One member / different standards?

[SoftWareRevue]

We all have guidelines. That's a good thing. :cowboy:

Some written. Some not.

The question is; would you allow a trusted member to publicly do something you wouldn't normally allow?

That's it. Pretty simple. What say you?

[writespeak]

Can you give us an example? It doesn't need to be a real one.

Without an example, I'd say that with things that are left up to the moderators' discretion, there's some leeway, but if it's concerning a major rule such as no advertising in the main forums, no way. :hrmph:

Lois

[CD Burnt]

SWR, you might want to edit the thread title. ;)

[SoftWareRevue]

Title edited. :blush:

an example . . . . :think:


Let's say, for example, that a member of your community makes a request that you wouldn't want to become habit with other members (hmmm . . . not too specific).

Okay. Here we go again.

You have a community that does not have a rule against members soliciting on behalf of charities. But, you do have a rule that prohibits solicitation.

A member requests that they be allowed to link to their site that is soliciting donations for a charity organization.

Do you allow it?

[CD Burnt]

sure, make it a tough question!

I would say a solicitation thread: no. a link in the sig, maybe. would be better if the link was directly to a well established and non-controversial charity.

[Jan]

That would depend on the nature of the site, if it was all about that particular charity with a donation link to the charity and there was no commercialisation elsewhere on the site, maybe. But then why not just link directly to the charity. As one would never know if a week, a month, a year down the track that the said site wouldn't be commercial.

[Dave]

Regarding charities, I am not sure I would allow anybody, new member, trusted member or co-admin to link to a personal charity site without first verifying they are authorized. Once verified I would allow it in the classified section, but then again I would allow it from anybody once verified. Many charities have very strong rules regarding how their names are used, you cannot go around just building sites for charity. I along with my attorney co-own a site for our local chapter of the Special Olympics. After my initial contact with the Shriver clan, I handed the ball off to my attorney to see that everything is and stays in order. Like I say the rules are tough, and we do not even have anything to do with donations, just event coordination.

That gives my POV of the specific example. In general I would have to say

That's it. Pretty simple.

webmastering 101 says nothing is as simple as it seems ;)

Dave

[Aussie Bob]

. . . You have a community that does not have a rule against members soliciting on behalf of charities. But, you do have a rule that prohibits solicitation.
Solicitation already happens in member's sigs.
A member requests that they be allowed to link to their site that is soliciting donations for a charity organization.

Do you allow it?
If the solicitation happens in their sig, what's wrong with that?

[ldcdc]

That would depend on the nature of the siteI agree with that. There are no set guidelines as the variants of the scenario are pretty numerous.

Going back to the initial, more general question:
would you allow a trusted member to publicly do something you wouldn't normally allow?A certain amount of subjectivity is unavoidable, so I guess it would ultimately depend on how obvious the infringement is. :)

[writespeak]

A point that hasn't come up yet is that intent is easier to guess with established members. Something that might not be acceptable by a newbie might be acceptable by an established, respected member because the other members know him and will know what he's doing and not doing.

That doesn't mean that you're letting him do something that you wouldn't normally allow. It means that you're letting him do something that you might not allow a newbie to do because his intent isn't suspect.

An example from WHT (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/): if a newbie posts a lot of short "nice template" or other such posts, we suspect that the person is just trying to get his post count up so that he can advertise. If an established member posts a few such posts but normally posts posts with more content, we can recognize that the compliments are probably genuine. Of course long-term members may have only their interests in mind, but we can guess that too more easily because of their posting history. :)

Lois

[SoftWareRevue]

Solicitation already happens in member's sigs.Yup.
If the solicitation happens in their sig, what's wrong with that?That would probably be okay for any member.

[SoftWareRevue]

. . . it would ultimately depend on how obvious the infringement is. :)Interesting. So, you'd allow a seasoned member more latitude?

I think that comes with most memberships, as writespeak touched on.

But sticking with the "how obvious" thing; wouldn't it be only a matter of time that most members would know of it just due to osmosis?

[Aussie Bob]

Interesting. So, you'd allow a seasoned member more latitude?
Well ask if you'd treat a 20k post member the same as you would a 2 post member. Be honest now. I know I'd treat them differently, if I was a mod, which is probably a good thing I'm not a mod. :D

[writespeak]

Well ask if you'd treat a 20k post member the same as you would a 2 post member.

I would treat them differently only concerning questions of intent. It's easier to know why a 20k post member is doing something, while it may not be clear with newbies. But if that 20k member spams or is rude, for example, he's treated the same as a newbie who breaks those rules. Rules work only if they're enforced. :erm:

Lois

[Jan]

I would treat them differently only concerning questions of intent. It's easier to know why a 20k post member is doing something, while it may not be clear with newbies.
So how do you explain to newbiewithtwoposts why oldiewith20000posts can post something he/she wasn't allowed to? :spin:

[writespeak]

So how do you explain to newbiewithtwoposts why oldiewith20000posts can post something he/she wasn't allowed to? :spin:

Preferably not by referring to post count, but by explaining that we looked at each situation in its context. :) But I'm not thinking so much about what people are allowed to do but about how we respond to how they post.

If the first post by a newbie was to a humour site with ads and you suspected that the newbie was associated with the site and was promoting it, but you couldn't prove it, would you allow that post to stay? Assuming it was in the Lounge, that is. There's probably a better example than that, but I can't think of one now. OTOH, if a trusted member you've known for a long time posted a link to the same site, well, you already know his business involvements and ethics, so you probably wouldn't even look to see if it could be his site.

Here's a real example. At WHT, I recommend 2 different hosts from time to time. One of them is the host of the site in my sig there, so no one needs to ask for a domain to verify that I'm a client of that host. I have no published link to my site with the other host, but no one has asked me for a domain hosted with that host for the usual verification purposes. If I were a newbie, someone would have asked what the domain was at least one of the times when I've recommended the second host.

Lois

[Aussie Bob]

. . . But if that 20k member spams or is rude, for example, he's treated the same as a newbie who breaks those rules. Rules work only if they're enforced. :erm:
Yes, but the 20k poster would never spam, intentionally. :whistle:

But the 20k poster can be rude. That's a fairly broadly defined term. :eyep:

But rules is rules, and a 20k poster would get a tad more leeway than a 2 poster, just as a mod would get a tad more leeway over a normal member, but it depends on the situation.

[Jan]

We have discovered a few who continually post links to (for example) humour sites and not given it a lot of thought until it became suspiciously obvious. We have nabbed both newish members and established members for that over time, and all their links were removed.

[writespeak]

...and not given it a lot of thought until it became suspiciously obvious.

Yup, that was my point. :) The rules apply to everyone equally, but newbie behaviour is scrutinized more.

Lois

[Aussie Bob]

And a really established member (10k posts) would/should never intentionally spam. :S

[SoftWareRevue]

And a really established member (10k posts) would/should never intentionally spam. :SRight. And that's likely not be their intention.

But, perhaps because it got overlooked, it becomes a habit for them. And their habits are watched by new and old members alike.

"Well, he did it." is a reason I often hear when moderating.

[Jan]

And a really established member (10k posts) would/should never intentionally spam. :S
Not sure how post count comes into this, but really established members do at times and their excuse is the same as a newbie "I was just trying to help" :angel:

[Aussie Bob]

Damnit, I'm innocent I tell ya, I'm innocent. :D :angel:

[ldcdc]

Interesting. So, you'd allow a seasoned member more latitude?There's a reason why a jury isn't formed of acquaintances, friends and family members of the accused, or sworn enemies of the accused. They may swear to be objective, but how objective can one be when you know and have feelings towards the person?

Can you be sure that the things you know about him/her (forum member) are not affecting our judgement at all? That can happen both ways, resulting in a slightly more lenient attitude towards a member that has a history of being well behaved, and slightly less indulgent attitude towards a member that is continually having problems with the rules.

Whenever I'm afraid my judgement might not be objective enough, I just report the issue, so that someone with (hopefully) a clearer head will decide what's to be done.

[Webdude]

The question is; would you allow a trusted member to publicly do something you wouldn't normally allow?

If that member was me, then yes. Someone else, no :D

We have nabbed both newish members and established members for that over time, and all their links were removed.

Yeah, you dont let anyone slide do you? :pullhair: LOL

Hey erm.... on this image, :pink: ,
I cant tell if it's a dancing purple elephant with a big nose.... or a purple dancing mouse with a huge ... err, well, you know...

[writespeak]

Hey erm.... on this image, :pink: ,
I cant tell if it's a dancing purple elephant with a big nose.... or a purple dancing mouse with a huge ... err, well, you know...

This post (http://www.forumuniversity.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2641&highlight=elephant#post2641) will give you a clue. :dancin:

Lois