On Member Poaching

TheDude wrote: I wonder about how these rules are applied. I (and others here) post links to YouTube, resource websites, news sites, books hosted on other websites, and others. I even have a link to my SoundCloud address somewhere in the art section. And I've seen other Jedi websites linked in the forums before, but even without the links I've seen mentions of Force Academy, CoJ, Sith forums, Just Jedi, and many others throughout the forums. If the name is posted here, it's only a google search away -- so what is the functional difference between saying "I run (website without link)" and "I run (linked website)."?

I can understand why the rule is in place. We obviously don't want links to insecure websites, pornographic websites, or to share destructive ideologies like neo nazi websites. But in any given thread there are links to other websites on a pretty regular basis.

Maybe it's because it's a website you made personally, but then, don't personal YouTube channels, google docs, and SoundCloud pages count? I don't suspect that it was a personal matter or that you're being specifically targeted, but these rules for linking to other websites doesn't seem to be upheld in every instance and the specific rules regulating what websites can and can't be posted are not the most clear.

You can appeal to the council, and I see Br. John posted here, but I am also wondering about other cases where these links are not removed and how they differ from this one.

It's a judgement call and the poster and their history here can make a difference. Any moderation can be appealed and The Council then considers it and posts their ruling. Councillors may post their reasoning if they wish.

Here's the way I view it. When my family ran a martial arts school we didn't post fliers for other schools.

Did you forbid others speaking about another school? There is a lot of gray area in this rule

Goken wrote: Here's the way I view it. When my family ran a martial arts school we didn't post fliers for other schools.

I'd like to expand on this slightly. That is not to say that we did not know and talk to the other local schools. We also did have our recommendations for which schools people might like if ours wasn't for them.

But we still didn't advertise for them.

Here is where our policy is vague.

[hr]

Goken wrote:

Goken wrote: Here's the way I view it. When my family ran a martial arts school we didn't post fliers for other schools.

I'd like to expand on this slightly. That is not to say that we did not know and talk to the other local schools. We also did have our recommendations for which schools people might like if ours wasn't for them.

But we still didn't advertise for them.

I did martial arts too. We had a bulletin board for said advertisements which also included dance, gymnastics, baseball and other local events the building was used for (including our homeschool group)

walk into any store and you will find at least 1 bulletin board with bussiness cards and flyers pinned all over it.

Your example is highly minimal in practice

I think that part of the issue and one I hope to clear up here in the near ish future is that we wish to be careful about who we affiliate with via allowing them to advertise here. For example, when I was in a martial arts school myself my Sensei would allow some schools flyers on our board and work with some schools at events.
But there were others that for various reasons we did not wish to be linked to. So I think that is the mindset here for why we do not allow it generally. But we need to have and are talking about the creations of clearer rules and guides for future uses.

Trisskar wrote: [hr]

Goken wrote:

Goken wrote: Here's the way I view it. When my family ran a martial arts school we didn't post fliers for other schools.

I'd like to expand on this slightly. That is not to say that we did not know and talk to the other local schools. We also did have our recommendations for which schools people might like if ours wasn't for them.

But we still didn't advertise for them.

I did martial arts too. We had a bulletin board for said advertisements which also included dance, gymnastics, baseball and other local events the building was used for (including our homeschool group)

walk into any store and you will find at least 1 bulletin board with bussiness cards and flyers pinned all over it.

Your example is highly minimal in practice

No, that's not a fair comparison. Walk into any grocery store and you won't see ads for other grocery stores, you'll see ads for babysitters and lawn care and all sorts of things that aren't grocery stores. I don't allow other attorneys to put up signs in my office.

Sure, we could have more rules. People like things written down in ready reference dot points..


Or you could have a wee bit of faith in our moderators, and, if necessary, appeal a decision rather than having a tanty every time you disagree.


"Clearer Rules" is a fancy way of saying "More restrictions" because it is far easier to police complete restrictions.

I don't have to worry if you're a public nuisance if the rules I am enforcing is "no being inebriated in public", and I don't have to worry if you are drunk on the streets, if the rule I am actually enforcing is "no one on the streets at all after 8pm"

See how the enforced rule creeps away from the desired outcome?

You don't want "Better, Clearer" rules, trust me. You want flexibility and consideration on a case by case basis.


As for member poaching, I've been trying to poach members since I got here - or I would be, if TotJO had any players with potential for the major leagues

JamesSand wrote: Sure, we could have more rules. People like things written down in ready reference dot points..


Or you could have a wee bit of faith in our moderators, and, if necessary, appeal a decision rather than having a tanty every time you disagree.


"Clearer Rules" is a fancy way of saying "More restrictions" because it is far easier to police complete restrictions.

I don't have to worry if you're a public nuisance if the rules I am enforcing is "no being inebriated in public", and I don't have to worry if you are drunk on the streets, if the rule I am actually enforcing is "no one on the streets at all after 8pm"

See how the enforced rule creeps away from the desired outcome?

You don't want "Better, Clearer" rules, trust me. You want flexibility and consideration on a case by case basis.


As for member poaching, I've been trying to poach members since I got here - or I would be, if TotJO had any players with potential for the major leagues

Plus just as an added thought, if a Moderator sees something that he/she needs to be dealt with and makes a judgement call, as a Council I feel we should back each other up on that decision and to bring it forth to discuss they whys and wherefores, so that if an appeal comes in, we all understand why it was removed, we come to an agreement as to what we should govern in the appeal process, after the Council has a discussion when it first happens. This way all bases are covered in prep for an appeal if one submits it...

Just my 2 cents