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?
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.
Here are the first two sentences from the OP:
Haj
Well, don’t I feel stupid.
Um, thank you.
Esprix
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.
Ah, yes, the SDMB Administration, that bastion of intelligence and maturity…
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.
Yes.
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!”
Is that ok? Look below and let me know.
Oooh. Ed answered my question. Thanks, Ed! I promise not to be gratuitous in pointing it out.
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.
Polycarp - I will officially confirm your interpretation.
but, but, but, Neopets ROCKS!
d&r
Not to interrupt, but what WOULD happen if we had no bellybuttons?
This is going to be bugging me all day…
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!
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:
In other words, ask.
In other words, this post isn’t saving anyone any trouble…
Doesn’t this pretty soundly violate this:
?
It might, Wikkit, if you have specific evidence that no such permission has been granted.
[sub]fixed coding[/sub]
'Twasn’t an accusation, just curious. “without notice” or not, it’d be nice to know.
Bellybutton lint would slide farther down, causing me to have pubic hair lint!:eek:
I’d look quite silly with a piercing in the middle of my stomach?
(Also, pubic hair lint? Ew!)