Being a better member moderator

[mmurtha]

uhumm ... getting back to the topic of "being a Better Member Moderator ..."

Hi Paul,

You know besides the nickname of "Forum Redneck" you are also known to many as the town mayor, and I for one appreciate the fact that we have people like you that use their wisdom to teach and guide people in the right direction.

I think the neatest thing about your comments/posts/threads like this one is that you don't tell us how to be but encourage us to make our own choices backed up by useful information about the subject.

So Thanks!

I particularly found this segment of your comment the most useful:

The current system is a hybrid. We have "official" moderators to handle the edge cases that require experience. We have members to take the majority of the load of handling spam posts off their backs. It's working just fine, as far as I can see.

It will work even better when more of us understand that the role of moderation is to keep things within limits, not to try and make them perfect, or force them to conform to one person's social standards or personal preferences.

The trick is the balance. If you make the limits too broad, you lose all focus. If you make them too narrow, you lose the interplay that generates much of the value and interest of the place.

I think it's working fine too. There will always be people "playing" with the system to use it to their advantage, but they will eventually figue out it's a wasted effort.


Hey Maurice,

Far be it for me to jump into the midst of your dilemma/discussion, but I did notice one thing from youe comment here:

but in the end...what difference does it make...I am automatically the bad guy because john is automatically the good guy. but thats a different point.

I think you have a very unhealthy way of viewing WF members. It's not about good guy vs bad guy, or bad guy vs. good guy, or even big vs small.

In the end we are all members of a "community", striving to grow, learn, etc ... from, and with, each other. Sometimes it takes another person or group of people to guide newer members in what's to be expected of them if they want to remain a vital part of the community that will benefit the entire group.

Anyway, I wish you well in the end ...


Mary

[Bev Clement]

Can you guy stop having fun when it's night time over here and I'm asleep.

Paul, my card hasn't arrived either or don't we get them in Hong Kong

Does anyone see a likeness to another person in this statement, don't read they are the same person, but a likeness.

I will always speak the truth, regardless of consequences or who's feathers get ruffled.

[removed some of the quote as it wasn't relevant]

with that, I am done with this issue, anyone else cares enough to want to discuss it..call me. If not, its a dead bird at this point.

I said this on email to Paul not about Maurice but another person, but the principle is exactly the same.

Their comment is they always speak the truth, and they basically don't care what other people think.

Yet, they are double standard people even if they don't realise it. Why?

Because they are allowed to speak the truth, but when someone else speaks the truth it is not allowed, because it shows their truth to be inaccurate.

It comes from the mindset of believing that a person is always right, and their right to say what they like, as long as nobody else has the right to do the same thing.

And their final comment is I'm done with the thread, but they always return.

I didn't see Maurice's post, but again this is like another person. They use the forum as their personal article directory, even if it was the first time Maurice did it.

Go to EZA and look at articles and see if they are not exact copies of posts here, and then look at their various blogs and see again the same article.

People have seen others being allowed to post thread where they didn't use the word article in it, and then they go and post that article in various places, so the assumption is made. If one person can do it why not everybody.

Let's milk the forum for as much as we can because we don't have any other way of making money.

If you're on a forum, then you are the guest of the forum. We should all be allowed our opinions, but when we get people who say they speak the truth regardless, then they have to allow people the same rights.

[Paul Myers]

Roger,

I don't think it's been defaced at all. It's instructive stuff. And, after having a long conversation with Maurice (which got cut off somehow while we were laughing at my taste in schlock TV), I'm glad. He's a bright guy. Stubborn, intelligent, witty, and willing to keep going until things are resolved.

Had some heated moments but, all in all, a worthwile conversation.

An excellent point on how much there is to go around. It's easy to miss that when you are focused on what the other guy is getting, instead of what you can do to create value.

Mary,

I think it's working fine too. There will always be people "playing" with the system to use it to their advantage, but they will eventually figure out it's a wasted effort.

Yep. And new people will come in and try to game the system. That's not going to stop.

The thing we can do is constantly educate others on how to handle it, so that the damage the new creeps can do is always being reduced.

Eternal vigilance is the price of intelligent conversation.


Paul

[Paul Myers]

Bev,

I don't think we'll see Maurice make that mistake again. It was just that - a mistake. One that was partially fueled by my comments on the value of the information in the post. I can see his reasoning, too.

As for the rest... can we please not get into that again? Allen was quite clear in his preference on the matter.


Paul

[ExRat]

Hi Paul,

It's easy to miss that when you are focused on what the other guy is getting, instead of what you can do to create value.

I'm trying to work out the intended direction of that one. Always looking for lessons if they are there...

[Paul Myers]

Roger,

I was agreeing with you. Just in different words.

There's enough out there for everyone, and we miss a lot of it because we're focused on what the other guy is getting and trying to keep up, instead of creating more value and getting our share of the result of that.

Did I say it more clearly that time, or am I still being obtuse?


Paul

[ExRat]

Hi Paul,

Thanks, that's clear. Bit late here

[mmurtha]

Hey Paul,

Eternal vigilance is the price of intelligent conversation.

I hear you there.


Hey Roger,

I view what Paul stated here:

It's easy to miss that when you are focused on what the other guy is getting, instead of what you can do to create value.

As a way of expressing that it's not always about "us" (generally speaking of course, and applies to everyone on an individual scale) or what one "Gets" or can "take out" of the forum (or life), but what one can pack into it. Instead of sucking the life or value out of something, try the reverse and adding to the value.

Hope this helps ...

[Martin Luxton]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

There's enough out there for everyone, and we miss a lot of it because we're focused on what the other guy is getting and trying to keep up, instead of creating more value and getting our share of the result of that.

Paul

The Secret (Abridged Version) by Paul Myers

Martin

[Paul Myers]

Mary,

That's not exactly what I intended (I really wasn't very clear the first time), but I wouldn't be embarrassed if someone thought it was. A worthy sentiment.

Martin,

That may be the very first time my name and the word 'abridged' have ever appeared in the same sentence.


Paul

[mmurtha]

Originally Posted by Martin Luxton

The Secret (Abridged Version) by Paul Myers

Martin

LMBO! Martin.

That'll be the next one he creates.

[TMG Enterprises]

Wonderful post, Paul - as usual. I am glad to see that it was made a sticky as I think it is a very useful explanation and guide, not only to member moderation but to general forum participation.

I see a lot of people arguing for "official moderators" to be brought back. They have all sorts of ideas about how that's somehow better than member moderation.

I find this to be the most "ironic" part of your post because I remember a good deal of vitriole on the subject of certain power-hungry moderators and moderators that were stalking people, etc, etc. I never knew which moderators were meant by any given complainer but the complainant's posts almost always revealed the truth.

You will always find a certain small segment are going to piss and moan about it, no matter which way its done. As you said, such is life.

Tina G

[kennethtang]

Eternal vigilance is the price of intelligent conversation.

Ahh...now THAT is a gem that should be highlighted in neon lights three feet high. Alas, much of many people's brains are bereft of anything resembling vigilance or intelligence, let alone their conversation.

Kenneth

[globalpro]

OK Paul,

If things run true to form, someone will be having a WSO before too long and I can grab them there.

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

John (globalpro),

Are you nuts? Do you know what could happen if we shipped a copy of the Warrior Protocols into the deep south? Those people are conspiracy nu... (What? Who? He lives in... Oh yeah.)

Ummm. We're out of copies. Yeah. That's it. We're out of copies. Maybe next shipment.

Paul

Also, I would like to make a request. If any openings come up for the 'old boys network', I'd like to sign up. I think I qualify:

1. I am old.
2. I am a boy.
3. I like to network.

Thanks,

John

PS Glad you started this thread and even better it got stickied. Great stuff.

[Louis Raven]

Cheers Paul.

This thread makes being a member, and a moderator a whole lot easier.

Louis

[Paul Myers]

From time to time, I'll update this with comments on the subject from other threads. Those will scroll off, and not be available for long. They may also be missed by people who are interested in this subject, but not whatever the original thread was about that caused the questions to be raised.

These may be slightly edited before posting here, to adjust for the context, and to avoid confusion.

We had one like that today. Here are the questions and my answers:

Paul Coleman (ic7) asked,

Ok, if someone creates a very useful thread and at the end of their post says, "Check my sig for more info." And in their sig is a link to their related WSO...

...is this out of line?

Ahh... THAT can get tricky. Even long time members can get confused about that.

I spoke with a gentleman the other day who's been a member here for four years or so. He occasionally jumps into threads and offers help or comments, but rarely starts his own. He saw a question repeated, remembered my comment about the value of the content, and posted an article he'd written that he thought answered a number of those questions. Complete with copyright date.

That looked self-promotional, and got deleted. Properly so, as he readily agreed when the situation was explained to him.

He could have done the same thing by prefacing the post with, "I've seen X posts recently asking about [problem]. One here, one here and one there. Rather than post the same thing in a bunch of threads, I thought I'd offer my thoughts on it in one place, in the hopes it will be helpful to anyone who might have the same questions."

Then edit the thing so it becomes part of the conversation, rather than an "announcement." Done properly, that could be a good way to handle it.

I generally recommend against pointing to an offer in a sig file unless it's in response to a specific request for information on the topic. I very strongly recommend against pointing to any offer at all in a thread starter. It's very difficult to do that without being perceived as having posted for the advertising value.

I say perceived because we don't really ever know the intent of the poster. We, as collective moderators, have to make decisions based on what things look like. If it looks like an ad, we need to get rid of it, because leaving it stay will encourage others to do the same thing in the same way. That encourages folks to post ads intentionally.

Does that lead to people with good intentions occasionally being foiled in their efforts to be helpful? Sure. And that sucks. But it doesn't suck as much as creating an excuse for dozens of people with less helpful intentions to claim they're "just doing what Joey did."

Chris Hunter asked,

I guess my question is this: If I'm running a WSO about how to get more traffic from your articles and a link to my WSO is in my sig, should I not post answers to threads with article marketing questions?

Answering questions is the place where my comments apply about the value of the post being the factor that determines fitness.

If the answers would be useful without the sig file being attached, then yeah. The answers are appropriate, and the presence of a sig file should be irrelevant, except to people who find them useful enough to want more.

Example: I've been answering threads here about writing for a looong time. When I had an offer going recently for a book on the subject, I didn't let that stop me from continuing to answer those same sorts of questions. In fact, I made sure I put more effort into giving complete answers, in order to make sure people got more value from the posts themselves.

Some people might have thought that was intended to get attention for the offer. It wasn't, but that was probably an added benefit.

That's how it works. The more value you offer for people who don't buy from you, the more attention you'll get from the folks who want to learn what you teach.

The offer is gone now, but those posts still have value. That might be another useful way to look at it, if you're not sure.


Paul

[MickG]

I have only just joined this forum but I thought you made an excellent post Paul, this is like being in your lounge and we are your guests and have to behave accordingly or we are asked to leave

[Paul Myers]

Mick,

this is like being in your lounge and we are your guests and have to behave accordingly or we are asked to leave

Well, Allen's lounge, but yeah. That's a good analogy.

Thinking about participation here as a social thing, and looking at how a planned action would be seen in an offline social setting, can lead to some very useful insights into what works and what doesn't.


Paul

[Allen Graves]

I don't understand why people don't just answer the entire question in their posts to the best of their ability...or don't post at all. We are here to help each other. If you're not going to give everyone the information, don't post. If you just want to sell stuff (and it's obvious after a short while that that's what you're trying to do!!!), don't post.

If we want to keep our "stuff" secret and for sale, then don't post in a thread saying that you know the answer but won't tell anyone (which is in itself another form of self-promotion in a lot of peoples' opinion). That's just rediculous and doesn't add to the value of the thread at all. All that does is get people to your sales page...that is what pisses other people off (and that is what the WSO forum is for).

From what I have gathered, if your posts are helpful and never hint at someone visiting your site, sig or WSO for "more answers" then you have absolutely nothing to worry about...not even from the alleged "bullies" or even from people that "don't like" you, as I've seen it described lately in other threads.

AL

[Casem63]

Paul, I think the all encompassing scope of your analysis and in depth school of thought clearly demonstrate the extent of your experience, even if you had not divulged the length of your history with forums. I was greatly impressed with the views you expressed and found them quite instructional.

As an aside, thanks so much Peter for the definition of "stonking"

[Paul Myers]

Allen,

From what I have gathered, if your posts are helpful and never hint at someone visiting your site, sig or WSO for "more answers" then you have absolutely nothing to worry about...

That isn't entirely accurate.

There are things one can do that seem (and often are) intended to be promotional, but which never involve pointing to a sig file or other link in the body of the post. These can form patterns, which experienced people will usually identify.

Among them are the constant one-liners, regular posting of articles related to one's products, resurrecting multiple old threads on the same topic (usually by a new member), and probably more that I'm forgetting. A corroborating sign of this is including keyword specific links in one's posts or sig file.

None of these are proof, but they can be very convincing evidence.

Oh yeah. Posting questions about a product, and including an affiliate link to the product. Also, anonymous or unknown new members asking for impressions on a product, and then discounting negative comments. That one happened yesterday. The creator of a service came in and started that kind of thread using a sock puppet.

Those are pretty much givens. You nuke them outright.

The ways people will try to game the system are pretty limited, but the possible variations aren't. That's why so much of moderating is composed of judgment calls.


Paul

[Michael Mayo]

Paul,

Your post count gives me the e-b-g-b's...lol
Please make another post to fix it!

It's throwing off you Zen.

Michael


Thanks! I feel better now!

[Paul Myers]

Aw, come on, Michael!

In Yahtzee, 4 6's is a Good Thing.


Paul

[Angela V. Edwards]

At least it wasn't three sixes.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

Aw, come on, Michael!

In Yahtzee, 4 6's is a Good Thing.


Paul

Paul,
Since you put it that way I feel much better now, Thanks!

Originally Posted by Angela V. Edwards

At least it wasn't three sixes.

Angela,
I agree although, I know Paul always Over Delivers so it made me
worry even more!

Have a Great Day/Night!
Michael

[Paul Myers]

Michael,

I agree although, I know Paul always Over Delivers so it made me worry even more!

Worry. Worry much.

4 6's is actually just three sets of 3 6's. A Trinity thereof, so to speak...


Paul

[Paul Myers]

If you see anyone doing this, report them.

I've always wondered where these guys learned that lame trick. This explains quite a lot...


Paul

[JazzOscar]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

If you see anyone doing this, report them.

I've always wondered where these guys learned that lame trick. This explains quite a lot...


Paul

Seems time is long overdue for launching a crusade on Dilbert. LOL

I seem to remember that some years ago there was a crusade in the US on some rock lyrics containing bad language and describing bad behaviour. Wasn't the wife of one of the former vice presidents involved? (In the crusade, not the bad behaviour.)

Dilbert is a lot more dangerous. Sort of spreading bad ethics to the world. (Spread through 2000 newspapers in 70 countries.)

By the way;

If you find the "About Scott Adams" page of the Dilbert site, you'll find that the cartoonist among other things was a Certified Hypnotist from Clement School of Hypnosis, San Francisco. Maybe he's doing some dangerous things with our minds.

You'll also find a treasure chest of good titles that fit very well in with different situations her in the Warrior Forum, like;

• Newbie threads with "Clues for the Clueless"
• "It's Obvious You Won't Survive by Your Wits Alone" for when you don't want to play nice with your oponents anymore
• "Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons" for the situations where you really need to think twice before throwing yourself into a discussion
• "Dilbert Gives You the Business" would be a nice business-in-a-box offer in the WSO section
• "Try Rebooting Yourself" for when you need to cool down a little
• "This is the Part Where You Pretend to Add Value" goes right into the discussion in this thread. Do posters add, or just pretend to add, value?

Maybe a little bit off topic, but I just had to.

[mmurtha]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

If you see anyone doing this, report them.

I've always wondered where these guys learned that lame trick. This explains quite a lot...


Paul

ROTFLMBO! I just happened to see this one. That comic makes a great point!

It's just a shame some people try to bend too much because of greed.

[Paul Myers]

Another recurring theme. I figured it would be good to have this here, so people can refer others to it when appropriate.

On February 4, 2009, MichaelBSoftware posted the following, quoted in its entirety:

It's interesting so many of you seem to dislike new posters.

I'm new, and you're making me want to leave. I mean seriously, how many of you old members had to put up with these rules we have to put up with.

30 posts before you can do this, or 15 before you can do that. I've bought 4 products through WSO's since I've joined and I can't even PM the vendor I am a customer of.....that's BS from my standpoint as a new poster.

It's real simple for you guys that have been here for years to let your ideas flow to increase the difficulty for a new poster to do anything. You want us to contribute but I can't even answer some questions because I needed to post dummy links to illustrate the answer and I couldn't even do that.

So it's now wonder people use one liners to get through the bs as quickly as possible.

Try and see it from both sides, imagine how you would feel if you were just now joining...versus joining years ago when the hoops didn't exist.

Here is my response to that post:

Michael,

It's interesting so many of you seem to dislike new posters.

It's interesting that you assume that we don't like any new posters, simply because we don't like new posters who abuse the forum.

I mean seriously,
how many of you old members had to put up with these rules we
have to put up with.

splorf!

Dude, here's an announcement I posted on February 4th, 2001, Ironically, exactly 8 years to the day before you made these comments. If you want to verify it, go to this link, at Archive.org.

The exact text of the original post:

Message: IMPORTANT: Changes in Posting Rules
Author: Moderator

Posted 02-04-01 - Article 1 of 12 in this thread.

[Back to Index] [Next Message] [Reply] [New Thread] [Hot Threads]

Hi folks...

Some changes in the rules. I've discussed these with Allen, and he agrees that they should be implemented. From now forward:

1. All posts must be accompanied by the poster's real name, and include a real, working email address. No anonymous posting will be allowed.

2. No posts will be approved that have any affiliate URL anywhere in them EXCEPT in the sig file. No posts will be approved which specifically refer you to their sig file for an affiliate URL.

Oh yeah... If your sig file suddenly starts changing to reflect the appropriate affiliate URL every time you post, that's a no-no too.

3. Posts requesting a site review MUST be accompanied by a description of the specific issues the requester is trying to solve. If it looks like it MIGHT be a game to get traffic, the post will be refused. (You know who you are...)

4. Host4Profit technical support questions should be referred to H4P support or the manuals.

H4P customers are encouraged to ask and answer questions relating to marketing and design of websites, and all the other issues confronting an online business. Only H4P system-specific questions are not allowed.

5. Anyone regularly trying to abuse the forum by breaking the rules will be banned from posting for a period of one month.

For the record, I already refuse most posts that say "Email me for details." The exceptions are ones where the offered help is in the form of information that would be too long and/or situation specific for normal posting.

Paul

Email the author (paul@talkbiz.com)

Yep. You had to use your real name, AND a working email address. If I found out an address didn't work, you didn't get posts approved until you fixed the problem.

When I say that using a real name changes the way people post, I'm not talking out of my hat. I saw the difference, first hand. It was very significant, and very positive.

As you can see, the problems with affiliates abusing their access isn't anything new. It was old before that post was made. You may not believe it, but we've seen all of this stuff before.

You have to have 30 posts before you can send a PM? Take a look at the row of phrases in [Brackets] there. Those were the functions available. Do you see PMs in there? Or blogs? Or groups? Or even a function for a sig file? You pasted your sig file in manually, if you used one. Most of us didn't bother.

People offering WSOs these days are required to include contact information that's outside the forum's systems, so even new folks can reach them if there are problems. If you find that someone has failed to do this, use the help desk to notify the Powers That Be. Such things are taken quite seriously.

You think it's tough to participate enough to hit the posting mark before you're allowed to make a WSO? (A whopping 30 posts, at the time of this writing.)

The requirement back then was not so easily finagled. You had to get past me. They went right in the main (single) forum, and I only approved them when they offered significant value, and when they came from people I personally considered to have earned the right, by way of their contributions to the group.

One of the big rules back then was, quoted exactly: "Them that gives, gets."

By the way, there was no such thing as a "Made for WSO" product in those days. You had to be actively selling it to the public, and offer Warriors a discount on that price.

Notice the part about posts not being approved if they broke the rules? Yes, that really does mean that Allen or I read every post, and refused a lot of them. You had to get past one of us before your post was even visible to the members.

Say something stupid and get blistered for it? The philosophy at the time was, "Hey, if you can't handle it in a discussion forum, you're just not ready for prime time. Real customers will eat you alive." We had some ferocious battles back then.

May the best idea win.

At the end of the day, we learned about and developed respect for each other. We found out who was really thinking, and who was just running off at the keyboard. New folks who played by the rules got treated with decent manners, certainly, but that was it.

If you wanted respect from the Warriors, you damned well had to earn it.

People who came in and demanded respect, while spewing nonsense as fact when we knew it was wrong or dangerous, got treated the way they deserved: Like idiots.

Try and see it from both sides, imagine how you would feel if you were just now joining...versus joining years ago when the
hoops didn't exist.

You were saying?

This is neither bragging nor complaining, and it's certainly not saying things were necessarily better back then. They were just different, from a technological perspective. Certainly not as easy as today, but we didn't care. It was just what was possible at the time.

But, as far as your completely inaccurate assumptions about how the old-timers here think, or what things were like back when we joined, I have a recommendation: Get facts before you start making assertions.

Dude, we were all newbies at one point or another. And I remember exactly what it felt like, too. It felt like, "Cool! This is going to take some figuring out, but look at the possibilities!" It still feels like that.

There are a lot of people here who remember this group in 2001. There are some who were already here when I joined, in '97 or '98. Those people are the ones who walked a ton of newbies through the learning stages, and who made the place what it is. They've seen all this stuff before. It goes in cycles, and none of it, absolutely none of it, is new.

There is one huge difference: The number of people. A lot more newbies, so the cycles are shorter. A lot more experienced people, so the potential for learning is higher. A lot more posts, so you have to be more careful of how you mine the information.

A lot more opportunity. A lot more tools and proven information (much of it developed by those same old-timers). And a lot more whining about how hard it is to make anything work.

Those weren't the golden days, in terms of potential. These are. Do you want to take advantage of it, or waste it, talking about how "tough" things are?


Paul

[Paul Myers]

Oscar,

Thanks. A welcome chuckle, indeed.

Clever re-interpretations of the book titles, too.


Paul

[Louis Raven]

I'll tell you sumin, I had made 40 posts and asked 200 questions out of excitement before I even new you could have a sig lol.

Seriously, if you can't provide this forum with 30 measly.. but valuable posts then how do you expect others to find your WSO's valuable? I know some Warriors that could post "buy this crap now" and would sell out in seconds due to the value they've contributed for free in the main forum.

Louis

P.S. my post is aimed at people moaning.. (whoever you are)

[alvien]

Hi to everyone: I am new to WS and in fact to all forums.I just finished reading Paul's dialog.I am 82 years old and do not find his observations so far out or misplaced. I base this on having been involved in Boy Scouts Of America, PTA, American Legion,V.F.W.,Sitting on Boards of Directors and creating an "Artist Guild "single handed. So I say Many Kudo's to you for this excellent piece.
To equate this to ROI it would place the carpers,complainers, and those too ill equipped to function in today's world in about 1/2 of a percent of the total. This is probably giving them more pertentence than they deserve. The one thing I have learned in 60 some years of encountering this type of ego-aggression is to ignore them .How??? In live circumstances you could just not respond or turn your back. In a blog or forum why not use a face showing disgust replying to their rudeness anonymously.It would show them they are out of line and ,Just Perhaps,get through to them. They couldn't come down on anyone because they have no one to name. I know this has it's flaws but just a thought for chewing up. Alvie N Leeper

[Michael D Price]

Great Post!

I couldn't have said it better myself!

[Pete Lauder]

Originally Posted by Paul Myers

There are a lot of people here who remember this group in 2001. There are some who were already here when I joined, in '97 or '98. Those people are the ones who walked a ton of newbies through the learning stages, and who made the place what it is. They've seen all this stuff before. It goes in cycles, and none of it, absolutely none of it, is new.

There is one huge difference: The number of people. A lot more newbies, so the cycles are shorter. A lot more experienced people, so the potential for learning is higher. A lot more posts, so you have to be more careful of how you mine the information.

The forum has chaanged, and moderation will change with it, as time goes by, we can expect even more newbies.

They are our future, like it or not, and the way we shape these people will, ultimately shape the Warrior forum in years to come.

I don't know how you find the time Paul.

Pete Lauder

[Andy LaPointe]

One more addition if I could...After reading Paul's post and all of the replies, you know this is an excellent community. Like any relationship (business or personal ) you need personal responsible, mutual respect, offering something of value and willingness to really try to understand the other person's point of view. Thanks, Andy

[ProfitFu]

It's funny I stumbled onto this. My second post was flagged by someone who had multiple infractions. The very next click, I landed on an entire ADVERTISEMENT as a post. Go figure.

No worries. I own all of the properties in my signature and life is very good. So, no feathers were ruffled. LOL.

[Paul Myers]

RJ,

The fact that someone has multiple infractions doesn't mean much. I've got two, and both were from the same guy, but with different usernames. Some people consider that a way to "get back" at folks who correct them.

Infractions are intended to warn you, not punish you. They expire after an hour, and I don't believe it's possible for them to add up to enough for someone to get removed by them.

Yes, some people post plain old ads. You'll see them from time to time, but they get yanked pretty quickly by members using the Report Post button.


Paul

[JohnsonC]

Hi guys,
New here to the forum...thanks a lot for the info Paul. I have been on forums before, not of this type. I'm new to online marketing, and am excited to see what I can learn from some of the experts here in the forum.

Thanks again!

[gb4biz]

Hi Paul, I just left a post on someone else's thread complimenting you. Then I got to this page and saw your comments. Just wanted to say Hello! Don't drink too much Beer!

[mike_h58]

Thanks Paul,

Very pertinent and useful observations and advice; a bit long, I should say, for a complete review by new forum members, but necessary for those coming here to better themselves as marketers and not only...

Keep it up!

Mike

[lh1234]

Roger I appreciated your comments and hope others see the wisdom in them.

lh

[prosperpreneur]

The subject line sounded me like a official Warrior Forum post .

I completely agree with what Paul said and that is the only way to keep this amazing forum worthy of all of our time.

Thanks,
-Gaj

[edhan]

Being around with many forums but this is the first forum that uses member moderator. It is very interesting and does work up to a certain point as long as you do not provoke anyone. Wondering what will happen if someone dislike you and penalize you again and again.

Up till now, I value what many had written in this forum and had helped many with wise words.

Glad and happy to see many of us have understood most of the Dos and Don'ts. It is one of the best forum with so many experts hanging out to help newbies as well as advanced users.

With this said, I hope this forum will maintain 'Law & Order' with every member benefiting from each other's knowledge & skill.

[DougBangkok]

Paul, this is an excellent, if somewhat wordy, post, worth preserving.

I have a couple of comments on my own experiences:

You said: "The majority are people who simply don't understand how something is supposed to work and who are angry because they're confused."

I'm the author of a software product to teach the Thai language; it's available on CD in Thailand and as a download on the Internet. Most installations go without a hitch, but I get the following about once a month: "I downloaded your stupid software but I don't know where I put it so your stupid software is no good". Or "I downloaded your software and when I clicked on one of the 75 files in the zip file it ran and then crapped out with some message I don't understand so your software is no good". The download page has 5 instructions to be followed for installation, but some people have no idea what "zip" means, and won't reply to e-mails offering to help them. One wonders how they get through life each day.

You also said: "One of the guidelines I always used when I was moderating was a question: Is the information in this post useful on its own, without needing to buy a product? If so, it's a valid post. If not, it's not."

I used to particpate in a Thai language forum. One day, a young Canadian asked some questions about beginning the process of learning Thai. His questions exactly matched my own when I was starting, and being a fellow Canadian, I replied back with what I had done. My post was deleted within 5 minutes of posting. When I asked why, as I had spent 20 minutes writing it and had tried to make it useful and informative to other people, not just the original poster, I was told "Because you didn't mention you were the author of a Thai language product". So the volunteer moderator was being super-sensitive to spam, I guess, although there were no links in my reply nor in my signature (not allowed on that forum). When I pointed out that the reply was over 400 words long and my product was not explicitly linked to nor even discussed, just listed as one of several available products, I got no reply. So I did the only thing I could do, I quit the forum, never made another post, and never even lurked again.

Moderation is very important but needs to be done fairly, as you said, and in a balanced manner. I think you got those points across quite well.

Thank you for taking the time to write this.

[mlongley]

Thanks for this thread.. Lots of good advice.

[blagoj]

Originally Posted by JohnsonC

Hi guys,
New here to the forum...thanks a lot for the info Paul. I have been on forums before, not of this type. I'm new to online marketing, and am excited to see what I can learn from some of the experts here in the forum.

Thanks again!

If you want to learn the best way is to be frequent visitor here, read e-books and constantly improve yourself. You can see what people are doing here and learn a LOT just by visiting the sites in their signatures.

[mylelo]

Why complicating things? Just follow the rules and everything will be smooth!

[edhan]

Originally Posted by mylelo

Why complicating things? Just follow the rules and everything will be smooth!

In life, there always be people trying to break the rules. Life will be perfect if we have a good set of rules and regulations where people do not think of 'backdoor' and doing sneaky stuff just to get additional benefits. We can be feasible but certain aspects of rules should be strictly regulated otherwise it can get out of hands.

If only everyone just do their parts, there will be no complication.

[Steve Diamond]

I'd appreciate some guidance on the intersection of Rule #1 and posts that refer indirectly to illegal or unethical marketing practices. I'm seeing more and more of these recently. (I suppose it's because some new members have previous experience in forums where those practices are discussed openly.)

Here are two recent examples:

1. A post was made in one of the tech support sub-forums asking about how to duplicate the functionality of a certain site (link was given). The example site was clearly both illegal and fraudulent. (It used a well known dark hat technique.) But the request for technical help sounded innocent.
   
2. A post was made offering a free report for download. The report features a marketing technique that very clearly violates the TOS of a certain popular site in several important ways. Many members have thanked the OP and said that they were going to try the technique.

In the first instance, I really felt that the member didn't know any better. I let them know in a PM that the model was illegal and asked them to delete the post. After some hours elapsed, I reported the post, and it was deleted. From the member's eventual private response to me, I believe they would have deleted it on their own in any case. No real problem here because it was very clearly illegal. Even though the post didn't discuss the nature of the illegal techniques at all, I feel strongly that drawing attention to them in this manner has no place on the WF.

The second situation I find more ambiguous. My impulse is to make a post cautioning anyone considering using the technique to ponder the implications. Maybe that's innocent enough, but I think it violates the spirit of Rule #1 since it implies that the OP is full of crap and that the report is worthless. Also, the judge in one of the MySpace suicide cases ruled recently that intentionally violating a site's TOS is not a criminal act. So that makes this one an ethical rather than a legal issue - much more subjective and less definitive.

So the question on situation number 2 is, can I follow my impulse and make a post pointing out the TOS violation and decrying the lack of ethics?

I'm all too aware of how it could degenerate into a pissing match, thus demonstrating the need for Rule #1 in the first place. And yet...

Thanks for any discussion and insight.

Steve