70 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
70 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Warrior Forum Rules - Please Read Before Posting

by moss
66 replies
Hey Warriors,

We've decided to collate all the forum rules in one place to reduce confusion and make it easier for everyone to know what is and is not allowed on the forum.

We've also made small changes to the rules where we've seen a need, these changes will be gradually enforced over the coming weeks.

These will be updated when necessary.
  1. General
    1. You are only permitted one account per person.
    2. Username changes are not permitted.
    3. Do not harass, personally attack, blackmail, spam or bully buyers and/or other Warrior Forum members.
    4. The selling of accounts is prohibited
    5. Shameless self promotion such as 'see my sig' or 'pm me for more details' is prohibited.
    6. In line links are allowed and even encouraged as long as they are not selling anything and expand specifically on the concept being discussed. Marketplace listings are of course exempt from this rule.
    7. If you have a problem with anyone, take it up with them privately. No naming or shaming here since there are two sides to every story.

  2. Contributing to the Forum
    1. Excessive use of capitalization, special characters, colours or font/image size will result in deletion/editing by an admin of the title and/or body of the post.
    2. We retain the right to move threads to more suitable sub forums where applicable.
    3. Posting must add value to the relevant discussion. To thank someone for a contribution use the ‘thanks’ button or upvote the discussion.
      [*[ Posts should have original content. Discussing content found in other sites on the internet is fine, but the entire article/post need not be pasted as the post body - a link and submission statement is enough.
    4. Excessive consecutive posts in a single thread by the same author may be merged into one post.

  3. Signatures
    1. Excessive use of capitalization and/or special characters will result in deletion/editing by an admin. If you want to be safe don't use any, however, If it's done tastefully we won't mind. Tastefulness is subjective and up to our discretion.
    2. Sig files may only be written in the normal standard font size.
    3. Sig file text may only be black.
    4. You may bold or italicize it.
    5. Maximum length of sig file is 2 lines which includes any blank lines used for spaces. This excludes an image.
    6. Your signature must link to your own domain or a listing owned by you on any of the Warrior Market Places. If you have paid for an image signature you are exempt from this rule.
    7. Your signature cannot link to any of the blacklisted content types as detailed in Rule 4.10 below.

  4. Sellers (Applies to entire sales funnel)
    1. No income guarantees.
    2. Money back guarantees may or may not be offered. If offered guarantees must adhere to the following.
      1. Guarantees can be limited to a window of time after the point of sale.
      2. Guarantees can be conditional on fulfilment of deliverables by the seller.
      3. Guarantees cannot be conditional on the buyer actioning, undertaking or completing anything.
    3. Sellers must not post blind ad/copy. This is an ad/copy where you advise what the product is not rather than what it is. Your product should be clearly understood by both moderators and members.
    4. Resale of MRR/PLR/RR is prohibited apart from in the Classified Marketplace.
    5. Sellers are not permitted to use the Warrior Forum logo, branding or name in their sales copy. The name of your product should not imply that the product is affiliated with the Warrior Forum in any way.
    6. You may use whatever payment provider you wish in order to sell your product.
    7. Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO.
    8. All listings must have a clear deliverable. This can be but is not limited to software, products or services. Services should also have a clear eta on the deliverables.
    9. All rules in section 2 apply in all marketplaces.
    10. All listing are subject to moderator approval before going live. We reserve the right to not approve/delete any threads which may be deemed fraudulent or spam related.
      These include but are not limited to
      • Mass Account Creators
      • E-Mail Harvesters
      • Lead Scrapers
      • Cookie Stuffing Scripts
      • Mass Automation Tools
      • SEO Spam Tools
      • Blog Commenting Tools
      • Wiki Poster Tools
      • Spamming Tools
      • Automation Bots
      • Forum Posting Tools
      • Classified Ad Posters
      • Email Lists
    11. No signatures on marketplaces are allowed.
    12. No fraudulent behaviour such as but not limited to paid testimonials.
    13. No off-site reviews or testimonials. Including but not limited to screen grabs from external conversations.
    14. All testimonials must pertain specifically to the product being sold.
    15. Sellers are not to force email opt ins from customers to gain access to their product. While you are allowed to request the customer to subscribe to your mailing list, this should not be the only way the customer may gain access to your product or service.
    16. All listings must comply with forum rules, the laws of Australia and the laws of your geographic location. Sellers must comply with all legal requirements for advertising, both under the laws of Australia and the country in which you live or predominantly reside.
    17. Legal compliance is strictly your responsibility as the seller of the product.

  5. Buyers
    1. Don’t solicit review copies.

  6. Conflict Resolution
    1. If an accused or suspect fraudulent review is posted an example proof of purchase may be required by the sellers and the buyer. Upon match a course of action will be decided. Any attempt gaming this by either party will result in a permanent ban.
    2. If a guarantee is offered and not honoured within a reasonable time this will result in a permanent ban.
    3. When offering a service, quotes on price and ETA must be provided in the original thread or through private message. If no correspondence occurs, in absence of sufficient evidence of the works completion. Warrior Forum will side with the buyer.


Violation of any of these rules by a user can result in a warning up to permanent account suspension. The course of action will depend upon the severity of the situation, the nature of the violation and past behaviour.

Change Log:
[2016-09-2 9:35]
[2016-06-15 12:30]
  • Added old Rule #1 which is now Rule 1.7


[2016-06-10 16:20]
  • Clarification surrounding self promotion.
  • Clarification around external links.
  • Clarification surrounding sig special characters.

[2016-06-10 16:00]
  • Clarification surrounding what is allowed in Guarantees

[2016-06-09 14:25]
  • Added prohibited content as detailed in 4.10 to signature links.
  • Clarified exemption of Warrior Market Place listing links in signatures.
  • Clarified exemption of the Warrior Classified Market place in PLR ban.
  • Clarified testimonial to pertain only to the product being sold.
#forum #rules #warrior
  • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
    Thanks, Moss and forum team. Looks like there is a lot to chew on there.

    A couple questions/comments (if this isn't the appropriate place for questions, maybe you should start a thread where they can be asked because I'm sure there will be a lot of feedback):

    1. It would be great if the no-no items in 4.10 were also included in the sig rules.
    2. Does 3.6 apply to Fiverr, our own WSO, a lead page on a 3rd party provider such as leadpages.net?
    3. Is the blatant violation of rule 2.3 reportable when we see them or not?
    4. Rule 4.4 will eliminate a lot of offers in the Classified section. Previously the WSO section had to be unique offers but things like PLR could be posted in the Classified area. Is that the intention?
    5. Testimonials and reviews should apply to the current offer not previous products in my opinion. Without this being in place, it would seem that a brand new offer that may be awful has a lot of positive feedback.

    Mark

    Edit: Is there or is there not a rule against self-promotion such as "see my sig", "PM me for more details", etc?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986634].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author moss
      Hey Mark,

      Really appreciate your prompt input.

      I'm happy to continue this conversation here, the caveat is that we'll be strict with removing off topic contribution. Considered feedback is welcomed though.

      With respect to your feedback:
      1. Agree completely.
      2. 3.6 does apply to Fiverr. WSO's under your username are an exception. Anything hosted on a domain you own is also allowed.
      3. Yes, feel free to report it. It'll be at the discretion of the team as to whether or not it'll be actioned. I imagine we'll end up seeing some edge cases where there's disagreement on what is value and what isn't, however we should be able to start removing some useless one liner responses.
      4. PLR will continue to be allowed in the Classified section for now.
      5. Agreed, it can be misleading. Testimonials should pertain to the relevant product.

      I've updated the rules to reflect these changes.

      Thanks again for the constructive input.

      Moss
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986635].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      @moss

      I'm bumping this as I noticed that you responded to Mark's original suggestions, but you may have missed his edit.

      This one most definitely needs to be in there, and it's been strictly enforced in the past.

      Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

      Edit: Is there or is there not a rule against self-promotion such as "see my sig", "PM me for more details", etc?
      The restriction is a no-brainer... If you can't (or don't know how to) contact a member discreetly, or personally, then you probably don't need to be posting anyway.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986647].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author moss
        Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

        @moss

        I'm bumping this as I noticed that you responded to Mark's original suggestions, but you may have missed his edit.

        This one most definitely needs to be in there, and it's been strictly enforced in the past.



        The restriction is a no-brainer... If you can't (or don't know how to) contact a member discreetly, or personally, then you probably don't need to be posting anyway.

        Cheers

        -don
        I did miss this with the first pass of corrections. This is Rule 1.5 now.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986652].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author vedremo
    Banned
    Originally Posted by moss View Post

    Guarantee may or may not be offered. If offered they must be non conditional.
    Does this apply to service offers?

    Should this not be at discretion of sellers and the market decides?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986636].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author moss
      Originally Posted by vedremo View Post

      Does this apply to service offers?

      Should this not be at discretion of sellers and the market decides?
      Yes, it applies to all offers.

      It is the sellers discretion whether or not to offer a guarantee.

      The issue with allowing conditional guarantees is the slippery slope that it creates with increasingly convoluted conditions.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986637].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author vedremo
        Banned
        Originally Posted by moss View Post

        The issue with allowing conditional guarantees is the slippery slope that it creates with increasingly convoluted conditions.
        The forum is not part of the transaction between a buyer and seller. We have no ability to force a refund or any other action by a third party. We are limited to reducing or removing access by parties we believe may be acting improperly or who violate the forum or WSO rules as described here.
        I don't think "convolution" is the issue.

        More the ability and/or willingness to understand guarantee.

        A more appropriate revision would be "clearly understood guarantee must be present".
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986638].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author moss
          Originally Posted by vedremo View Post

          I don't think "convolution" is the issue.

          More the ability and/or willingness to understand guarantee.

          A more appropriate revision would be "clearly understood guarantee must be present".
          I respectfully disagree on this point.

          My phrasing of "convoluted" was more meant as a misrepresentation of what the buyer understands he's being guaranteed and the reality of what will be honoured..

          Clear understanding of a guarantee does not equal a clear understanding of when that guarantee should or should not be enforced.

          Take for example "100% Money back guarantee, conditional on you providing me with evidence that you did what was instructed and it failed."

          This is a by all means clearly understandable guarantee. The clarity on exactly what is required to receive it is lacking though. How do you prove you executed and it failed? I might well have executed it to the best of my ability, but not identically and suddenly the assumption that I would have this backed by a guarantee is now gone.

          This is the type of situation we are trying to avoid.

          Peoples experience on the site and marketplace are our responsibility.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986639].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author vedremo
            Banned
            I agree in certain offers this is the case and I 100% agree. For example, coaching offers "Prove you can put in the work and you get your $2000 back". Can of worms.

            But this isn't always the case.

            ... Rarely is.

            A lot of sellers offer legitimate money back guarantees that can be objectively measured that even Blind Betty can see.

            For example, when delivering guaranteed acceptance on Wikipedia or full money back.

            Sellers want to offer this because so buyers know that they will not pay anything in the event that Wikipedia does not accept their site.

            Under the new rule, a buyer is entitled to a full refund, regardless of whether or not they get what they get their page published in Wikipedia.

            Another example: delivery within 15 days or get a full refund. New rule: refund whenever you want.

            Do you see the problem?

            Or have I misunderstood the rule?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986640].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author moss
              Originally Posted by vedremo View Post

              I agree in certain offers this is the case and I 100% agree. For example, coaching offers "Prove you can put in the work and you get your $2000 back". Can of worms.

              But this isn't always the case.

              ... Rarely is.

              A lot of sellers offer legitimate money back guarantees that can be objectively measured that even Blind Betty can see.

              For example, when delivering guaranteed acceptance on Wikipedia or full money back.

              Sellers want to offer this because so buyers know that they will not pay anything in the event that Wikipedia does not accept their site.

              Under the new rule, a buyer is entitled to a full refund, regardless of whether or not they get what they get their page published in Wikipedia.

              Another example: delivery within 15 days or get a full refund. New rule: refund whenever you want.

              Do you see the problem?

              Or have I misunderstood the rule?
              Ok, I understand where you're coming from now.

              I've explicitly added the case of a windowed guarantee. It also seems a lot about what we're discussing is where the burden of fulfillments lies with conditions being met. The defining element seems to be that if it's conditional on a seller doing something that's ok, however, It's not ok if it's conditional on the buyer.

              Does sound better? I've updated the rules with what I think is a more comprehensive clarification of this. Let me know if you or anyone else can see any issues either way with it.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986651].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author vedremo
                Banned
                Originally Posted by moss View Post

                Ok, I understand where you're coming from now.

                I've explicitly added the case of a windowed guarantee. It also seems a lot about what we're discussing is where the burden of fulfillments lies with conditions being met. The defining element seems to be that if it's conditional on a seller doing something that's ok, however, It's not ok if it's conditional on the buyer.

                Does sound better? I've updated the rules with what I think is a more comprehensive clarification of this. Let me know if you or anyone else can see any issues either way with it.
                Thanks. Yes it 100% is better and I personally believe works for both buyers and sellers.

                There are also the sticky rules in the WSO Marketplace that remain there so it's unclear if those rules should be followed in addition to the above or if they are "pending deletion". e.g. rule 16 isn't mentioned in the "new new" rules, but is in the "new" rules.


                If you want my input for other ideas always welcome to pm / email me.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986653].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by vedremo View Post

                  There are also the sticky rules in the WSO Marketplace that remain there so it's unclear if those rules should be followed in addition to the above or if they are "pending deletion". e.g. rule 16 isn't mentioned in the "new new" rules, but is in the "new" rules.
                  @Moss

                  This was exactly where I was going with my next line of questions.

                  #1) What about free WSOs? Are they still going to be sent to classifieds?

                  #2) Are $1 WSOs the lowest priced offer that will remain in the main WSO section?

                  #3) The overall applicability of the WSO section rules --> are they still in force? If so, will they be added to this rules collation?

                  Personally, I prefer to sell front-end products priced between $5 and $35 and I hate seeing the WSO section flooded with a bunch of - not worth much stuff - put there just to collect optins and buyer information. Most are not really a Special Offer, IMO.

                  Of course it's your call completely... But I can tell you as a purchaser of more than 100 WSOs over the years I quit shopping here when the section became flooded with free and $1 offers.

                  So flooded with free and $1 stuff that I quit bumping my WSO thread too.

                  Please advise.

                  Thanks

                  -don
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986659].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    A most excellent clarification of the rules! Especially pleased to see the "not allowed" items and the tightening of sig rules and enforcement. The WF has been advertising Fiverr far too much.

    I think the important points of refunds were covered. A refund is not a guaranteed option - but if a seller uses "refund" as a sales tool he has to honor it. At the same time, buyers need to realize "a refund" isn't guaranteed for everything they buy on the WF.

    The way the rules are laid out here - there is no excuse to say "I didn't know".

    Mark covered my thoughts in his initial post and it's great to see such a quick response to his concerns.

    kay
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
    what it is instead of what you think it should be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986641].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Great thread and a great rules update, moss! This has been much needed, and thanks for taking our suggestions.

    One point:

    Originally Posted by moss View Post

    Posting must add value to the relevant discussion. To thank someone for a contribution use the 'thanks' button or upvote the discussion.
    I agree with this 100% --> but what happened to my upvote option? It's been gone for months. Alaister insured that I had the upvote button early on, but sometime over the past few months it has disappeared.

    Is it a bug? It's hard to upvote threads when we either don't have the option, or a bug has removed the option. So who is supposed to have access to the upvote function? Everyone, I expect...

    I'll post in suggestions...a suggestion that you guy's fix the Upvote buttons --> and I will file a ticket if I don't see it soon.

    Thanks again for the great rules update, it's been sorely needed for a long while.

    Best of luck!

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986642].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
    Banned
    [QUOTE=moss;10715911]
    1. Signatures
      1. Excessive use of capitalization, special characters will result in deletion/editing by an admin.
      2. Sig files may only be written in the normal standard font size.
    Hi Moss,
    Much needed set of rules there.
    You might want to clarify the sig file rule to something like:
    "Sig files may only be written using letters of the alphabet"
    Already there is a little confusion for some over the use of special characters.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986643].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

      You might want to clarify the sig file rule to something like:
      "Sig files may only be written using letters of the alphabet"
      @moss

      Respectfully, I am not in favor of the suggestion that was just made.

      Example: I have 3 little asterisks on either side of my link to your rules, and I have two six character arrows pointing to my WSO.

      IMO, the rule should stay with the "excessive" wording or maybe a 20 or 26 (or whatever number) special character limit, if the rule is to be revised. It's pretty obvious that what I am using is not excessive.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986644].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

        @moss

        Respectfully, I am not in favor of the suggestion that was just made.

        Example: I have 3 little asterisks on either side of my link to your rules, and I have two six character arrows pointing to my WSO.

        IMO, the rule should stay with the "excessive" wording or maybe a 20 or 26 (or whatever number) special character limit, if the rule is to be revised. It's pretty obvious that what I am using is not excessive.

        Cheers

        -don
        I completely disagree. They should just get rid of special characters rather than saying not to use them excessively.

        The more straightforward you make the rules and the less you leave them up to interpretation, the easier you make the job of the mods. They have enough to do.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986654].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          The more straightforward you make the rules and the less you leave them up to interpretation, the easier you make the job of the mods. They have enough to do.
          Certainly, and it's exactly why I recommended a specific character limit earlier in the thread.

          Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

          Without a clearly defined sig special character limit ---> it may make more work for the mod team fielding the illegal sig reports. It also makes more work for member mods as we don't really know what "characters" to report or not report. Sure, something outrageous is easy to spot. Others, not so much. One thing that I do know, it would provide more consistency in the way the sig reports are acted upon.
          No, it's not as easy as as saying we are eliminating all use of special characters, I fully realize that. And don't forget, you have still have an extra line in your sig --> we certainly don't want someone reporting you!

          Cheers

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986658].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
            Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

            Certainly, and it's exactly why I recommended a specific character limit earlier in the thread.
            To me, it just seems awfully silly to make the mods count characters.

            Far easier to just disallow them altogether, and it would not hurt the forum one bit.

            I would suggest either special characters are okay or they are not, and not make some okay but some not okay.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986660].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
              Banned
              Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

              It's silly to me to make the mods count characters.

              Far easier to just disallow them altogether, and it would not hurt the forum one bit.
              Of course it's silly.

              If a member mod sees something that looks like 137 characters and the the limit was 25 it's a quick report and a quick fix. Same thing goes if a member sees 40 asterisks on either side of a " MIllion Today - Click Here" sig ...it's easy to spot and it's an easy fix.

              Ultimately, I don't really care if special characters are eliminated ---> but I sure don't want to be the guy to go through thousands of Warrior accounts looking for an asterisk, an arrow, or anything else in their sig files. Will they run a script to do it for them? I seriously doubt it.

              Secondarily, it's probably not really all that fair to clock the new members (and frequent members) with a rule ---> when probably thousands, or tens of thousands of past members, and not so frequent members have already posted content to these boards with a few characters in their sigs.

              Obviously, changing all of those sigs is not all that feasible...so I suspect that's one of the reasons special characters will still be allowed.

              Heck, I want to see how long it takes them to enforce the new 2 line sig rule. How long do you think it will take to get all of the 5 liners removed from these boards?

              Yeah....I am hoping it ain't the case, but I suspect we may see 5 liners on here for a long time to come. Will FL eventually run a board tool forum wide that chops all the 5 liners down to 2? I dunno, but I rather doubt it. If they do, good on them!

              Getting rid of the five liners will be a wide enough task, and you want to get rid of all of the special characters too? Good luck with that.

              I just don't see it. What I envision happening under your scenario goes something like this...

              #1 The board becomes a big mix of peeps with 5 liners and peeps with 2 liners...not really all that fair to the 2 liners as site wide enforcement will be very slow, I am guessing. I suspect a good number of ---> hey this guy has 5 lines reports will be made.

              #2 The board becomes a mix of peeps with a few special characters and those without. Also not my idea of an ideal implementation of a new rule.

              #3 Peeps start complaining to the mods ---> this guy has special characters and I don't.

              #4 Peeps start reporting all special characters ---> making even more work for the mods. They have enough to do already with the new 2 line sig rule.

              I think the way the rule is worded now will work relatively well, but only time will tell. Remember, I only proposed the limit in rebuttal to LG's suggestion to restrict everything ---> that is only reason why I mentioned a character limit in the first place.

              I was OK with the way the rule was initially written knowing it was a little vague. I do think the rule is a bit better now that is has been revised. I am not opposed to eliminating the rule all together, but apparently these guys want to keep the gaudy stuff off the boards.

              3.1 Excessive use of capitalization and/or special characters will result in deletion/editing by an admin. If you want to be safe don't use any, however, If it's done tastefully we won't mind. Tastefulness is subjective and up to our discretion.
              Cheers

              -don
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986661].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    IMO, the rule should stay with...
    ....the way I choose to interpret it


    No, it shouldn't....
    Yes, it should...

    Come on, guys - let the mods sort it out. THEY will decide what can and can't be used and THEY can decide who is violating rules and who isn't.
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
    what it is instead of what you think it should be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986645].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    ....the way I choose to interpret it
    No, it shouldn't....Yes, it should...
    Come on, guys - let the mods sort it out. THEY will decide what can and can't be used and THEY can decide who is violating rules and who isn't.
    Seriously?

    Moss is taking revision suggestions...I know you have noticed a few of those above, eh?

    Maybe you should have let the mods decide if we were violating the rules when we made our revision suggestions... Heck, your latest reply may have even violated the no bullying rule [1.3].

    LG is clearly making a revision suggestion, and it's a suggestion that does make some sense.

    Without a clearly defined sig special character limit ---> it may make more work for the mod team fielding the illegal sig reports. It also makes more work for member mods as we don't really know what "characters" to report or not report. Sure, something outrageous is easy to spot. Others, not so much. One thing that I do know, it would provide more consistency in the way the sig reports are acted upon.

    My point of posting is to make the suggestion that the rule should be revised to include a specific special character limit, if the rule is going to be revised at all. Obviously, myself and many others do not want to see the use of ALL special characters eliminated - which is exactly what LG has proposed.

    My suggestion is another example of a perfectly legitimate revision suggestion.

    Both of our replies are appropriate for this thread...moss can decide to leave the rule as is, or he can accept either of our revisions.

    His suggestion makes sense, and so does mine. As you have seen with your own eyes, I have already been jumped for *supposedly* having too many special characters in my sig. LMAO

    Both of us basically want much of the same thing --> a bit more clarity on what will be allowed and what will not.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986646].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JC Web
    Regarding this rule:

    Signatures
    "6. Your signature must link to your own domain or a listing owned by you on any of the Warrior Market Places. If you have paid for an image signature you are exempt from this rule."

    I would really encourage you to rethink allowing affiliate links in signatures with paid images. There is already a ton of low quality sig-spamming posts by people with image sigs and allowing aff links in signatures of people who paid for image sigs is only going to make it much worse.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986648].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dansilvestre
      Originally Posted by JC Web View Post

      I would really encourage you to rethink allowing affiliate links in signatures with paid images. There is already a ton of low quality sig-spamming posts by people with image sigs and allowing aff links in signatures of people who paid for image sigs is only going to make it much worse.
      If you are paying to have an image signature then it's only fair that you decide where it redirects to.

      This rule will stay as it is now.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986650].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by dansilvestre View Post

        If you are paying to have an image signature then it's only fair that you decide where it redirects to.

        This rule will stay as it is now.
        By that logic, Google Adwords, Bing, and Facebook shouldn't care about the landing page I send paid ads to...but they do.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986662].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by JC Web View Post


      I would really encourage you to rethink allowing affiliate links in signatures with paid images. There is already a ton of low quality sig-spamming posts by people with image sigs and allowing aff links in signatures of people who paid for image sigs is only going to make it much worse.
      Yes it's total madness.
      There has been a constant battle for years getting rid of the affiliate
      link spammers sent here in their droves.
      Once they hear about this turn around one can't begin to imagine the effect it will have.

      $5 a month for unlimited spamming must be a pretty good deal for them.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986657].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dansilvestre
    Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

    You might want to clarify the sig file rule to something like:
    "Sig files may only be written using letters of the alphabet"
    Already there is a little confusion for some over the use of special characters.
    Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

    IMO, the rule should stay with the "excessive" wording or maybe a 20 or 26 (or whatever number) special character limit, if the rule is to be revised. It's pretty obvious that what I am using is not excessive.
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    Come on, guys - let the mods sort it out. THEY will decide what can and can't be used and THEY can decide who is violating rules and who isn't.
    This will be decided by mods on a sig by sig basis.

    The easier way to not get your sig edited is to not have any special characters or capitalization at all.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986649].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brent Stangel
    You are only permitted one account per person.
    Some "members" have numerous shill (an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.) profiles. How are you going to decide which one stays?

    Do not harass, personally attack, blackmail, spam or bully buyers and/or other Warrior Forum members.
    So, no calling out liars, scammers and other assorted low-lifes who will rob your less experienced members blind if given half a chance, fill the forum with mis-information, and generally detract from it's usefulness?

    Good luck with that.

    Shameless self promotion such as 'see my sig' or 'pm me for more details' is prohibited
    I gave up reporting these a while ago because it did no good. Rules are meaningless without competent moderators to enforce them.
    Signature
    Get Off The Warrior Forum Now & Don't Come Back If You Want To Succeed!
    All The Real Marketers Are Gone. There's Nothing Left But Weak, Sniveling Wanna-Bees!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986655].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    Very serious question, Moss...

    Is Rule #1 gone? If so, that means it's open season to name names and rant rants?

    Always thought that was one of the most useful rules here - because you only get one side of the story...

    kay
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
    what it is instead of what you think it should be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986656].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kay King
    My question may have gotten lost in discussions so I'm repeating it here....

    Very serious question, Moss...

    Is Rule #1 gone? If so, that means it's open season to name names and rant rants?
    Rule #1 has stopped people from joining here only to rant about money they lost or a service that was (in their view) inferior...or another member they feel took advantage of them.
    Signature
    Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
    ***
    One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
    what it is instead of what you think it should be.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986663].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

    IMO, the rule should stay with the "excessive" wording or maybe a 20 or 26 (or whatever number) special character limit, if the rule is to be revised. It's pretty obvious that what I am using is not excessive.

    Cheers

    -don
    Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

    No, it's not as easy as as saying we are eliminating all use of special characters, I fully realize that. And don't forget, you have still have an extra line in your sig --> we certainly don't want someone reporting you!

    Cheers

    -don
    [quote]***Read The New Forum Rules Prior To Posting***
    -----> This Guru Delivers the Goods <-----    [/quote]

    Or violating the rule about using bold, to say nothing of one link implying endorsement by the forum by linking to the new rules and then one's WSO...

    @moss

    I understand the need to comply with Australian laws regarding advertising, but if you are going to require that, perhaps you could also provide links to resources similar to the FTC's in the USA that try to simplify hundreds of pages of legalese into practical guidelines.

    Re: affiliate links

    I interpreted the exemption for paid images in sigs as an exemption from the rule prohibiting images, not affiliate links. Allowing affiliate links and their cousins, links to company provided MLM pages, would land this place back in the state that nearly did it in a few years ago.

    Please say it isn't so.

    Other input:

    > I agree with Kate, the old RULE 1 blanket about venting private disputes or feuds on the public forums kept a lot of the confrontational crap off the boards.

    > I'd like to see a rule against treating the forum as the universal support site for every software, service, theme, plugin, script, etc. used out there by people too lazy to use that thing's support functions. For example, Wordpress has an extensive forum system of their own, as do Aweber, Leadpages, etc.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986664].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

      Or violating the rule about using bold, to say nothing of one link implying endorsement by the forum by linking to the new rules and then one's WSO...
      LMAO --> You may want to read the rules again! Specifically rule 3.4.



      If Moss or Dan thought something was wrong with my sig I figure they would have said something to me when I used my signature as an example in an earlier reply.

      Pointing people to the rules is a good thing as it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of the people on here have not read them, especially the new members, and especially the new rules.

      As you can see from the whopping view count on this thread, this baby is not all that hot. Especially considering the fact that:

      #1) Warrior Forum had some sort of announce bar at the top of some of the forum pages for a while.

      #2) A notification thread with this link is posted in the main discussion forum

      #3) A notification thread with this link is posted in the off topic discussion forum

      #4) I have made probably a dozen posts or more since putting the link in my sig.

      #5) The link now appears on all of my previous posts.

      Wow....without these links to the new rules what view count do we have down here? Either way, the view count is a lot lower than what I'm sure many would like to see.

      What good does it do to take the time and effort to craft a new set of rules if nobody sees them? Yeah, that's what I thought.

      It's a great thing to inform the forum members of the rules. If everyone reads the rules a couple of times before they start firing away this place will be a whole lot better off.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986666].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        don, you got me. Funny how seeing a word that wasn't there changes the whole meaning of things.

        In the words of the sage Maxwell Smart, "sorry about that, Chief."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986667].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Here is a question.

    I get a good bit of spam email from this forum lately. Why didn't they blast one out to announce the new rules? Wouldn't that be a smart way to let members know about them?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986668].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Here is a question.

      I get a good bit of spam email from this forum lately. Why didn't they blast one out to announce the new rules? Wouldn't that be a smart way to let members know about them?
      They should consider a New Members Start Here top section just like you have at the very top of your competing internet marketing forum.



      I gotta say this --> you sure are using some pretty colors for mods, admins, and inner circle members!









      I suppose some folks could consider this to be a pretty impressive 8-11AM (CST) attendance this morning for a WF clone built in 2014. Hey, if you lost anything during that major cleanup you had in your OT section the other day, I'm pretty sure I can help you find what went missing.

      Of course an email blast should be sent out when the rules are completed, that's a no brainer. On top of that, they really should consider moving the start here stuff to a more prominent location.

      Another thing they can consider doing --> they can force members to open the rules prior to making their initial post to the forum, and make them tick a box that says they will comply before being directed to the post editor. Heck, if they wanted to do it, they could force every member to the rules prior to submitting their next thread or reply.

      A couple more suggestions...

      If it's not happening now, every new member that registers should receive a welcome email with the rules and/or a link to the rules.

      Upon registration you can redirect the new members to the rules...a good option if you are not going to force members to a rules page prior to making their initial contribution to the forum.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986669].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Importexport
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Here is a question.

      I get a good bit of spam email from this forum lately. Why didn't they blast one out to announce the new rules? Wouldn't that be a smart way to let members know about them?
      What a great idea!

      Not having seen the small notice about new rules, because it doesn't appear on the sub-forum I always open up on, I was not amused to receive this PM:

      "This is to inform you that we have removed your signature as it violates our 2 line guideline. Please refer to the link below.

      Warrior Forum Rules

      Let this serve as a warning. Future violations may cause your account to get sanctions."

      Not a very pleasant introduction to new rules!

      Having said that, I believe that rules are rules and I try to comply, but that's impossible to do when you aren't informed of rule changes. Simple courtesy would go a long way, and an email blast is well within WF's capability, as @MikeFriedman pointed out.

      Walter Hay
      Signature
      Use emotions and perceptions to build a great brand. Ask me about my book LabelsThatExploit. For safe sourcing and easy importing from 41 countries globally, see https://provenglobalsourcing.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986679].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Edit: Nevermind. I don't care.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986670].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      That forum was 100% private for most of its existence.

      Either way, someone is not going to be happy you mentioned that place here.
      I did not name the forum and several of your members have been PMing me and many other Warriors to join for months. In-fact your members that PMed me to join have some of the highest post (and thanks) counts on Warrior Forum.

      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986671].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986672].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

          I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the thread.
          #1) In my five screenshot post I made eight legit rules oriented suggestions that could improve Warrior Forum.

          #2) Maybe we should have a rule about active solicitation of WF members via WF systems to join a competing internet forum that has just recently added a member special offer marketplace.

          #3) I believe it is relevant to this rules discussion that the admins and mods know exactly who is doing most of the complaining thread after thread on Warrior Forum initiatives, moderators, members, rules etc.

          Especially since a good sized gaggle of these VERY vocal opponents that bash everything Warrior Forum are members of your smallish forum circle. I'm betting it's not a coincidence, but this is not the thread to speculate why, and we have had plenty of those threads and posts already, anyway.

          All I know is you have had a WF forum rant thread going on at your place for weeks blasting WF members, mods, the Community Manager, the article contributors and others.

          Yes, you did a major purge the other day on that thread and deleted many posts, but not all are lost, and I'm quite certain some of those lost posts can still be found. Remember you guys and gals were having so much fun insulting WF members and mods and talking about how bad you were owning, trolling, or going to troll this forum, right?

          Yes, several of your members are participating right here on this thread.

          Is this helpful? A conflict of interest? Destructive? Worse?

          Take this one step further...

          Warrior Forum is trying to increase the content quality and viewership here, and it's obvious why. IMO, I don't think it's helpful for a group of your members to continually bash WF on threads here, and on threads over there, and to be allowed to solicit members via any WF system.

          Your forum is a direct competitor to Warrior Forum in the exact same space. At this time, I don't think it's healthy for your forum to be poaching long time contributing members from here.

          IF WF does not institute rule that tries to curb this, I sure hope they take it into consideration, and view future input and advice from a certain members here with a bit bigger grain of salt.

          Cheers

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986674].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
            Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

            #1) My 6 screenshot post included a bunch of honest legit suggestions to improve Warrior Forum

            #2) Maybe we should have a rule about active solicitation of WF members via WF systems to join a competing internet forum that has just recently added a member special offer marketplace.

            #3) I believe it is relevant to this rules discussion that the admins and mods know exactly who is doing most of the complaining thread after thread on Warrior Forum initiatives, moderators, members, rules etc.

            Especially since a good sized gaggle of these VERY vocal opponents that bash everything Warrior Forum are members of your smallish forum circle. I'm betting it's not a coincidence, but this is not the thread to speculate why, and we have had plenty of those threads and posts already.

            All I know is you have had a WF forum rant thread going on at your place for weeks blasting WF members, mods, the Community Manager, the article contributors and others.

            Yes, you did a major purge the other day on that thread and deleted many posts, but not all are lost., and I'm quite certain some can still be found. Remember you guys and gals were having so much fun insulting members and mods and talking about how bad you were owning, trolling, or going to troll this forum, right?

            Yes, several of your members are participating right here on this thread.

            Is this helpful? A conflict of interest? Destructive? Worse?

            Take this one step further...

            Warrior Forum is trying to increase the content quality and viewership here, and it's obvious why. IMO, I don't think it's helpful for a group of your members to continually bash WF on threads here, and on threads over there, and to be allowed to solicit members via any PM system.

            Your forum is a direct competitor to Warrior Forum in the exact same space as . At this time, I don't think it's healthy for your forum to be poaching long time contributing members from here.

            IF WF does not institute rule that tries to curb this, I sure hope they take it into consideration, and view future input and advice from a certain members here with a bit bigger grain of salt.

            Cheers

            -don
            Don, for the most part, you have no idea what you are talking about.

            I've actually reached out to the mods here in the past and offered my help in curbing anything that was going on that they thought was inappropriate. Most of them know full well who I am. If they have a problem with it, let them decide that. You can stop playing pretend moderator.

            As a long-time member here, I want nothing but to see this place grow and succeed.

            As a former moderator, I did nothing but help the new moderator team when the changeover took place.

            My criticisms here have not been in an attempt to bring anything down. Just the opposite in fact. Recently, I even said that the article posting thing could be a good idea, but I thought they should be reaching out to actual experts on these topics, not writers.

            There is no ill will. There is no desire to be destructive. I have better things to do with my time.

            I am a member on a lot of different forums where I have made suggestions about rules and things to help the forum grow. Big deal. So just because someone is a member of another forum, they shouldn't participate in this discussion?

            And just to be clear, I would never encourage anyone to go poaching members from another forum, and it is insulting for you to even make such an accusation.

            I guess me suggesting that they not allow special characters at all in the signatures to make the mods' jobs easier was just going to bring the whole place crashing down.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986675].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
              Banned
              Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

              Don, for the most part, you have no idea what you are talking about.
              Let's *try* to stick to the rules, possible rule revisions, possible new rules, and possible application of and/or the enforcement of the rules --> and/or article content too, I guess. If anyone wants any further information on whatever else, they know where to find us.

              Big deal. So just because someone is a member of another forum, they shouldn't participate in this discussion?
              I never said that, nor did I imply it.

              And just to be clear, I would never encourage anyone to go poaching members from another forum, and it is insulting for you to even make such an accusation.
              I didn't say you did personally, but some of your forum members are doing exactly that. You do publicly encourage friends to invite friends...so some poaching will obviously be going on.

              Recently, I even said that the article posting thing could be a good idea, but I thought they should be reaching out to actual experts on these topics, not writers.
              I noticed you posted your statement after I had posted that I thought article posting could be a good idea on the Article thread. In-fact, I replied to some of your comments in the post you are talking about..

              Since you brought it up... here are a bunch of old-timers basically blasting Alaister for mentioning the idea of creating Warrior Champions for each section.

              Yes, you will recognize a few of your members shooting the idea down as fast as it was proposed (as long as the posts don't disappear ). Those are some of the very same people that are giving WF mods, contributors, and members so much grief now.

              Allow me to refresh your memory, and do feel free to submit your application to be a Warrior Champion. Don't forget, any member could have submitted an WAMA for review if they had wanted to do so while Alaister was here as well.



              http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...m-section.html

              Yes, it's obvious the Warrior Champions program should have been instituted prior to advancing any newbie article blasting campaign.

              If Alaister's idea would not have been shot down by a close group of old-timers and their thanking buddies --> WF may not have seen the precipitous traffic and quality decline that it has endured over the last year or two.

              IMO, almost all of what has been discussed between us is relevant to relatively new forum owners (mods and admins too), that right now are in the process of crafting a set of rules, in hopes of making this forum a better and more prosperous place.

              Cheers

              -don
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986676].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

                Let's *try* to stick to the rules, possible rule revisions, possible new rules, and possible application of and/or the enforcement of the rules --> and/or article content too, I guess. If anyone wants any further information on whatever else, they know where to find us.



                I never said that, nor did I imply it.



                I didn't say you did personally, but some of your forum members are doing exactly that. You do publicly encourage friends to invite friends...so some poaching will obviously be going on.



                I noticed you posted your statement after I had posted that I thought article posting could be a good idea on the Article thread. In-fact, I replied to some of your comments in the post you are talking about..

                Since you brought it up... here are a bunch of old-timers basically blasting Alaister for mentioning the idea of creating Warrior Champions for each section.

                Yes, you will recognize a few of your members shooting the idea down as fast as it was proposed (as long as the posts don't disappear ). Those are some of the very same people that are giving WF mods, contributors, and members so much grief now.

                Allow me to refresh your memory, and do feel free to submit your application to be a Warrior Champion. Don't forget, any member could have submitted an WAMA for review if they had wanted to do so while Alaister was here as well.



                http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...m-section.html

                Yes, it's obvious the Warrior Champions program should have been instituted prior to advancing any newbie article blasting campaign.

                If Alaister's idea would not have been shot down by a close group of old-timers and their thanking buddies --> WF may not have seen the precipitous traffic and quality decline that it has endured over the last year or two.

                IMO, almost all of what has been discussed between us is relevant to relatively new forum owners (mods and admins too), that right now are in the process of crafting a set of rules, in hopes of making this forum a better and more prosperous place.

                Cheers

                -don

                Again, I have no idea what my forum or the members there have to do with any of that. None of them were members in 2014. In 2014 it was a paid training course with a private forum attached for people that bought the course to ask questions and have discussions. It wasn't even on the same URL.

                And the Champions thing was my idea. It came about in a series of PM's between myself and Alaister. He was looking for ideas on getting more members engaged, old and new.

                I suggested using an old tactic that many large chain retailers use. They give people fairly meaningless titles. The titles don't really mean anything. They don't get a pay raise. They don't get a promotion. But some people get really excited about their new responsibilities and really run with it.

                I would have called it something else, but that was the idea behind it. Have a group of key members who are not just responsible for content, but for engaging other members. They would be responsible for driving discussions in their own little sector of the forum.

                So I don't know what your little conspiracy theory is here. I asked a group of people to burn down my own idea through a forum of mine that didn't exist?
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986677].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                  And the Champions thing was my idea.
                  Great. A totally exceptional idea.

                  It's too bad you (and a few others) didn't publicly back Alaister when he announced it. If you had, we may not be seeing the small group of old timers incessantly attack, degrade, belittle, and demean the newbie article blasters on thread after thread like we do today. And maybe, just maybe, we would not had to see any drastic actions employed by WF at all.

                  We get the point the first time a member posts that they dislike WF and the member blasters for their actions. No need to chase them all over the forum to call them names and make them look like idiots --> that does NOT help Warrior Forum.

                  If anyone has a problem with the article blasters ---> instead of members flaming them across several forums for over a week now, open a suggestion in the Suggestions Forum more politely stating your position.

                  Constantly bitching here and elsewhere does nobody any good, and frankly, I am surprised WF has taken so much public crap from such a small, seemingly tight knit group of old-timers.

                  It came about in a series of PM's between myself and Alaister. He was looking for ideas on getting more members engaged, old and new.

                  I suggested using an old tactic that many large chain retailers use. They give people fairly meaningless titles. The titles don't really mean anything. They don't get a pay raise. They don't get a promotion. But some people get really excited about their new responsibilities and really run with it.
                  Exactly. It was a great idea, but nobody of any capable stature stood up and defended Alaister when he put it on the table. Now we have basically the same crew that shot you and Alaister down trolling almost every newbie article thread they come across...and spouting off how terrible WF is wherever and whenever they can.

                  That's not adding value to the threads or WF. It's destroying the threads and impugning the members, among other things... FWIW, I was the troubleshooter that fixed and then managed several national chain retail electronics stores, which at the time, was the oldest chain of TV and Stereo stores in the nation. Problem solving, bettering customer service, stimulating sales, selling extended service contracts, and training was what I was paid to do, and I did all quite well. Rarely was I ever asked, "where's the beef".

                  I would have called it something else, but that was the idea behind it. Have a group of key members who are not just responsible for content, but for engaging other members.
                  Exactly. Believe me, I know all about engaging other members. I contributed heavily to one of the largest forums on the net back in the late 90's and early 00's, a forum that makes this place look tiny, and it's a forum that is still thriving today.

                  Yes, I do know about stimulating conversations. I had my own private invite political forum and photo art forums back in the day. Bought them, built them, administrated them, moderated them, and I did my biggest job...nurtured them and stimulated conversation by contributing quality content and discussion. Why did I get out of the forum business? One reason, it took too much of my time, at that time.

                  One forum stimulated itself, the other didn't. The photo art forum needed a few people to grow the threads and the board, and keep discussions going and flowing properly. Managing forum flow and increasing participation can take a little work, and we both know trolls rarely help anything.

                  So I don't know what your little conspiracy theory is here. I asked a group of people to burn down my own idea through a forum of mine that didn't exist?
                  I never said it was a conspiracy, I just pointed out what has been happening.

                  Cheers

                  -don
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986678].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robscom
    Why is there a b*tchfest about some apparent Forum Who Must Not Be Named in a discussion about the Warrior Forum Rules?
    Signature
    "Do. Or do not. There is no 'try.'" -- Yoda
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986673].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    Another great idea would be to PM every member the rules with an active compliance button once revisions are closed, and the new rules are completed.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986680].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

      Another great idea would be to PM every member the rules with an active compliance button once revisions are closed, and the new rules are completed.

      Cheers

      -don

      The rules are complete and are being actively enforced as Walter pointed out.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986681].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
        Banned
        Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

        The rules are complete and are being actively enforced as Walter pointed out.
        You may have forgotten that you made a similar suggestion earlier today. The suggestion I just made may work a bit better because WF will get almost 100% deliverability, and it may cost them less. If they do both, great.

        It looks like the rules may not be completed yet, as Moss and Dan have not been back to comment on some of the great revision and other suggestions that have been made.

        The fact that this thread is still open, and an active change log exists, should make it pretty clear.

        If no more suggestions were wanted to be heard, someone would have closed this thread by now. I think we may still hear something from the powers that be on rule #1, either way, and some sort of reconsideration may be made on what type of sig links may or may not be allowed.

        Who knows what else the admins and mods may want to institute or amend. They make that call, we can only submit suggestions.

        The mods are acting on the sigs because people like me and others are reporting the violations when we run across them in the threads we are reading. It's called good old fashion member moderation.

        Cheers

        -don
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author moss
    There's been some great discussions, I'll try and provide a bit more clarification where possible.


    Multiple Accounts
    Originally Posted by Brent Stangel View Post

    Some "members" have numerous shill (an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.) profiles. How are you going to decide which one stays?
    [Edited reply to this 2016-06-15 21:46]

    Any user conducting in fraudulent activities including but not limited to using additional accounts to entice users to purchase a product will have all associated accounts banned.

    What we're trying to do is to create a set of rules that everyone understands that gives us a framework to enforce what is mostly common sense behaviour in a repeatable way.


    Rule #1
    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    Is Rule #1 gone? If so, that means it's open season to name names and rant rants?
    Thanks for bringing this to my attention Kay, it's Rule 1.7 now.


    Signature Special Characters
    Re:The discussion around an analytical limit on special characters. We don't want to be super picky around this. Would we ban exclamation marks? What about full stops? I encourage you to think about the purpose of these rules. If you want to push the boundaries, you'll do it anyway. Just be prepared to get a message from a moderator asking you to change it. Maybe sometimes you'll even get more characters if you keep trying. Annoy them enough and they'll probably just take away your signature privileges. If you want to play that game go for it, is it really worth your time though?


    Market Place Rules
    Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post

    #1) What about free WSOs? Are they still going to be sent to classifieds?

    #2) Are $1 WSOs the lowest priced offer that will remain in the main WSO section?

    #3) The overall applicability of the WSO section rules --> are they still in force? If so, will they be added to this rules collation?
    -don
    1. WSO section still prohibits free offers.
    2. Interesting point, I haven't got a firm answer on this yet.
    3. This still aims to be the single source of truth for rules. Yes, marketplace rules should be here. If you've got thoughts on marketplace specific rules that aren't here that should be please let me know. I'll go through today and migrate any that I find.


    Enforcement of Rules
    With regards to enforcing the signature rules.
    • Fiverr rule is now being enforced.
    • I believe when greater than 2 line signatures are being noticed people are being given a period of time to change. After that they're being manually altered.


    Image Signature Affiliate Links
    Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

    By that logic, Google Adwords, Bing, and Facebook shouldn't care about the landing page I send paid ads to...but they do.
    I understand this is a sensitive issues. By your logic if we were Google, bing or Facebook we wouldn't send traffic there, but we're Warrior Forum, which is completely different entity.

    Let's see how this plays out. If a surge of people suddenly start buying sigs and promoting affiliates we'll revisit it. If it's a minority of people it'll probably stay the same.


    Distribution of the New Rules
    Now with regard to why this hasn't been pushed harder. This is exactly the discussion I wanted to have first. The people that care a lot about these rules (you guys) are here and discussing it.

    I think we're making beneficial changes and clarifying things where required. This means that when we do email out it'll be a more complete and polished set of rules.

    Finally, we'll tackle the distribution of the rules once we are all on a relatively common ground.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986683].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Importexport
      Originally Posted by moss View Post


      Enforcement of Rules
      With regards to enforcing the signature rules.
      • I believe when greater than 2 line signatures are being noticed people are being given a period of time to change. After that they're being manually altered.
      I was given no time to make the change. I was just informed that my signature had been deleted, and as I posted above, the little rule change notice doesn't even appear on the sub-forum at which I always open WF.

      If the rules are not yet competed, and notices don't appear on every sub-forum, why are they being so ruthlessly enforced?

      I have changed my signature to comply with the 2 line rule, but it does not appear on my posts.

      Walter Hay
      Signature
      Use emotions and perceptions to build a great brand. Ask me about my book LabelsThatExploit. For safe sourcing and easy importing from 41 countries globally, see https://provenglobalsourcing.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986684].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      Originally Posted by moss View Post

      Multiple Accounts
      This would be a case by case scenario.
      • If someone comes on and creates 30 new accounts we'll probably permanently ban them all.
      • If an older member creates a single additional account and starts misusing it we'll probably ban the new account and give a warning to the user. If it happens again we'd probably ban both.
      • If someone creates two accounts that both make fantastic contribution we'd probably overlook it. Maybe that person just has multiple personalities.
      Market Place Rules
      1. This still aims to be the single source of truth for rules. Yes, marketplace rules should be here. If you've got thoughts on marketplace specific rules that aren't here that should be please let me know. I'll go through today and migrate any that I find.
      Hi Moss,

      If you are allowing multiple accounts then you should place something in the Marketplace rules that specifically says --> Anyone that is caught using a second account to bump any listing with a BS positive review or any other BS posts will be banned. Both accounts (or more) will be banned, the thread(s) will be closed, and the buy buttons and contact information will be removed from the listing.

      You should to cover this as well...

      Members using a second account to post negative reviews on the competition's threads. In this case only the member using the second account should be banned, if he or she has an active listing on either account, close it.

      I believe this may open a big can of worms that you don't need to open. You just can't allow one person to run around the marketplace section with multiple accounts "reviewing" his friends, his enemies, and his own listings.

      Secondarily, if you have an account banned for a major marketplace violation you should never be allowed to place a listing here again.

      Just a few examples of the many:

      I have personally caught the multi-banned member Precious twice on here running fake reviews on his off-site listings in the reviews section. I also caught a shill or two of his as well, and I believe I may have busted his second or third marketplace account, maybe both. I've caught so many image pirates, software pirates and fraudulent members on here I have lost count.

      I have busted the same member Eduardo something or other selling on here two more times after I had him banned the first time. A different member name and he was good to go. The guy was selling blackhat style tools. A few months later I exposed him selling a Warrior Forum email scraper off-site.

      Paul Myers took it from me and tried to get something done with his email service and possibly the payment processor.

      Point being, you need to be very stern with the multiple account BS that can go on in the marketplace and the review section.

      If you are not acutely aware, soon you will have a bunch more WSO sellers that have a long list of bogus glowing reviews on their Marketplace threads. In-fact it would not surprise me to see member account craft masters go to work on their threads right away. Like the moment they know they can "legally" build a new persona with another account.

      You should tread very carefully with such liberal multiple account rules, this is one decision that may be a step too far. Please consider adding something to strengthen the Marketplace from shills, and the multiple account thread bumping fraudulent review posts, if indeed you are going to allow multiple accounts.

      One last thing, if multiple accounts are allowed, I suspect the Warrior Forum account selling marketplaces will have a few new special offers on aged Warrior Forum accounts sooner rather than later.

      Once you get the marketplace rules migrated I'll have another look. Whenever you can get it, I will be looking forward to the clarification on the $1 marketplace minimum thing. Thanks again for taking our input.

      Note: You may want to fix your change log date on what was formerly rule #1.



      Cheers

      -don
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986685].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author moss
        ForumGuru, I've adjusted my reply to be far stricter. It came across far more lenient then intended.
        Thanks for the heads up on that as well as the change log date.

        ImportExport, your signature should now display. It's 3 lines still, could you make that 2 when you get a chance?

        Thanks,

        Moss
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986687].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Importexport
          Originally Posted by moss View Post

          ForumGuru, I've adjusted my reply to be far stricter. It came across far more lenient then intended.
          Thanks for the heads up on that as well as the change log date.

          ImportExport, your signature should now display. It's 3 lines still, could you make that 2 when you get a chance?

          Thanks,

          Moss
          Thanks. I have changed my signature again and it is now appearing as 2 lines.

          The problem stems from the fact that the preview showed 2 lines, and it only appears as 3 when it goes on my posts, with one word going onto line 3. This has happened whenever I make a change if I fill the two lines in the preview.

          Walter
          Signature
          Use emotions and perceptions to build a great brand. Ask me about my book LabelsThatExploit. For safe sourcing and easy importing from 41 countries globally, see https://provenglobalsourcing.com
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986690].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
        Originally Posted by ForumGuru View Post


        It looks like the rules may not be completed yet, as Moss and Dan have not been back to comment on some of the great revision and other suggestions that have been made.

        The fact that this thread is still open, and an active change log exists, should make it pretty clear.

        If no more suggestions were wanted to be heard, someone would have closed this thread by now. I think we may still hear something from the powers that be on rule #1, either way, and some sort of reconsideration may be made on what type of sig links may or may not be allowed.

        Who knows what else the admins and mods may want to institute or amend. They make that call, we can only submit suggestions.

        The mods are acting on the sigs because people like me and others are reporting the violations when we run across them in the threads we are reading. It's called good old fashion member moderation.

        Cheers

        -don
        It looks to be a nearly complete list to me. I'd think enough to warrant blasting out a site wide PM - and then just send a simple blast when the final chunks have gone in.

        Jeeze, I just "happened" to come in here and see the 2 line rule.
        Signature

        "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986691].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Jill Carpenter View Post

          It looks to be a nearly complete list to me. I'd think enough to warrant blasting out a site wide PM - and then just send a simple blast when the final chunks have gone in.

          Jeeze, I just "happened" to come in here and see the 2 line rule.
          Hi Jill,

          Almost anytime you can inform the members of new rules it is a good thing. That said, since I made that post you quoted, one of the biggest rules have been added (formerly rule #1), and some sig and member account and other clarification was given as well.

          The main chunk we are still waiting on is the money maker, the WSO rules. I am also expecting a biggie or two may be added to Section 2 and maybe some others too.

          While I suggested PMing the rules earlier on the thread, I'm thinking they should wait for the collation to be completed. Don't wan't to be accused of spamming PMs or creating any PM or Rules blindness.

          Moss has already said we are going to discuss distribution after we have hashed the rules out on this reply.

          Distribution of the New Rules

          Now with regard to why this hasn't been pushed harder. This is exactly the discussion I wanted to have first. The people that care a lot about these rules (you guys) are here and discussing it. I think we're making beneficial changes and clarifying things where required. This means that when we do email out it'll be a more complete and polished set of rules. Finally, we'll tackle the distribution of the rules once we are all on a relatively common ground.
          Cheers

          -don
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986693].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
        I have a question.

        How are income claims verified?

        Rule #17: Income Claims & Guarantees

        Sellers are not to make claims around income that has been made unless this income can be verified through Warrior Payments. Sellers are not permitted to make claims about or imply that income will result from purchasing a WSO.

        This will be strictly enforced to protect the Warrior community.

        This is applicable to the WSO Marketplace and all sub-forums.
        How do I know that an offer has been verified?

        For example, I am browsing now through the WSO's and either in a thread title or in the thread copy there is what I consider to be an income claim:

        http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...ted-seats.html

        ^^^^
        This tells me I will make 5k a month. Not "possible to make up to 5k a month"

        http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...od-2016-a.html

        http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...-48-hours.html

        http://www.warriorforum.com/warrior-...autopilot.html

        Some of these it's all in the headlines.

        Will there be a verified stamp of approval that these numbers have been confirmed?

        Are people giving you access to their accounts to log into to see for yourself that the money they are saying has been made?
        Signature

        "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986695].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jill Carpenter
        Oh, I have one other question here.

        If I stick a banner ad in my sig, I can link that to something else I might be promoting via an affiliate link, correct? Even if it is something that some might view as a "competing forum?"

        Or lets say I have an offer for sale that happens to be on a different marketing forum - can I link to that page with my sig banner?

        Just want to be clear on this.
        Signature

        "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986696].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986709].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986719].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    @Moss

    You may want to do something with the Warrior Forum Terms of Use guidelines They have some great information on what type of content that members can and can not provide, and some other good legal stuff. Specifically the Regarding the Content You Provide and Prohibited Activities sections.

    WarriorForum - Terms of Use

    Maybe excerpt some things, and possibly also provide a link to the ToC page as well. I have seen at least one old-timer complaining that plagiarism is not listed specifically in Section 2 of the new rules.

    You should place something in there that says you can't post stolen content and probably PLR/RR articles too, and whatever else you think best.

    There are many other good guidelines scattered throughout that page that may prompt a few more revisions/additions. They are a bit messy and may need some cleanup, but if you have not yet done so, they are well worth the look.

    Cheers

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986689].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    There needs to be a rule about posts that are insults and negative comments about a person and meant merely to cause bad feelings. There's a few members here that are constantly involved in flame wars.

    If a post is almost all about a person instead of a topic or issue, the post should be deleted and if enough of these types of posts are made from the same person, they should be banned.

    "Trigger words" are a common concept in copywriting, and there are often posts directed at others that use trigger words in a fashion in which the only purpose of the post is inflammatory and to incite.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986694].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Khemosabi
    @moss

    Is there anything you can do about adding a "where to post". Seems the main forum is constantly clogged up with stuff that should be in other forum sections. I would think this is very time consuming for the mods to keep moving them around.

    There's a nice on in the main forum right now, that really should be in offline. To my knowledge, the standard right now is just hit the report button and wait.

    Is it possible to get a sticky or something that explains each section? I know the definition/description is underneath each section, but most are failing to go that far.

    It was suggested that a new member would have to read the rules first before allowing the sign up to complete (or something like that), and, I can see where someone new would get really confused as to where they should post. Heck, there's a ghostwriting article in the off topic forum that GOT MOVED THERE.

    Can you see why some are confused? I know having a little test to see if one actually read the new rules, where to post, but wouldn't that also cut down on bots? Just a question.

    Thanks

    ~ Theresa
    Signature


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986697].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by Khemosabi View Post

      @moss

      Is there anything you can do about adding a "where to post". Seems the main forum is constantly clogged up with stuff that should be in other forum sections. I would think this is very time consuming for the mods to keep moving them around.
      Expanding on this idea, can we do something about the endless support requests that belong on other sites, like wordpress.org, aweber support, theme seller sites, etc.?

      Is this going to be the Warrior Forum, or the Universal IM Tech Support Site?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986698].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
        While I agree that some of these tech support posts are frustrating (how on earth would I know which option removes the thingamabob in the X theme), I want to share a slightly different viewpoint.

        I think that the forum encompasses the whole experience of being in online business almost by necessity. It's not just an FB marketing forum or just a how to write an ebook forum. It's all about making money online and that takes in a bunch of different topics including computer/tech issues. How can I make money online if my PC quits working? How will my ad work if my autoresponder isn't accepting the leads that are entered into the squeeze page due to a database issue?

        Also, many sites that are used mostly for marketing have their own rules, guides, and support. For example, Google has guides about how to rank a page. FB has guides about how to run effective ads.

        So why would we help the guy with the FB ad question when FB already has information on their site but not help the guy with a technical WP question that is also answered on their site?

        Mark

        PS I thanked your post because I agree with it but see that maybe we need a way to include those kinds of posts in a way that doesn't interfere with the rest of the forum's goals. Maybe it's impossible and they all need to be deleted. I'm not sure.

        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        Expanding on this idea, can we do something about the endless support requests that belong on other sites, like wordpress.org, aweber support, theme seller sites, etc.?

        Is this going to be the Warrior Forum, or the Universal IM Tech Support Site?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986699].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Mark Singletary View Post

          While I agree that some of these tech support posts are frustrating (how on earth would I know which option removes the thingamabob in the X theme), I want to share a slightly different viewpoint.

          I think that the forum encompasses the whole experience of being in online business almost by necessity. It's not just an FB marketing forum or just a how to write an ebook forum. It's all about making money online and that takes in a bunch of different topics including computer/tech issues. How can I make money online if my PC quits working? How will my ad work if my autoresponder isn't accepting the leads that are entered into the squeeze page due to a database issue?

          Also, many sites that are used mostly for marketing have their own rules, guides, and support. For example, Google has guides about how to rank a page. FB has guides about how to run effective ads.

          So why would we help the guy with the FB ad question when FB already has information on their site but not help the guy with a technical WP question that is also answered on their site?

          Mark

          PS I thanked your post because I agree with it but see that maybe we need a way to include those kinds of posts in a way that doesn't interfere with the rest of the forum's goals. Maybe it's impossible and they all need to be deleted. I'm not sure.
          I can see both sides. There's instances where a question would be better asked of the product support.


          But there's also a number of times when a question about a product/service is a benefit to other members of the WF. It could be the question is something others never thought to ask or a member wanting responses from people with actual experience with the product that goes beyond typical support responses.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986700].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            I can see both sides. There's instances where a question would be better asked of the product support.


            But there's also a number of times when a question about a product/service is a benefit to other members of the WF. It could be the question is something others never thought to ask or a member wanting responses from people with actual experience with the product that goes beyond typical support responses.
            I guess I should have been more specific. What you and Mark alluded to are not the kind of support questions I get frustrated with. And sometimes a vendor's support functions don't yield the needed answers. I get it.

            The ones I don't like are the ones by people too lazy to even try the support functions. Often, someone trying to be helpful or just get some thanks or sig exposure answers the question after admitting the answer came from a help or FAQ page on the vendors site.

            I've been known to answer the kind of questions you and Mark allude to. They're not the problem.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986701].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    @Moss

    Re: WSO Rules

    Please re-institute the rule that to post an offer to to the WSO section you need to be a War Room member.

    Please also consider lowering War Room price back to what $37 for 20 years or whatever to join the War Room. IMO, and many others on here, $100 a year is way over priced for what is currently contained within.

    This is one of the major reasons the WSO section has become flooded with crappy special offers.

    With no skin in the game other than $20....not much to lose for posting a junk offer.

    Regards,

    -don
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986702].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986703].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
      Banned
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986704].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986705].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
          Banned
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986706].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
        [DELETED]
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986712].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986716].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986717].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dansilvestre
    Deleted all posts that add absolutely no value. Keep it civil folks, for god's sake.

    Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

    There needs to be a rule about posts that are insults and negative comments about a person and meant merely to cause bad feelings. There's a few members here that are constantly involved in flame wars.
    1.7. addresses this. Maybe we should add Rule 0. "Don't be a jerk"
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986722].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author moss
    I think Daniel summarised this pretty well. There is no longer productive discussion about the rules happening here.

    I'll address the remaining valid points that have been raised and I'd like to thank everyone who contributed and kept it civilised.

    @Jill those examples you posted shouldn't have made it through, simple as that. If you want to promote a competitor go for it. We'll probably just delete your signature. If you keep doing it we'll revoke your signature permission. This isn't preschool guys, the rules are there as a guideline.

    I'm going to reiterate a point I made earlier.

    "I encourage you to think about the purpose of these rules. If you want to push the boundaries, you'll do it anyway. Just be prepared to get a message from a moderator asking you to change it."

    Expanding on this, if you repeatedly push the bounds and we get tired of warning you we'll ban you. Common sense goes a long way.

    There was a good point raise about whether or not WF is a support forum for the internet. I don't think there is a black and white rule for this. Moving forward we might try to be more aggressive in deleting threads which are obviously answerable by a company's respective support department.

    To clarify the repeated questions surrounding this ForumGuru is not affiliated in any way with Freelancer.

    [UPDATE]
    I've just done another purge of the replies. Yes, there were some relevant discussion to the rules contained in some of these replies. The vast majority of the posts were about a specific incident which is inappropriate to deal with in a public thread.

    If you have issue with a specific persons offering on the forum and you feel it has not been dealt with properly email support@warriorforum.com with objective details on why you think a different outcome should be decided on.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10986726].message }}

Trending Topics