I recently had one of my posts editied (HERE) because of a link to an ebay auction. I've got no beef with that -- the moderators generally do a pretty good job, and if I misunderstood the policy, then bad on me.

But what is the policy? The FAQ says:

quote:

---

but linking to any sales or auction sites is only allowed in the paid advertising section

---

.

Pretty straightforward (and it also seems to be a little more restrictive than it used to be -- has it been edited lately). Yet THIS ebay link was allowed, as was THIS.

I realize that the FAQ also says

quote:

---

Q. How about a really outrageous auction I want to point out for discussion?

That's allowed, but only if you or your family isn't running the auction. No free ads, people! ;-)

---

Is "outrageous" a judgement call for the moderator of a particular forum? Has it been better defined in the Mods only forum?

I truly thought that my link to the nonsport price guide would have been useful info to someone on the forum. It's been clear to me from some of the questions that get asked here, that many current collectors don't even know about some of the literature and reference material that exists for nonsport cards, and that someone here would benefit from being able to purchase this very useful book. It's out of print now, and not generally available, so I can't believe it causes a conflict with any current paid NSU or CT advertiser. I personally don't benefit from the auction, nor does my family (although in the interest of total disclosure, I was a contributor for some of the books in this series).

If they policy were either "no ebay links allowed" or "all ebay links allowed", it might not be the most useful to those of us who like to talk about cards, but it would sure be easier to understand and obey. As it is, there is some sort of grey line, and I'm not sure when I cross it.

[This message was edited by Bill Mullins on January 14, 2004 at 06:22 PM.]

Hi Bill. . .

I would appreciate it if you would have taken care of this issue directly with me instead of posting publicly.

The linking rule is as it was decided in a thread discussed months ago by Harris. The FAQ has not been updated with these changes.

Whatever the FAQ reads when it is changed one thing will remain the same -- there will be no advertising. Since you posted the link with the apparent intention of getting someone to bid on it it is an advertisement.

Currently -- under rules that are still being worked on for the FAQ most linking to auctions and things is allowed, but advertising isn't.

Hope that clears things up.

Jon

Also -- Harris can you move this to the proper section?

box breakdowns, show reviews, rare autograph gallery and more: www.webjon.com/index.html

Sorry to have gone public with this. I figured since I didn't understand, then maybe someone else didn't either.

Again, I have no beef with what's gone on, I just didn't understand.

I personally didn't (or don't) care if someone bought (or buys) the book, I wasn't trying to get it sold (I've got my own copies, and I refer to them constantly). I just figured that someone on the forum would want it, since it's so useful.

I suppose, then, I should have worded the post in such a way to notify people that the auction is there, that the book is useful, but without encouraging anyone to buy it. Or I should have discouraged them from buying it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
I personally didn't (or don't) care if someone bought (or buys) the book, I wasn't trying to get it sold (I've got my own copies, and I refer to them constantly). I just figured that someone on the forum would want it, since it's so useful.

---

The whole point of the 'no advertising' rule is to keep this place from becoming a place to spam auctions. Your post wasn't made for information, or something interesting, or a question you had -- it was made to tell people about an item for sale.
That is advertising. Now I don't know if this is your book, or your friends book, or your kids, cousins, or someone you don't know, whatever. . . Getting in the position of trying to determine who actually is advertising by figuring out who is selling the item posted is basically impossible -- so there is a no advertising rule. For me there is no reason to figure out why you posted a link announcing an item for sale -- it is an advertisement. As simple as that.

Heck if I posted links to everything I thought was great and that every collector should have there would be links all over the place and all the conversations would get buried.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Mullins:
I suppose, then, I should have worded the post in such a way to notify people that the auction is there, that the book is useful, but without encouraging anyone to buy it. Or I should have discouraged them from buying it.

---

No. If you are so worried about showing someone this item is for sale it seems more and more like you are benefitting from the sale somehow.

You shouldn't post links just to try to get people to buy stuff.

I have received the email you sent me, but I think this really should clear everything up. If you have further questions email me.

Jon

box breakdowns, show reviews, rare autograph gallery and more: www.webjon.com/index.html

As this has gone public i suppose we can comment.

I think it was nice of Bill to point out to people something which they may find of intrest.
Something i may add that loads of people on here do all the time.

Jon i think you are overreacting bigtime.

However i concede that i may not be availed of the full facts and only have these posts to go on.

I have waited some time before replying in order to make sure I don't dash off something in the heat of the moment.

Jon -- I take strong offense to some of what you have said. I have tried to keep my Card Talk postings on topic, and not to make them personal (which is why I sent you an email directly, instead of continuing on Card Talk -- some of what I had to say, I felt like would best not be said publicly). However, you don't feel similarly constrained, so here goes . . .

Twice above you have made statements that question whether I am telling the truth:

1.

quote:

---

If you are so worried about showing someone this item is for sale it seems more and more like you are benefitting from the sale somehow.

---

I said, quite clearly above:
"I personally don't benefit from the auction".

I can only take your statement to mean that you doubt my veracity.

At any rate, the book is only at $2 right now. You can be sure that even if I were selling it, the grief this discussion has caused me will ensure that I don't benefit.

2.

quote:

---

Now I don't know if this is your book, or your friends book, or your kids, cousins, or someone you don't know, whatever

---

The prohibition is against auctions by the poster, or by the poster's family. Again, I was quite explicit in saying that this was neither. Again, by calling me out in this way, I feel as if I have been called dishonest in a public forum.

Now since you have opened the door to making statements about another's conduct on CT, let me bring up the other issue from my direct email.

Every one of your signatures has a direct link to your own site, on which you have Shrek boxes for sale for $20, and state "most everything on my site is for sale". You have continued to do this even after I noted it, two days ago. I had no personal profit motive in linking to the ebay auction; you, on the other had, have one in linking to your site. I think it is pretty hypocritical for you to apply rules to others, and not apply them to yourself as well. If you truly believe that you are above the rules, you probaly should resign as a moderator, and let the job be fulfilled by someone who is more evenhanded (and no, I'm not volunteering).

Wolfman -- thanks for the support. You do have all the facts, as do anyone else who has read this exchange.

Now back to the topic at hand: the ebay link policy. Jon and I do not agree on what constitutes "advertising". I'm sure that he could find a dictionary that would support his position that my original post was an advert, and that I could find one that would support my position that the post wasn't. Given that ambiguity, I would hope that the spirit of the post which contains the link would count for something -- Is the poster trying to make money for himself or an associate, or trying to compete with one of the paid advertisers; or is he trying to provide some information that would be of benefit to the forum, or start an interesting thread?

If anyone believed that I was trying to take advantage of an auction for a $2 out of print book in this forum for personal gain or profit, I wasn't, and I sincerely apologize for having lead you to believe that.

I'll take this incident as a lesson not to post a link to anything which is being sold, period. I'm not smart enough to make more subtle distinctions than that.

Jon has alluded above to the possibility of the FAQ being changed. If that happens, might I suggest the following addition: "No links to auctions until after they have closed." This would remove the difficulty of the poster trying to decide if the link would, in someone else's opinion, constitute advertising; and it would remove the difficulty of the moderator trying to determine the motive of the poster. And if it's an interesting topic for discussion, people can still talk about it after it has closed.

I have said a couple of times in the past that mostly, I think the moderators do a good job. I still believe that, even about Jon. I disagree strongly with how he has handled this discussion, though. He pointed out above that he would have preferred that I had not brought this up publicly. Given his sensitivity to that, I can't for the life of me understand why he has made his replies to me publicly instead of off line. Say about me whatever you like in a private message -- I'm pretty thick-skinned, and can take it. Call me out in front of others, and I don't have many options but to hash it out in the same arena.

Bill Mullins

P.S. [added later] Let me summarize: I don't have a beef with the fact that the link was deleted -- we disagree about how the rules should be interpreted, but Jon has been given that responsibility and I haven't. My proble is with some of what he has said to me publicly in explanation (by that time he had my email address, and could have done so privately), and with the fact that he doesn't apply the rules strictly to himself. End of summary.

[This message was edited by Bill Mullins on January 16, 2004 at 04:47 PM.]

Bill, I have to say, that was a well thought out well worded, and quite appropriate response. I am not going to delve into the linking differences as you noted. I just wanted to say how thankful I am that you approached this in the manner you have. We are all prone to rash responses, I am not innocent in that regard either. I am sure that this post alone will lead to more constructive discussion on this topic.


Dan

http://mtlhddoc2.8m.com

Quote of the Week:

"Nothing is wrong with California that a rise in the ocean level wouldn't cure."
- Ross MacDonald (1915-1983)

I admit I'm as confused about the policy as Bill, which I why I try not to post any links to Ebay auctions at all (mine or someone else's).

I don't know if/when there will ever be a hard and fast (and easily understandable) rule on this that doesn't involve either allowing everything or allowing nothing.

I do have one idea to toss out there, although I don't know how fair it would be to the paid advertisers:

I also frequent the message board at barbiecollectibles.com, where they don't have a policy of restricting links to Ebay auctions. However, instead of seeing a long list of links to this and that where people are trying to sell their dolls, there's just one single thread called "Ebay Alert!" where people post links to Ebay auctions in an effort to help someone get a good deal. Most of the links in the thread though are not to auctions that the poster is selling but rather to a good deal he/she found but is passing on and sharing with the group. It's rather fun, because sometimes I've been watching an auction hoping to snap it up for cheap, then someone posts a link on the board and suddenly I have competition! But then other times, someone posts a link for a doll I've been looking for and I end up getting a great deal.

That's how I saw Bill's post. It looked like he had found something that he thought might be useful to someone here, so he shared. If Card Talk had something like that, just a single thread where people could post links to auctions (not their own) that they think others may appreciate, that could be a way around allowing everything or disallowing everything.

Again, it's just a suggestion based on what seems to be working well on the Barbie board, but I'm not sure how it would affect the paying advertisers here on Card Talk.

"I live in my own little world, but it's ok, they know me there."

I didn't intend for my response to Bill to see link I was 'calling him out.'

I do not think that he benefitted from the auction I was just trying to define to the Card Talk members what I interpreted as advertising and why I did. I am sorry that wasn't clear.

Jon

box breakdowns, show reviews, rare autograph gallery and more: www.webjon.com/index.html

[This message was edited by jon@webjon.com (spydrman) on January 16, 2004 at 07:34 PM.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jon@webjon.com (spydrman):


I have received the email you sent me, but I think this really should clear everything up. If you have further questions email me.



I am fairly new to posting to these boards and have no intention of offending anyone .....
BUT... the above quote has confused me a little.

Judging by the amount of people leaving the board recently due to ( in my opinion ) being publicly slated, I would have thought that if you send a personal email to someone, then they should send their reply in the same manner. This way no-one would get too upset and there would be no " public flogging " as in other posts.


There are loads of ebay links on the board at the moment and some of them are still running, so I must agree with Bill and ask " why have they not been removed ??? "
I personally would have liked to see the book ( so if you are reading this Bill, then please email me with the details ).

I don't have any problems with anyone on this board and don't particularly want any, but if you tell anyone off on the board publicly for not emailing you, then don't answer their email on the board " practise what you preach "

scouse691-- if you'll notice while Bill did email me off the board he also posted publicly. I responded to his public post and left all the private stuff out -- since it wasn't imperitive to the answer to the post.

And even now that Bill has come forward with details from the private email -- I emailed him back privately on those matters.

Jon


box breakdowns, show reviews, rare autograph gallery and more: www.webjon.com/index.html

From THIS ongoing thread we see that it is okay to provide instructions to find a link, so as not to directly post the link:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BCW:
In the interests of not advertising Paul's site which sells his book (just in case I get into trouble for directly linking), if you go to Google and type in "paul hart gum guide", it should be the 3rd link down.

---

So, scouse691 (was scouse690 already taken as a username????), if you want to see this auction, go to ebay's US website and search for "card price guide" in the Trading Cards > Other Nonsports Cards section. It is the auction that ends on 19 January.

Does it occur to anyone else besides me that a policy of banning direct links but allowing this sort of specific instruction is, well, silly? In fact it is so silly that I would hope that the moderators recognize the rediculousness of it all, and fix it. I'm embarrased, personally, to observe the letter of the rule and violate the spirit of it in such an overt manner.

As far as the rest of what has been said, I take Jon at his word when he says he wasn't trying to call me out publicly, or that he doesn't believe I was trying to benefit from the auction (although it is difficult to reconcile the latter with his statement "it seems more and more like you are benefitting from the sale somehow".) He would prefer that we not publicly discuss if it is appropriate for him to link to his web/sale site in his signature while deleting the links that others make, so I won't bring that up again.

As far as the points made by angeleyes, I don't know if I agree. If an ebay thread is opened, it would be very difficult to keep it from being spammed by sellers, until it just turned into a free advert thread, and Harris has made it clear he doesn't want that. One way would be for a moderator to be able to exercise some judgment on a post-by-post basis, but that sort of discretion is exactly what has gotten my hackles up so bad right now.

Personally, I think many of the arguments against linking are overblown:

I would hope that NSU's state of financial health is strong enough that it could stand for other card sites to be mentioned. I mean really, we already know about most of them anyway. And most of the ones that get discussed, provide enough context that it becomes easy to find them (I didn't know about Topps' forum until the Gollum discussion, and there was no direct link by the time I read the CT thread -- but it was real easy to find).

If the revenue stream from paid CT advertisers must be protected, then bump up each of our subscriptions by a buck, and use the money to pay for CT. I'd think it would be money well spent. Your mailing lable would contain a new password.

If bandwidth is a problem, kill the Chatter forum today.

But right now, there is a no link policy. I'm happy to try to abide by it, but I think the distinctions that must be drawn when deciding if a particular link is an advert or not cause problems (at least for me), and the rules should be rewritten so there is no personal judgement (from the poster or particular moderator) involved.

To quote Jon, above:

quote:

---

Your post . . . was made to tell people about an item for sale.

---

If that is the standard for determining if an ebay link is an advert, then I don't see how it can be interpreted in any way other than active ebay links are forbidden -- all links to ebay auctions are to tell about something that is for sale, aren't they?

For mthlddoc2's and scouse's supportive comments, thanks.

Jon, you have asked Harris to move this to the appropriate thread -- sorry to have miscategorized it -- just curious, which thread would be better?

Personally I would like to see this post in the Suggestions and Requests forum -- that is where it seems to be a best fit to me.

I don't disagree with Bills comments about all eBay posts being essentially an advertisement -- and posts are open to interpretation. Perhaps that bias tends to land me as seeing items as being further on the 'advertising' side of the line than other would.

As I understand the spirit of the rule -- a post saying "Why is this auction this expensive" or "Is this item rare," "Is this a rare variation," etc. would be posted as a way to get information or give information.

To me. . . if there is no more information in a post than where to buy a certain item -- regardless of how cool or useful that item is that would be classified as an advertisement.

Jon

box breakdowns, show reviews, rare autograph gallery and more: www.webjon.com/index.html

Hi Bill Mullins

That was a good old book you had a link to.
I have not seen that book in many years.
Sorry that I never bought a copy of the book when it was in print.

ALSO: Thanks for Going Public

PS: If you get a email from a moderator and it does not have NSU in the email address.
From the person that sent it.
Just dont pay any attention to it.
It is not from NSU.
I been doing this for a while now and it has been working for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Card Master:
PS: If you get a email from a moderator and it does not have NSU in the email address.
From the person that sent it.
Just dont pay any attention to it.
It is not from NSU.
I been doing this for a while now and it has been working for me.

---

I can't say I agree with that! Sometimes the moderators use the special Mod's e-mail we have set up (with @nonsportupdate.com as part of the address) and sometimes they use their own. I would say, if you get an e-mail from Sarah, Lynne, Paul, Mike, Jon, Dan, Todd, or Kevin, pay attention to it!

Harris

Visit Non-Sport Update at www.nonsportupdate.com

I,d love to get an email from Todd.

Hi Harris
When you first started the NSU moderators.
You did it in a professional business way (with @nonsportupdate.com in the email address
Harris you did a excellent job at it.
I once forwarded you a email that I got from a NSU Card Talk moderator at that time to show you how polite and professional that the moderator person was to me in the email.
Asking me to fix one of my NSU Card Talk post (with the @nonsportupdate.com in there email address.
I am not going to say the persons name.

But some of the other moderators that use there own email address accounts are totally different all together that send me emails about my NSU Card Talk Post with and more sometimes.
But for now on when I get the emails from the NSU Card Talk moderators about my and to fix my NSU Card Talk post (with out the @nonsportupdate.com in the email address .
I will start forwarding them all to you.
Just so you can see for your self.
How some of the NSU moderators talk to people and the links in there emails to me.
There are not all polite and in a professional way.
ALSO: Some of the emails with out the @nonsportupdate.com come to me with web links on them too. To what the person has for sale , there want list, there web sights and more.

Ben,

Well, I know that it was not me that you are talking about! My emails are signature line free.

But yes, I do have to use my personal email a lot of the times to send moderation emails out. I do not always have the information readily available on how to sign on to be able to send email via the @nonsportupdate.com email address. For that I am sorry, but the content of the email is the important part, not what email address that it came from. You do know who the moderators generally are.

Just my 2 cents.

Mike.

Hi Mike!
Yes it was you.
Mike You know how to talk to people and deal with the public.
You are the nice polite and very professional moderator that knows how to talk to a person.
In a friendly polite and professional way when Harris first started the NSU Card Talk Moderators .
At that time I forwarded the email you sent me to Harris and said how very professional and very polite you are
Ask Harris

Keep up the good work

Hi Mike!
Any emails you ever sent me are signature line free.
That I know
You are the polite , very professional and a know how to talk to a person in a business like way type of guy.

Ben