Okay, this is just my two cents, but isn’t the example in question an attempt at fighting ignorance? I’m not wanting to draw the wrath of the mods, but it seems like this goal has been forgotten.
~TygerD
How so?
There’s no shortage of opinionated and well-intentioned people out there. We’re not disparaging or stifling any of 'em, just limiting those who want to use SDMB resources to members.
There’s no harm, foul or hard feelings for toward those who decided, for whatever reason(s), to walk apart. People, and communities, change. But it isn’t reasonable to gloss over those changes, on either part.
The appeal in question would have been–always have been–a personal cause subject to scrutiny. It ain’t like Dopers lack in good will, and sometimes canny marketing instincts as well. Anything that remotely resembles spam, altruistic or otherwise, will be examined. Active members should ask first before imposing their wishes/causes onto the membership.
Why in the world would that standard be less for anyone else?
This wasn’t punitive or retribution. It was common-sense SOP from way back.
The handling hasn’t changed a bit. Changing board membership doesn’t convey martyrdom or persecution.
As I said before, just because people can easily evade the rule with impunity doesn’t mean it’s not a good rule. I don’t hear anyone arguing that we should eliminated all traffic lights or all speed limits merely because people don’t always obey them.
True enough, but equally, just because you don’t like a rule, or it has personally inconvenienced you, doesn’t mean that it’s a bad one. The issue was raised, the Moderators have considered it, and we think that rule makes very good sense for many reasons, as outlined above.
I used upper case letters on two words for emphasis. A decade ago (well, OK, in the last century), when the internet was new, an entire message in upper case was termed “yelling” and viewed as impolite. That never applied to just one or two words, or a phrase, being in upper case. I did not intend those words to be read as “yelling,” but as emphasizing. If someone is reading casually, I want them to see those two words.
The other methods of emphasis: well, bold font is not as effective, and surrounding a word with asterisks or using an extra large font size is just annoying.
To clarify, Acetylsalicylic (mind if I just call you “Aspirin”?), that’s not happening here. If a person stops paying, they can no longer make new posts, but all of their old posts they’ve already made remain. Sometimes when a person is banned, their posts are removed, but even that generally only happens when all of their posts are banworthy, not for people who have been here as part of the community.
And part of the reason that there’s a difference between a cow-orker who was once a member and one who was not is precisely the fact that we do have a trial period. If cow-orker has only one thing to say on the Board, then he or she could get a free trial membership and say it. This isn’t too far different from posting by proxy. But if former member cow-orker has one thing to say, he or she cannot (within the rules, at least) get a trial membership to say it. Admittedly, there’s potential for abuse, here, since a member’s cow-orker could in principle post by proxy indefinitely, for longer than a month and without paying for it. Such a person ought to buy a full membership. But I think that that situation is probably fairly rare.
I can’t see any particular reason why the person who passed on the link would need to be named, or even referenced, thus bypassing all the fuss about proxy posting.
Friends or former members can “do good by stealth and blush to find it fame”.
Egg-zactly.
You make some very good points, Chronos. Your arguments make sense, and my hyperbole about people being made to disappear was over the top. Still, I disagree.
According to SkipMagic, these things are decided on a case-by-case basis, with the default being “don’t do it without permission”. My opinion is that the default should be “it’s ok unless you’re told otherwise.”
The sort of proxy posting being discussed here is not that of a former member using board’s resources for free, but that of a former member adding to the board’s resources. The spam issue raised is, I think, a red herring.
The membership here seems to be very diverse and well educated, including doctors, lawyers, scientists, truckdrivers, law enforcement, and working mom’s. Is a medical website by a doctor forbidden if the doctor is a former member? A political blog by a former member who is an activist or a Washington insider? A how-to website by a former member who is a highly skilled mechanic or welder or computer technician?
A good reason for mentioning the person’s username is that the members will have some idea about whether or not the information is trustworthy. Another good reason is simple honesty. Besides, if I spend some of my time talking with someone, I’m certainly not going to hide that fact from the Administration here.
It’s really quite simple. Your approach requires way more work from the Moderators. It is far easier for Moderators to approve in advance, than to track down later. Plus, of course, once someone posts “Banned Member XYZ wants me to say…” , many people will have seen it before it gets to Moderator attention.
Hence, our approach of prior permission is more efficient.
I have no idea, and I suspect it depends on whether the website is free or paid-membership. I do know that people who don’t pay dues to my tennis club are not allowed to play on the courts. My tennis club does offer a “free” one-time trial visit, to see if you like it before you sign up. Once you’ve said, no, thanks, you can’t come to play merely on the grounds that you took advantage of the free trial. You can’t come to play when you’ve failed to pay your dues, even if you used to be a member a few years ago. And if you were kicked out of the club for gross misbehavior, no, you’re not allowed back.
This has been discussed and decided.
The job of Moderator is not meant to be an easy one, and what makes their jobs easier is not generally a valid reason for implementing policy.
We’re not discussing blatant proxy posting like “FormerMember would like to say…” or “Oh yeah, well FormerMember thinks…”, ad nauseum. Neither are we discussing spam. Any paying member would (or should) know better than to do those things.
You didn’t answer my question about whether using a website, blog, or journal from a professional who is also a former member is acceptable as a cite, except to say that you have no idea. You are an Administrator - you really should know.
Likewise, your analogy to the tennis club is flawed because “playing tennis”, in this case, would involve the former member having full posting rights here. That is not the case and nobody is suggesting that they be given those rights.
But, per your analogy, would it be perfectly acceptable at your club for a former member to give tennis tips in private to a current member, and then for the current member to share those tips at the club?
The question, in a nutshell, is who the paying members here are allowed to mention, cite, and use as reference or informational material. A serial killer’s words would, presumably, be allowable while a former member’s would not.
Perhaps you need to discuss it some more.
Straw man much here lately?
As for all these supposed examples, let’s see one come up in the real and not just for the sake of some jackassed argument and we’ll rule on it . . . like we do everything else around here, on a case by case basis. It’s never really been an issue before, but that’s the amazing thing about this board, there’s always something new to look at and policy is ever-formulating. People ask us about the fitness of proposed topics or comments all the time and we handle them, every day.
your humble TubaDiva
Jackassed?
Ad hominem much?
Seems to me like anybody that has all this critical, ignorance fighting knowledge they are dying to share with the membership should simply cough up the membership fee. C’mon, the cost is equal to two trips to Mickey D’s.
Ah! There’s the strawman that TubaDiva was referring to. She must be psychic !
(assuming that the Diva in question is, in fact, a she. Apologies otherwise)
Rules are sometimes not well thought out, and can have a result of being non-productive (merely annoying rather than effective) or counter-productive. In those cases the thing adults should do is point out that the rule should be changed or clarified to reduce or eliminate the nusiance factor generated by the bad rule.
Oh, no, people come here to talk to the moderators and administrators. Nobody reads all that content generated by the paying members.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Your approach means less work for the moderators, agreed. Efficiency as a measure must also include the productive of the desired final results. “This way means the moderators don’t have to do much hard work” is hardly an impressive argument for efficiency unless all you’re trying to do is reduce the work of the moderators. In which case I recomend we dispense with moderating the board. 100% efficiency right there.
Are paying members allowed to post information other paying members find useful when that information paying members find useful has its source or discovery creditable to a non-member who is known to the community of paying members?
How about the specific example that brought this up? I’m sure it would be informative to see the original post to detail where exactly it stepped over the line into “being a jerk” territory… but, alas, it was deleted or edited into being nothing more than a naked URL.
Sigh. I sometimes don’t know why I bother.
The rule of no proxy comments exists because, once we have banned (say) poster 54321, we do NOT want a slew of posts about “54321 wanted me to tell you that you’re a jackass” or “54321 wants to say…”
These are moderated boards. When someone is kicked off those boards, we do NOT want them floating back in, neither by re-registering under a different name (“sock puppets”) nor by finding someone else to mouth their words (“proxy.”)
Now, given this rule, what’s the best way to enforce it, do you think? To allow dozens or hundred of posts that we have to sift through (and that the other readers SEE and then REPORT), to be able to then wipe out some of them ex post facto? Or to say, don’t post proxies unless we give permission? And the answer in this case is that our approach is both (a) more efficient for the Moderators and (b) more effective in keeping banned people from posting their opinions through proxy or sock-puppet.
When we went to paid membership, we felt the same rule applied to those who don’t want to pay. Whether they leave us voluntarily or involuntarily, they’ve left, and it is unfair to paying members to allow them to have a continued voice.
Can the rule be evaded? Sure. Will continued and repeated evasion be considered “acting like a jerk”? Sure.
This has now been explained, about a dozen times by several different moderators. The deal is done.
If you don’t want a moderated board, there are plenty of other boards on the web that aren’t moderated, and you are more than welcome to go there. If you want a moderated board, then recognize that there are some rules.
If you don’t want traffic laws, I’m sure you can find a country where there are none or few. If you do want traffic to be regulated, then you comply with the rules even if it’s to your personal disadvantage not to allow your blind great-grandfather to drive your car without a license.