Internet Ethics Section On The Warrior Forum

88 replies
I would like the Warrior Admins to start an internet ethics section where we talk about what is ethical in marketing strategies etc. and other things having to do with selling on the internet.

For example, if you are going to copy a domain name that is clearly a brand name and not a keyword based domain name it is not ethical to market competing products and services when you are getting traffic to your site from people typing in the brand name and then finding your site where they opt in. Some people who have brand name sites can not afford to take the legal route in suing. That is why we need a hall of shame on this site also to bring them into line.

the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you should be foremost as you move forward with your marketing plans. There are a lot of young people with no morals involved with internet marketing. They all grew up in schools which taught them the theory of evolution as if it was fact. No wonder they have no morals.

Perhaps we should also have a hall of shame within the ethics section on this forum where we can post the web sites of violaters. That way those who can not afford the legal route will have a way to bring violaters to their knees in repentance.

Peter
#ethics #forum #internet #section #warrior
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner


    POP CORN, GET IT RIGHT HERE!!!

    Chris

    P.S. Starting a discussion on ethics is a lot like letting a bull loose in a china shop, no good will come of it.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3590890].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author briancassingena
    What's so bad about having a brand name in your domain name? I don't have any myself, but I say if you're good enough to outrank a big company then you should get the traffic.

    As long as you state clearly on the site that you're talking ABOUT the company, you're not actually the company, and as long as you're not doing anything illegal, in fact for my affiliate review sites, I'm PROMOTING the companies in question.

    Quite frankly, if the warrior forum is going to 'out' unethical marketers:

    1. Half of clickbank is going to be named
    2. The WF owners will get some serious letters from expensive lawyers real fast
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3590916].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by briancassingena View Post

      What's so bad about having a brand name in your domain name?
      If it's a well known brand, it's most likely a trademark ... belongs to someone else, not you and it's called trademark infringement. Can cost you big bucks if they decide to sue you.

      Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

      I would like the Warrior Admins to start an internet ethics section where we talk about what is ethical in marketing strategies etc. and other things having to do with selling on the internet.

      For example, if you are going to copy a domain name that is clearly a brand name and not a keyword based domain name it is not ethical to market competing products and services when you are getting traffic to your site from people typing in the brand name and then finding your site where they opt in. Some people who have brand name sites can not afford to take the legal route in suing. That is why we need a hall of shame on this site also to bring them into line.

      the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you should be foremost as you move forward with your marketing plans. There are a lot of young people with no morals involved with internet marketing. They all grew up in schools which taught them the theory of evolution as if it was fact. No wonder they have no morals.

      Perhaps we should also have a hall of shame within the ethics section on this forum where we can post the web sites of violaters. That way those who can not afford the legal route will have a way to bring violaters to their knees in repentance.

      Peter
      Well, here we run the gamut from breaking Rule #1 of the forum to discussing religious beliefs, both of which are against the TOS, if you should care to read them sometime.

      Ethics have been discussed many times in threads as it pertains to the discussion that is started. We don't need a section for ethics for people to shove their brand of ethics down everyone's throats.

      I'll pipe in on ethics discussions occasionally, but generally, it's really up to each person what they choose to do in business and some people are swayed by an ethics discussion and some are not.

      By the same token, some people are self-righteous zealots, and what they think is unethical is not a matter of ethics at all.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591626].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tsnyder
      Originally Posted by briancassingena View Post

      What's so bad about having a brand name in your domain name? I don't have any myself, but I say if you're good enough to outrank a big company then you should get the traffic.
      Nominating this for silly post of the week...

      Tsnyder
      Signature
      If you knew what I know you'd be doing what I do...
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591910].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
    Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

    For example, if you are going to copy a domain name that is clearly a brand name and not a keyword based domain name it is not ethical to market competing products and services when you are getting traffic to your site from people typing in the brand name and then finding your site where they opt in. Some people who have brand name sites can not afford to take the legal route in suing. That is why we need a hall of shame on this site also to bring them into line.
    Brand names are more often than not trademarked and the brand owner doesn't need a lot of money as they have the legal rights to own the domain someone has copied. Besides if what they own is a brand, it stands to reason they may well have deeper pockets than you think.

    That is why we need a hall of shame on this site also to bring them into line.
    I'm afraid this will break the #1 rule of the forum which is...

    If you have a problem with another Warrior, a Guru, or God, take it up with them directly. Not here. No exceptions.
    They all grew up in schools which taught them the theory of evolution as if it was fact. No wonder they have no morals.
    I appreciate you have your beliefs and I respect that, they are yours however and not all people that accept evolution are immoral, even if you may think they are.

    Perhaps we should also have a hall of shame within the ethics section on this forum where we can post the web sites of violaters. That way those who can not afford the legal route will have a way to bring violaters to their knees in repentance.
    Again this breaches rule #1 of the forum, as I mentioned above.

    I know what you're doing is done with nothing but good in mind and I admire that, sadly though, it just won't happen and will encourage a whole load of snipeing and negativity.

    In my opinion.
    Signature

    Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3590919].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KenThompson
    Yo Peter... you gotta lighten up a little bit. You're gonna kill yourself.

    Besides, it's Friday. There's no reason to be this serious about anything.


    Ken
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591024].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lindgren
      Hi Ken
      You are spot on - Made me laugh a lot :-)

      Thank GOD it's Friday :-)

      cheers
      Tina
      Signature
      Best Wishes
      Tina Lindgren


      http://www.tinalindgren.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591461].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post


      Besides, it's Friday. There's no reason to be this serious about anything.


      Ken
      I completely disagree Ken.

      Granted, no point being serious about anything on a Friday.

      Lets stretch that across the rest of the week though, if possible .
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591502].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jamjar919
      Originally Posted by KenThompson View Post

      Yo Peter... you gotta lighten up a little bit. You're gonna kill yourself.

      Besides, it's Friday. There's no reason to be this serious about anything.


      Ken
      We've gotta get down on friday
      Signature

      Feel free to ask me any IM related questions or add me on skype :D
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598869].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kim Standerline
    Good gracious I can imagine this becoming a reality (not)

    Peter it's not a question of ethics using a trade/brand name in a domain name it's more of a legal thing. It just shouldn't be done cos your liable to get your ass kicked by the company in question as has already been stated they usually have very deep pockets and quick lawyers.

    If you use a product name in a domain because you are affiliating for that product then what is unethical about that. You're sending business to that vendor and he is making money. It doesn't really matter who is top in the search engines as long as his product is there!

    Kim

    When I'm talking about affilaiting I am of course referring to smaller marketers and not the giants such as Ebay, Amazon etc

    Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

    I would like the Warrior Admins to start an internet ethics section where we talk about what is ethical in marketing strategies etc. and other things having to do with selling on the internet.

    For example, if you are going to copy a domain name that is clearly a brand name and not a keyword based domain name it is not ethical to market competing products and services when you are getting traffic to your site from people typing in the brand name and then finding your site where they opt in. Some people who have brand name sites can not afford to take the legal route in suing. That is why we need a hall of shame on this site also to bring them into line.

    the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you should be foremost as you move forward with your marketing plans. There are a lot of young people with no morals involved with internet marketing. They all grew up in schools which taught them the theory of evolution as if it was fact. No wonder they have no morals.

    Perhaps we should also have a hall of shame within the ethics section on this forum where we can post the web sites of violaters. That way those who can not afford the legal route will have a way to bring violaters to their knees in repentance.

    Peter
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591055].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

    I would like the Warrior Admins to start an internet ethics section
    What's the point?

    Ethical people don't need to be told. Unethical people don't care.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591075].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      First off, the religious reference has no place here. We do not allow them, nor do we allow people to denigrate the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of other members. It just results in a whole lot of people being insulted about what should be a private and personal decision.

      As far as conversations about ethics, they happen here quite often. And generally in the forum section appropriate to the field under discussion. We don't need a separate section for that.

      The idea of using this forum to "out" alleged violators is a non-starter. Far too many of the accusations I see are either completely made up (read: lies) or are the result of miscommunication or bruised ego, rather than actual ethical lapses or malice.

      In most cases, we have no way to know which are valid complaints and which fall into some other category. And we usually couldn't do anything about it if we knew for sure.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591299].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Caliban,
        Ethical people don't need to be told. Unethical people don't care.
        It's not uncommon for people to miss points, though. For instance, back in the early days of public access to the net, a lot of otherwise perfectly ethical people used email spam as a means of advertising. They weren't aware of the problems of scaling, and they equated it with direct postal mail.

        It's fairly common for people to be uincertain of all the implications of various behaviors, especially in a convoluted and chaotic environment. The discussions can help folks come to their own decisions, and often lead to them avoiding things they had previously not considered to be problems.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591311].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Caliban,It's not uncommon for people to miss points, though.

        It is, however, extremely uncommon for the person who missed points to go around looking for what he missed in another forum. After all, he doesn't know he missed them.


        I also think an ethics forum would rapidly degenerate into squabbling and infighting at the ethical/unethical boundary, and any useful content there would rapidly be lost in the scuffle.


        Mostly, I agree with this:

        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        As far as conversations about ethics, they happen here quite often. And generally in the forum section appropriate to the field under discussion. We don't need a separate section for that.
        When ethical discussions come up in the section where they're relevant, people who missed points will stumble over them and possibly learn something. Isolate them in their own forum, and the very people who need them will never see them.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591406].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author PatriciaJ
          Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

          I would like the Warrior Admins to start an internet ethics section where we talk about what is ethical in marketing strategies etc. and other things having to do with selling on the internet.
          This

          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

          When ethical discussions come up in the section where they're relevant, people who missed points will stumble over them and possibly learn something. Isolate them in their own forum, and the very people who need them will never see them.
          That I agree with, this forum is a fantastic place to learn and isolation won't help those who don't realise that they are doing something unethical.


          Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

          There are a lot of young people with no morals involved with internet marketing. They all grew up in schools which taught them the theory of evolution as if it was fact. No wonder they have no morals.

          That statement is really unfair on young people. There are people with no or low morals of any age and I don't think it right to make blanket judgements about others. what's that saying ...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

          Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

          Perhaps we should also have a hall of shame within the ethics section on this forum where we can post the web sites of violaters. That way those who can not afford the legal route will have a way to bring violaters to their knees in repentance.

          Peter
          That is a really bad idea. A legal minefield for the site owner and especially if members feel free to air their grievances petty or otherwise or even make public simple misunderstandings. Not the sort of forum I want to belong to.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591627].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author eleary
      Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

      What's the point?

      Ethical people don't need to be told. Unethical people don't care.
      he! he! Well said!!! It's so true. As an entrepreneur, we all need to decide what is right for us. We can't go around monitoring what everyone else is doing - it's all about focus!

      We can all hope that the good guys end up on top. Unfortunately, this isn't a fair world and it may not always work out like that. But if you are one of the good guys, the ethical ones, you will sleep better at night!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591617].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Cesar Sampaio
    I don't think it would be of much use. Some points are set in stone (do not scam people) while others are a matter of subjectivity (brand names as the OP pointed).

    In case of doubt one can ask his/her fellow marketers here at WF.
    Signature
    A Step-By-Step Guide! Do Just This One Thing And Finally Make Money As An Amazon Affiliate
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591573].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kev Stevenson
    grew up in schools which taught them the theory of evolution as if it was fact. No wonder they have no morals.
    <snorts coffee out of nose>SNORT!</snorts coffee out of nose>

    The urge to be rude to you is quite overwhelming.

    But I am sufficiently evolved to realise that you mean well...

    Cutting a very, very, very long reply short - Have a Nice Day Peter and I wish you every success...
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591585].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Caleb Spilchen

    Perhaps we should also have a hall of shame within the ethics section on this forum where we can post the web sites of violaters. That way those who can not afford the legal route will have a way to bring violaters to their knees in repentance.
    Wait. We would have an ethical section, where we tarnish the reputations of those people doing practices we find unethical?

    Doesn't that defeat the purpose?

    Caleb
    Signature

    Caleb Spilchen

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591869].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cypherslock
    *looks up* religion has nothing to do with business. Young people aren't all bad. And yeah it is Friday, so I'm going to have a beer. *goes back to work*
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591968].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gyar29
    Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

    There are a lot of young people with no morals involved with internet marketing. They all grew up in schools which taught them the theory of evolution as if it was fact. No wonder they have no morals.
    Peter
    Peter,

    There are a lot of older people, this 51 year old for one, that grew up in schools which taught them that the theory of evolution was not a theory.

    I suppose that means that I am without morals.

    News to me, but...

    COOL!!!

    Morals can be so damned inconvenient.

    I'm going to go away now and try to think of ways to start taking advantage of my new found lack of morals. Perhaps I'll start teaching evolution as fact. That would be a hoot!

    Thank you for my new found freedom,
    Gene
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3591972].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      I'm starting to get the impression when Peter returns to this thread, he's not going to be entirely happy.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592020].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author gyar29
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        I'm starting to get the impression when Peter returns to this thread, he's not going to be entirely happy.
        Peter,

        Do you think he'll be filled with moral indignation?

        One can only hope. I've finished reading the thread, but I still have popcorn left. So more entertainment is required.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592041].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by gyar29 View Post

          Peter,

          Do you think he'll be filled with moral indignation?

          One can only hope. I've finished reading the thread, but I still have popcorn left. So more entertainment is required.
          The thing is I don't judge people based on my opinions and I certainly don't think creating any kind of forum to slag off people you don't agree with, will bring anyone to their knees in...whatever it was.

          Now, you have pop corn to finish so I suggest an amusing slideshow game, I'll start...

          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592140].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        I'm starting to get the impression when Peter returns to this thread, he's not going to be entirely happy.
        I have a feeling he's going to be asking us for payment for crossing his bridge.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592261].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
          Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

          I have a feeling he's going to be asking us for payment for crossing his bridge.
          I never got the point of what trolls would do with the money once they had it. It's not like they could walk down to the market and buy a bunch of apples with it. Furthermore if they truly wanted the apples they would just waltz in and steal it. I'm just saying.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592276].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
            Originally Posted by mattlaclear View Post

            I never got the point of what trolls would do with the money once they had it.
            Ass pennies.
            Signature
            "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592299].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulie888
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        I'm starting to get the impression when Peter returns to this thread, he's not going to be entirely happy.
        He's definitely stirred up quite a hornet's nest here. Totally unnecessary, and it isn't going to change anyone's views on their personal ethics (or lack thereof) one bit. It does make for great entertainment, though.
        Signature
        >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3595386].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dave Rodman
    Banned
    Don't give the Gooroos any ideas. They'll start selling "Internet Ethical Alliance" memberships for $997.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592214].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I'm surprised at some of the more serious answers posted in this thread.

      This person joined one year ago - if he doesn't know there are frequent discussions here over both ethical and legal aspects of IM, it's because he hasn't shown up to read them.

      The comments made do not deserve serious discussion or explanation.

      kay

      EDIT: I just saw another post by the OP - are we in the real world?

      I have been toying with the idea of offering myself to Japan as a suicide mission ambassador. If others could join me....
      ...and it gets stranger from there

      Could we have a reality check, please???
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592312].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        The comments made do not deserve serious discussion or explanation.
        While the OP may very well have been here long enough to know better, there is no way of knowing how many people who haven't are reading this thread and would like to know the answer.

        We tend to give people hell for asking questions that were already asked. We say "use the search" and "read the threads." But when we only seriously answer the question if the person posting it deserves an answer, then the people using the search and reading the threads are not getting the serious answer THEY deserve.

        And that would communicate pretty clearly that the question shouldn't be asked here, because we won't even give a serious answer to people who HAVE been here a while... let alone to a newbie with a single-digit post count.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592349].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mattlaclear
    I would like to start up a wall of shame and add each of my competitors to it. They have not really done anything unethical that I can see but I would be willing to make up lies about them that were entertaining. I just want to tarnish their reputation so as to grab their market share.

    Same thing as described in the op right?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592241].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AlanT
    Although I agree with many of the above posts in that an ethics forum would most likely degrade into a bunch of flame wars, I think the concept does have merit.

    After all, sometimes I'm not exactly sure what others find ethical, and what they find "uncool". Having a place to discuss the issues, and read about what others have to say on certain points, could be quite educational.

    I also have to agree that some "brands" may belong to folks who don't have the resources (time and/or money) to pursue legal issues. I can't tell you how many times I've found my materials being posted to file-sharing sites and I've had to let it go because I had other things to do. I've learned to include enough marketing messages in my products so they can at least serve a purpose when stolen.

    On the use of brand names in a domain name -- if they are helping to promote me, I have no problem with it. If they are, as the OP states, using it to compete with me, then that's a completely different story. And this type of of thing doesn't take much proof, and is not subjective.

    Not to say that this is the case, but isn't it possible that those who don't want such a forum are the same ones who know they are operating unethically?
    Signature

    - Alan Tutt

    Program your mind for success with the EmBRACES Belief Entrainment System

    Find the gold in your business with this Treasure Map to Online Riches

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592334].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

      Not to say that this is the case, but isn't it possible that those who don't want such a forum are the same ones who know they are operating unethically?
      If one wanted to have a forum like this one could go and create one.

      This isn't the only place on the internet.

      The point is the number one rule of this forum is very clear.

      To suggest the people that don't want this sort of forum are unethical is a bit strange because all that those people are doing, is adhering to the rules set out here. In my view, to break those rules, would be unethical.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592375].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AlanT
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        If one wanted to have a forum like this one could go and create one.

        This isn't the only place on the internet.
        Very true, although since this is where the largest audience of internet marketers hang out, it would serve the most people.

        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        The point is the number one rule of this forum is very clear.

        To suggest the people that don't want this sort of forum are unethical is a bit strange because all that those people are doing, is adhering to the rules set out here. In my view, to break those rules, would be unethical.
        Asking that the forum change is not strange at all. It's how democracy works.

        As a side note, while the #1 rule of this forum is clear, it's slightly different from what I was talking about -- a place where various forms of marketing can be discussed on their ethical merits rather than from a strictly "what works" point of view.
        Signature

        - Alan Tutt

        Program your mind for success with the EmBRACES Belief Entrainment System

        Find the gold in your business with this Treasure Map to Online Riches

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592448].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author bretski
          Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

          Asking that the forum change is not strange at all. It's how democracy works.
          It may be how democracy works but since when is a forum owned by an individual a democracy?
          Signature
          ***Affordable Quality Content Written For You!***
          Experience Content Writer - PM Bretski!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592487].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Rod Cortez
            Originally Posted by bretski View Post

            It may be how democracy works but since when is a forum owned by an individual a democracy?
            Exactly. This forum isn't a democracry. There are definitely written rules and unwritten rules that are here to help this place run as smoothly as possible. Though the members here are moderators (by helping report things), ultimately, what's allowed here is up to the owner and the moderators that try to enforce those rules to the best of their ability.

            Regarding the OP, I think this forum has enough sub-forums as it is and would not see any added value of having an internet ethics section. Those kind of topics get brought up enough in the main forum and that seems to be working pretty swell.

            I'm with Cypherlock, time for a beer!

            RoD
            Signature
            "Your personal philosophy is the greatest determining factor in how your life works out."
            - Jim Rohn
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592519].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author AlanT
            Originally Posted by bretski View Post

            It may be how democracy works but since when is a forum owned by an individual a democracy?
            Most communities that desire to keep a large membership base will adjust rules and structures to satisfy their members. In that regards, any membership site is a democracy of sorts.

            No, the members don't vote on rules and pass "laws" that will affect everyone, but through communication, everyone makes their points heard, and the loudest voices will usually get their way.

            Again, I do understand the pitfalls of having a subforum as the OP suggested. I simply wanted to voice my opinion that there is a positive side to it, and some of us could benefit from knowing what others find ethical and what they don't.

            Not that the discussions would result in any action being taken, which seems to be what a lot of folks here are assuming would be the case.

            For instance, if 5 people posted a comment that something I did was unethical, and 15 people supported the action I took, I see nothing wrong with that.

            On the other hand, if the reverse were true, then I may reconsider my actions.

            And once more -- I do see the potential problems with that. No one really wants to be the subject of competitive sabotage, or get caught in a flame war. And as much as we'd like to believe that Warriors are above such things, people are people.
            Signature

            - Alan Tutt

            Program your mind for success with the EmBRACES Belief Entrainment System

            Find the gold in your business with this Treasure Map to Online Riches

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592600].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author tpw
              Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

              Most communities that desire to keep a large membership base will adjust rules and structures to satisfy their members..

              I take it you have never noticed how many registered and active members are in this forum?

              And I am guessing that you don't realize that lurkers probably outnumber registered members by at least 2-to-1?
              Signature
              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3595904].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
          Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

          Asking that the forum change is not strange at all. It's how democracy works.
          Democracy?

          Well, maybe we should take a vote on how much Allen should charge for advertising here.

          Start a poll and see how far that gets you if you believe this is a democracy here you're participating in.

          ~Bill
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592507].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

          Very true, although since this is where the largest audience of internet marketers hang out, it would serve the most people.
          It would serve the OP, agreed...But looking at the responses, not many other people.

          Asking that the forum change is not strange at all. It's how democracy works.
          I believe Bretski's answered this. I'd add though that one person is suggesting this and virtually no one agree's it would work, democratically speaking, the idea wouldn't get voted in.

          As a side note, while the #1 rule of this forum is clear, it's slightly different from what I was talking about -- a place where various forms of marketing can be discussed on their ethical merits rather than from a strictly "what works" point of view.
          I can see where you're coming from here but it is extremely difficult to police this forum and the mods have a hard enough job as it is, without creating a "free for all" section where, in the OP's own words, we could all bring people, we believe, are wrong, "to their knees in repentence"

          Might be nice on paper, but so is democracy, doesn't always work that way in reality though, because there'll always be people that'll abuse it.
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592559].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        And that would communicate pretty clearly that the question shouldn't be asked here, because we won't even give a serious answer to people who HAVE been here a while... let alone to a newbie with a single-digit post count.
        Feeling a bit condescending today, CD?:p

        Such a discussion goes back to the same basic common sense questions:

        Who gets to choose what is "ethical" and what isn't?

        Who does the nominations and approvals for the "hall of shame"?

        At what point should a marketing forum become a court of justice and mete out discipline?

        I considered the source - looked at the history - and said balderdash...I stand by that

        We do get some interesting responses in threads like this, don't we?

        kay
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592505].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Such a discussion goes back to the same basic common sense questions:

          Who gets to choose what is "ethical" and what isn't?

          kay
          Exactly. There are as many opinions on what is ethical and what is not as there are on religion and politics (which are not allowed here). Judging by the OP, anyone who believes in the theory of evolution has problems with immorality, so you can see where an ethics section would go.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592675].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author bretski
            Point taken, Alan, and I'm glad you can see the free for all, flame wars that would ensue which would probably require 2 more full time mods just to keep on clicking on stuff to delete it and ban people. There are just certain topics that are hot buttons for most people. Religion and politics are two of the top ones.

            I also believe that there are those of us who know that we might not be able to resist the urge to blast someone when they hit those hot buttons and thus avoid the forum altogether.
            Signature
            ***Affordable Quality Content Written For You!***
            Experience Content Writer - PM Bretski!
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592737].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
              Originally Posted by bretski View Post

              I also believe that there are those of us who know that we might not be able to resist the urge to blast someone when they hit those hot buttons...
              And therein lies the bigger problem...Google love.

              Those threads would attract outsiders like a moth to a flame.

              ~Bill
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592765].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author bretski
                That's true, Bill. I hadn't thought of that but people searching to find out if a product was a rip off or scam would probably find this forum.
                Signature
                ***Affordable Quality Content Written For You!***
                Experience Content Writer - PM Bretski!
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592787].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author rts2271
            Chris....That picture is full of AWESOME.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3594023].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Feeling a bit condescending today, CD?
          Nope. But it sure seems like you are.
          Signature
          "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592729].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bill Farnham
      Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

      Not to say that this is the case, but isn't it possible that those who don't want such a forum are the same ones who know they are operating unethically?
      Well, that's a stretch...

      What a lot of us don't want here is pissing contests over whose morals and ethics trump others' morals and ethics.

      Especially if the basis for moral superiority is founded on myth, superstition, or TV shows like Law and Order, or worse, Dr. Phil.

      There are plenty of websites on the net where they can go to express their views on ethics.

      ~Bill
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592437].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
      Banned
      Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

      Not to say that this is the case, but isn't it possible that those who don't want such a forum are the same ones who know they are operating unethically?
      Well, glad you are not saying this is the case as there are ethical marketers who know what the purpose of this forum is and who are smart enough to see all of the obvious pitfalls of a section as proposed by the OP.

      Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

      Asking that the forum change is not strange at all. It's how democracy works.
      Let's see ... democracy? This is not a democracy. It's a privately owned forum with rules.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592532].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author myob
    Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

    ... bring violaters to their knees in repentance.
    ROFLMAO!
    Signature
    “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3592450].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    I wonder what would happen if you set up the International Online Marketing Ethics Commission and started fining people.

    Think they'd pay?

    If they didn't, they would go on the do not buy from list.
    You mean like ... extortion?:rolleyes:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3593495].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Roaddog
      Doesn't this thread belong in the Spanish Inquisition subforum?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3593953].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
        Originally Posted by Roaddog View Post

        Doesn't this thread belong in the Spanish Inquisition subforum?
        We can't have one of those. Nobody would expect it.
        Signature
        "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3594064].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Roaddog
          Originally Posted by CDarklock View Post

          We can't have one of those. Nobody would expect it.
          C'mon...We could hang them by the neck... till they cheer up.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3594215].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
            Alan,
            No, the members don't vote on rules and pass "laws" that will affect everyone, but through communication, everyone makes their points heard, and the loudest voices will usually get their way.
            That is almost exactly the opposite of how things end up working here, and in most other forums where there's a significant group of experienced members.

            Whether you measure "loudness" by numbers or actual vocal intensity, the loudest are usually not the ones with the best ideas. It happens occasionally, but it's definitely not the standard in forums. The nature of the traffic of members through a forum almost guarantees that it won't be any time soon.

            You have a relatively small group in any established forum that's been around for a while, and have heard and considered the various points. They've actually worked with the suggestions, and seen how they end up when given a chance. They know most of what will work and what won't based on that. What works gets adopted pretty quickly, and what doesn't gets dumped.

            The much larger group of new folks tend to come up with the same ideas, over and over. For each of those people, the idea is new. Their intentions are usually very good, and they want to help. They just don't know what they don't know. No flaw or fault in that. The experienced folk have all BTDT. That's how they get to be experienced.

            Thing is, the less experienced folk outnumber the experienced ones by large numbers. For the next few years, at least, that's going to continue to be the case. When the majority of people online have been here a few years, it will start to reverse direction a bit, until it hits a par with population cycles.

            Note that I am in no way equating experience with intelligence.

            One of the reasons democracy can work is that voting has a minimum age requirement. There's a certain amount of life experience that's assumed to have been accumulated by that age. A democratic forum could work, if it required a minimum level of experience and participation in the culture and process before allowing people to have a vote.



            Paul
            Signature
            .
            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3594935].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author bretski
              So, if the WF was a country, what country would it be? The Netherlands, Ireland, Saudi Arabia?

              And CD, nobody ever expects the Spanish Inquisition (somebody had to say it)
              Signature
              ***Affordable Quality Content Written For You!***
              Experience Content Writer - PM Bretski!
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3594984].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
              Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

              Whether you measure "loudness" by numbers or actual vocal intensity, the loudest are usually not the ones with the best ideas.
              Being one of the loudest people on most matters I actually care about, I hate to admit it... but this is 100% true. Sometimes I do in fact have the best idea, but that's rare, and in most cases I'm simply too bound up in it being MY IDEA to see how stupid it is.

              Which is where people like Paul come in, because they basically kick me in the arse and show me why it's stupid.

              Eliezer Yudkowsky says the purpose of every human being's existence is to be less wrong today than yesterday. I try to do that. I'm not always very good at it.
              Signature
              "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3595373].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author AlanT
              Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

              Alan,That is almost exactly the opposite of how things end up working here, and in most other forums where there's a significant group of experienced members.

              ....

              Paul
              Be that as it may, the "loudest" voices here clearly indicate that an ethics forum is not desired, and I'm positive the rules will follow their lead. (i.e. - nothing will change, as the 'loudest' voices have decreed.)

              Kind of proves my point.
              Signature

              - Alan Tutt

              Program your mind for success with the EmBRACES Belief Entrainment System

              Find the gold in your business with this Treasure Map to Online Riches

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3596811].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
                Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

                Be that as it may, the "loudest" voices here clearly indicate that an ethics forum is not desired, and I'm positive the rules will follow their lead. (i.e. - nothing will change, as the 'loudest' voices have decreed.)

                Kind of proves my point.
                I'm not sure it does prove your point Alan.

                The "loudest" voices as you call them support the rules set out by Allen. This isn't a democracy, it's a forum with rules, those rules are there for a reason.

                It's rather like my house also has rules, No one on this earth can make me change them and if you break them, I'll physically remove you from my house.

                If the loudest voices wanted an ethics section, then they'd have to leave this forum and create there own one.
                Signature

                Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3600904].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author StephenGates
    What someone else does is none of your business..Just work on keeping your side of the street clean !
    Signature
    Internet Marketing Secret Profits

    Taking You & Your Business To The Next Level
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3596877].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
      Originally Posted by Andrei Rotariu View Post

      That joke is getting old....

      .. but im still a sucker for it lol
      Originally Posted by Devid Farah View Post

      I agree,he must find a new one!
      It would appear the joke is on you two fellas since it isn't a joke

      it's meaning has went in one end, and came out the other

      A picture is worth a thousand words.

      Chris
      Signature

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3597025].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

      Perhaps we should also have a hall of shame within the ethics section on this forum where we can post the web sites of violaters. That way those who can not afford the legal route will have a way to bring violaters to their knees in repentance.
      How about you start that hall of shame on your own site, where you can be sued for slander, defamation of character and other other inconvenient things. Isn't the best way to shine "the light of truth" on the dark side to actually be the light, not to ask someone else to be the light for you?

      Originally Posted by Bill Farnham View Post

      Democracy?

      Well, maybe we should take a vote on how much Allen should charge for advertising here.
      I'm with you, Bill. We could vote on a lot of cool things, like how much compensation Allen pays us for each post we make, how much unemployment he pays us when we have a week of low sales, how many free WSO's we get to post every year during our anniversary month of being a member -- we could vote ourselves all kinds of goodies.

      Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

      For instance, if 5 people posted a comment that something I did was unethical, and 15 people supported the action I took, I see nothing wrong with that.
      So then, all it would take for you to be happy with being unethical is for enough people to say it's OK? I know that's not what you meant, but that's what ethics by committee could give you. Isn't that why many software and music pirates think what they do is OK, those they run with support them in it?

      Originally Posted by StephenGates View Post

      What someone else does is none of your business...!
      Let me see if I've got this right, it's none of my business if someone tries to cheat me out of money?

      Are you sure?
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598428].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author tpw
        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        How about you start that hall of shame on your own site, where you can be sued for slander, defamation of character and other other inconvenient things. Isn't the best way to shine "the light of truth" on the dark side to actually be the light, not to ask someone else to be the light for you?

        Very well stated.
        Signature
        Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
        Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598571].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AlanT
        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        So then, all it would take for you to be happy with being unethical is for enough people to say it's OK? I know that's not what you meant, but that's what ethics by committee could give you. Isn't that why many software and music pirates think what they do is OK, those they run with support them in it?
        In reality, that's really the final determination of what is ethical and what isn't.
        A group decision.

        Regarding software and music pirates, while there are many that seem to feel there's nothing wrong with stealing intellectual property, that's not the position for the MAJORITY of people at large.
        Signature

        - Alan Tutt

        Program your mind for success with the EmBRACES Belief Entrainment System

        Find the gold in your business with this Treasure Map to Online Riches

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598633].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
          Originally Posted by AlanT View Post

          In reality, that's really the final determination of what is ethical and what isn't.
          A group decision.
          Not for me. I have my own ethics. I don't need or want group decisions to determine my ethics, I might not agree with them.

          Regarding software and music pirates, while there are many that seem to feel there's nothing wrong with stealing intellectual property, that's not the position for the MAJORITY of people at large.
          Alan, I wouldn't know if that's the position of the majority of people or not, I've never seen the majority of people at large offer their position.

          What I said was, "Isn't that why many software and music pirates think what they do is OK, those they run with support them in it?"

          My guess is, many of them believe they are in the majority because that's the feedback they get from their peers. Their peers are their majority.
          Signature

          Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598666].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
    There is huge problems with a 'name and shame' area on this forum....namely defamation of others due to misinformation.

    For example, there are two people names Paul Myers...one is our resident Zen Redneck...the other is a professional spammer who promotes illegal ponzi schemes. If Allen were to allow the latter to be 'name and shamed', the former could be defamed through misinformation.

    Our Paul Myers has enough on his plate dealing with that crap outside of the forum...let's not drag that in here and cause him to get a stroke, ok?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3597180].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

    I would like the Warrior Admins to start an internet ethics section where we talk about what is ethical in marketing strategies etc. and other things having to do with selling on the internet.
    Ooh! Ooh! Can I play too? I would like the Warrior Admins to send me 10% of the money they bring in from WSOs, 50% of all War Room proceeds and 27.3% of other advertising revenues.

    For example, if you are going to copy a domain name
    Umm...I think only one person is allowed to own a domain name. Not sure how you would "copy" one.

    that is clearly a brand name and not a keyword based domain name it is not ethical to market competing products and services when you are getting traffic to your site from people typing in the brand name and then finding your site where they opt in.
    Sorry, I'd like to make a snarky comment here as well, but the run-on nature of the sentence has confused me.

    Some people who have brand name sites can not afford to take the legal route in suing.
    As opposed to the illegal route of suing?

    That is why we need a hall of shame on this site also to bring them into line.
    That's a non sequitur argument, really.

    the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
    That's one version of it, yes.

    should be foremost as you move forward with your marketing plans.
    There are a lot of young people with no morals involved with internet marketing.
    It's them $%*^& teenagers! I just knowed it! There are also older people with no morals. There are also young and old people with strong morals, weak morals, loose morals, shaky morals, misguided morals, etc.

    They all grew up in schools which taught them the theory of evolution as if it was fact.
    All? Funny how you state something that you can't prove as a fact. While others have pointed out that we don't bring religion into our discussions here, we also don't bring politics into it. I give you credit for doing BOTH in one little sentence.

    No wonder they have no morals.
    Maybe, maybe not, but at least THEY have some shred of open-mindedness.

    Perhaps we should also have a hall of shame within the ethics section on this forum where we can post the web sites of violaters.
    I vote for the OP as the first member.

    That way those who can not afford the legal route will have a way to bring violaters to their knees in repentance.
    HELLO? Do you even realize what you're really saying? What you're REALLY talking about is CONDITIONAL morality (which makes NO sense). You're saying "it's okay to be immoral if you can afford to get out of it legally".

    SPLORF!

    Peter
    'nough said.

    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3597688].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author advertisethis
      "He said, she said." The verifiability of all the claims -- with some being totally due to mistakes/misunderstandings, others being from intentional libel by competitors -- would be impossible. And my guess is plenty of the more successful who might end up on the wall (for whatever reason, legitimate or otherwise) WOULD have the financial wherewithal to sue. This "wall of shame" could be a mess.

      And a separate ethics subsection would make it less likely for those employing questionable ethics to actually be confronted with an issue versus a topic in one of the more popular subsections questioning a particular technique/issue. If someone has a question about some particular technique, they can still title a topic something like: "How Ethical is __________?" or "The Ethics of ___________" or "Is it Fair to Potential Customers (or Other Warriors) to ___________?"

      But if we could still see video footage of some of the real shysters on their knees begging in repentance, I have to admit that could potentially be very entertaining.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598156].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Originally Posted by advertisethis View Post

        ... But if we could still see video footage of some of the real shysters on their knees begging in repentance, I have to admit that could potentially be very entertaining.
        This could be a very profitable niche market. What do you think would be an ethical price to charge for these private confession videos? Should it be linked to the severity of the sin?
        Signature
        “If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598349].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Here's a pretty basic rule on ethics: If you wouldn't want someone to do the thing in question to you, it probably ain't ethical. Simple. And has worked well for me for many years.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598700].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulie888
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      Here's a pretty basic rule on ethics: If you wouldn't want someone to do the thing in question to you, it probably ain't ethical. Simple. And has worked well for me for many years.
      This is a simple yet effective way of determining what's ethical, and what's not. Of course, you won't find a consensus on many issues, and we just have to implement what we consider as ethical behavior and action.
      Signature
      >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3601121].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
        Alan,
        Be that as it may, the "loudest" voices here clearly indicate that an ethics forum is not desired, and I'm positive the rules will follow their lead. (i.e. - nothing will change, as the 'loudest' voices have decreed.)

        Kind of proves my point.
        It could look like that, sure. This is one of the reasons I said "usually."

        This topic has been discussed many, many times here over the years. The moderators have explained each time why the idea of "name and shame" won't be accepted here as a general practice. There's just too much room for abuse. The more long-term members have seen it enough that they know the reasons, and can explain them without the need for moderators to get into the discussion. (Doesn't mean we won't, of course.)

        Many of the people explaining why it's a bad idea were originally in favor of exactly the sort of thing suggested in the first post. It sounds great in theory, and the intent is usually good. Still, once you see how people abuse the concept, you realize that it's going to be used more to harm innocent people than to right any sort of wrong.

        Like I said. Experience.


        Paul
        Signature
        .
        Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3605091].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author onemind
    Well doesn't this forum exude enough "ethics" sanctimony already? :rolleyes:
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598878].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
      Originally Posted by onemind View Post

      Well doesn't this forum exude enough "ethics" sanctimony already? :rolleyes:
      Perhaps so.

      But hey, the door's that way.

      Ain't no one holding a gun to your head.
      Signature
      Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
      Fast & Easy Content Creation
      ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3599520].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Devid Farah
    I think the hall of shame will only add a distasteful feature to Warrior Forum.

    Warriors are about helping each other with real problems. If there is a copyright breach or DMCA violation then there are legal channels to pursue this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3602888].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
      I find it hard to come up with a serious response to the OP as it seems this post's purpose is to just stir things up.

      Considering that the OP has multiple names here on the forum, I would be unlikely to be too worried about what he terms as ethical anyway.
      Signature
      Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
      Fast & Easy Content Creation
      ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603104].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SEOexpertSEO
    I think that would be a great idea!

    You know, I would really like warrior forum to offer a "spammy" section and a "ethical practices" section. It sure would be a lot easier to find what I want that way. I want my websites to last at least a few years "ethical practices" would be a better fit for me. While people who don't care, or just want a site that blows up big before it gets banned can go to the "spammy section.

    Another thought is to have a "quality work" section to showcase premium services that are offered on Warrior Forum.

    Thanks
    Signature

    I've helped 1723 businesses get more customers. If you want to be successful at your local, national, or international business visit http://bluesearchmarketing.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3605125].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tpw
      Originally Posted by SEOexpertSEO View Post

      I think that would be a great idea!

      You know, I would really like warrior forum to offer a "spammy" section and a "ethical practices" section. It sure would be a lot easier to find what I want that way. I want my websites to last at least a few years "ethical practices" would be a better fit for me. While people who don't care, or just want a site that blows up big before it gets banned can go to the "spammy section.

      Another thought is to have a "quality work" section to showcase premium services that are offered on Warrior Forum.

      Thanks

      If you are my competitor, I could wield my limited influence and have my stuff pushed into the "ethical practices" section, and have your stuff pushed into the "spammy" section.

      Would that be ethical of me to do?

      Who cares? It helps me profit, because I have successfully painted you as one of those people with more "UNethical practices" than myself.

      It does not matter whether you believe that you hold the righteous ground or not. If I can rally the troops to bring you down, your righteous indignation will come to nothing.

      And don't worry about whether my troops will think it is ethical for them to help me or not, because I know where I can buy votes against you.

      Money talks, and the ethical among us won't be able to fight the tide moving against them.

      Be careful what you hope for, because that ball bat you propose could just as easily be used against you to destroy you.
      Signature
      Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
      Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3605237].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author UKTim29
    Originally Posted by PeterLarson View Post

    Perhaps we should also have a hall of shame within the ethics section on this forum where we can post the web sites of violaters.
    Perhaps you should just find a hobby?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3605214].message }}

Trending Topics