I was tempted to flame about this, because it got my back up so much, but I decided to show some calmness and common sense where board admin failed to.
The rule about never posting by proxy for ex-members made sense in the days when the only ex-members were banned people made sense.
The rule no longer makes sense in its extreme interpretation now ex-members include those who just didn’t renew.
For example: assuming my co-worker had never been a member of SDMB, but happened to pop by my desk and see me answering a GQ about computer viruses. My co-worker says: “I found this great new free software - why don’t you give them this link?” No problem.
Or I post a GQ: “What qualifications are most useful for beauty therapy?” In it, I explain that my cousin wants to be a beautician but isn’t sure what subjects to keep and what to drop at school. No problem.
Or I post in a Pit thread about racism: “my roommate, who is black, finds the N-word very offensive, even from other black people.” No problem
Unless that co-worker or cousin or roommate is a former member of the SDMB. Someone who possibly even paid money for the first year, but decided not to renew. Suddenly, they are an Unmentionable. An Outcast. They-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named.
So for the sake of common sense, and so links to cancer charities in relevant threads aren’t deleted without trace and a load of angry emails fired off, please consider revising and clarifying this rule.
But by not renewing, they have indicated that they no longer wish to post here. If they change their mind and do wish to post here, they can renew. They don’t need you to do it.
You are totally missing the point. Former members remain friends, family, spouses, colleagues etc of current members. There is a big gulf between actually posting something for their benefit, and posting something they said that could benefit other people.
Wanting to pass on the link to a cancer charity is not the same as wanting to start posting again at SDMB.
It sort of is. It’s still an attempt by someone to post something without paying for the service. Admittedly, what they want to post is a nice thing, but it’s still trying to get around the rules.
We do not, as a general rule, allow “proxy posting,” that is, we do not allow former members to post to the board through someone else.
We have in the past allowed people who were not members and who were not going to be members to pass on messages through board members; for example, we posted notes from Persephone’s husband after her passing, people wanted updates on the situation, wanted to know about her children. That was not a problem. That sort of thing would never be a problem, either.
We do have a problem with people who were former members who still want to participate in board activities and ask others to facilitate this for them. We’re a for-pay site, that means we charge money to be here. You want to post to the board, subscribe. It’s as simple as that.
Um, I’m assuming that TPTB realize, that this rule is easily circumvented by simply not giving your “source” or by saying it is from someone other than the one who submitted it. Or futhermore, I suppose if you really don’t want to use the latter source for specific duplicity, you could tell a still current Doper who’d then pass it along to another. That way, it does come from someone currently a paid member.
Count me in as another person who finds this rule to be arbitrary at best and “zero tolerance” at worst. I prefer what the mods usually do as to our “Don’t be a jerk.” policy… determined on a case-by-case basis.
Exactly. And that is why the rule needs to be changed.
I am sure most ex-posters are not hanging around 24/7 bursting with advice and info they want posted on SDMB. But in the occasional instances that a non-member or a never-member wants to provide a useful link contributing to the greater good, someone should be able to mention it without a load of ridiculous subterfuge.
Deleting it is just pathetic, petty behaviour.
The spirit of the rule is what is at issue: what was it aimed at? It was originally aimed at BANNED posters, not ex-payees.
Hardly that. We’re a pay-to-post board; knowing that, you shouldn’t be too surprised that we frown on proxy posting, whether with banned posters at the originating end or posters who, for one reason or another, decided not to re-subscribe. If you don’t want subterfuge, then don’t use it; but don’t pretend that your hand is being forced.
As TubaDiva mentioned, there are exceptions to the rule. The best way of finding out whether the post you’re wanting to submit fits into those exceptions is to ask a Moderator or Administrator beforehand. You’ll get your answer and then won’t have to deal with your post being removed.
So there’s another way to circumvent: register a new username to post your link. It’s against the rules, but like the subterfuge example above, who would know or bother to check?
It’s just ridiculous that someone might have to resort to dishonest behaviour to try and contribute something nice. And if it’s a case-by-case thing, why wasn’t the cancer charity thing judged on its merits. Why could a mod/admin not just have posted: “It’s ok this time - but do please email us in future about links from ex-members” rather than just delete it?
Yes, as an enticement to subscribe to the board. We’re a pay-to-post board with the guest membership as the introductory freebie.
Why circumvent at all? Assuming everyone is an adult here, why not do the honest thing and follow the rules?
No one “has” to resort to dishonest behavior; we’re not holding your wife/husband/goldfish against their wills and threating to fillet them. If you’re knowingly choosing a dishonest course, that falls squarely on your shoulders, not anyone else’s. So, if you don’t want to be dishonest, then don’t do it. We encourage honesty; I’m going to make a bold stand and say that it’s a good thing.
Yes, it’s a case-by-case decision. As I mentioned above, should you have a question about whether your post or thread is appropriate, ask permission first from a Moderator or Administrator and we will go on from there.
Firstly, I don’t think that omitting where you got your information from actually constitutes subterfuge, unless you were asked about it point blank. Secondly, if you thought I was implying the second part of your sentence about the administration, I apologize. I feel we all make decisions based on the information we have, and by extension, should be responsible for them.
My only caveat was that this seemed to be a pointless policy if not reviewed each time (when a post is reported) individually on its own merits. Much of this place seems to operate under that principle, I don’t see why this couldn’t be handled much the same way. As many a Pit thread has lamented about the short-sightedness of the aforementioned “zero tolerance” approach.
And that’s fine. But a slight wrinkle in what you’ve said: we don’t want to have to review each post AFTER IT’S REPORTED. That’s way more work for Moderators. Take it the other way around: ASK FIRST.
TubaDiva has made it very clear that we’re willing to allow exceptions to the rule. Just ASK FIRST and get permission.
PS - Just because a rule is easily circumvented doesn’t mean it’s not a good rule. I can easily run stop signs – most other cars will stop, even if they have the right-of-way, because they don’t want to run into me. Just because I can probably circumvent the rule with impunity doesn’t mean it’s not a good rule to regulate traffic flow.
Ok Dex. I’m sorry if that came across as impudent. I was under the impression that was how most posts came to anyone’s attention in the first place (due to the vast quantity we have here and the inability to read every word of it or be in all places at all times), was by them being questioned. Didn’t mean to overstep my suggestions. It was simply an observation.
No worries, faithfool, my post was actually in response to istara’s and not yours. I was referencing istara’s subterfuge comment, and that’s why it came into play.
Whatever the PTB want, that’s how it’s gonna be, of course. I can see the problem if a former poster was systematically trying to continue some simmering argument. But I don’t see any problem with relaying isolated items that are strictly factual and non-controversial. I’d think that would come under the heading of “fighting ignorance” as opposed to what might be called “fomenting discontent”.
How many people actually come to a full stop at a stop sign or at a red light before turning right? How many people drive the exact speed limit as opposed to, say, just 5 mph over? Strictly speaking, they could be and sometimes are ticketed, but how often?
I think the bottom line is that it’s under the heading of “they used to give the Straight Dope money, and now they don’t.” Just MHO, but it strikes me as retributory.
Again, just MHO, but it’s my understanding that the customers are the powers that be.
Thank you Skip, for the clarification. I appreciate it.
But I do have one other thing to add about this…
Just because something IS a rule, doesn’t mean it’s a good one.
P.S. I also received your message, sir, loud and clear without necessity of, I think, what is considered yelling. Was my transgression (?) truly enough to warrant that? And if so, then I do feel honor bound to apologize. I was simply, again, trying to point out (what seemed to me) an obvious observation. Regards.
I think a nice common sense approach would be, if you NEED to mention the former posters name for the thread to make sense, then they should have registered for it. If you DONT need to mention the name, the just don’t and leave it at “a co-worker”.
I’ve heard of places where people are made to disappear, but I never actually thought I’d see it happen - or see people defend the practice as a good thing.