32 "2002-12-07T17:52:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blackeyes \* > **"Hiiii!!!11 i wud jus luv 2 tlk wit u guizzz bout Neopets…"** but, but, but, Neopets ROCKS! 😃 d&r ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/33 "2002-12-07T19:35:12Z")
Not to interrupt, but what **WOULD** happen if we had no bellybuttons? This is going to be bugging me all day… ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/34 "2002-12-07T19:52:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \* > \*\*As long as it isn’t an 1880 tome on manufacturing a better bong \*\* LOL LOL LOL 😃 Just the thought of someone in old-fashioned 1880s clothing writing the word “bong” with a quill pen is doing my head in! ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2002, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/35 "2002-12-07T23:04:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by \*\*Tuckerfan \*\*\* > I’m curious about this as well. How does one define a “worthy cause”? This bothers me because I’m working on a site which is going to have a copy of a book… This specific instance has been answered already, but in case any more come up I wanted to point out that the new agreement as posted in the OP makes it pretty clear how the term “worthy cause” is defined: > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Ed Zotti** _ > We allow exceptions for worthy causes (in our sole opinion) if you obtain prior permission from a moderator or administrator. In other words, ask. In other words, this post isn’t saving anyone any trouble… ---
**Author:** ![Wikkit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c0e974/32.png) [@Wikkit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wikkit)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2002, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/36 "2002-12-08T03:59:05Z")
Doesn’t [this](http://fathom.org/teemingmillions/poflames.adp) pretty soundly violate this: > [@](#): > > Republication of material appearing on the SDMB without express written permission of the Reader is prohibited ? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2002, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/37 "2002-12-08T23:37:35Z")
It _might_, **Wikkit** , _if_ you have specific evidence that no such permission has been granted. [sub]_fixed coding_[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Wikkit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c0e974/32.png) [@Wikkit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wikkit)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/38 "2002-12-09T03:13:12Z")
'Twasn’t an accusation, just curious. “without notice” or not, it’d be nice to know. ---
**Author:** ![Astroboy14](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/df705f/32.png) [@Astroboy14](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Astroboy14)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/39 "2002-12-09T03:55:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > \*\*Not to interrupt, but what **WOULD** happen if we had no bellybuttons? > > This is going to be bugging me all day… \*\* Bellybutton lint would slide farther down, causing me to have pubic hair lint!:eek: ---
**Author:** ![iconoplast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3d9bf3/32.png) [@iconoplast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iconoplast)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2002, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970/40 "2002-12-09T05:25:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hamlet \* > Not to interrupt, but what **WOULD** happen if we had no bellybuttons? I’d look quite silly with a piercing in the middle of my stomach? (Also, pubic hair lint? Ew!) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-registration-agreement-as-of-12-6-2002/140970.md?page=3)