Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Metro Station, Hollywood and Highland
Posts: 1018

I've tried to bite my tongue on this issue for a long time, but now I've had it.

Why does VisorCentral charge OmniSky, Handspring and other companies for banner ad placements when Bill Warman gets free advertising by instigating new screen protector threads? Now he's even putting a VSPS.com GIF/link in his signature. This is completely unfair to your paying advertisers and affiliates.

VC is averaging about two new screen protector threads a month, typically building up to about 40 posts before they're closed. If a "screen protector" thread isn't explicitly Warman/VSPS-related in the first place, it devolves into one within a dozen posts.

A few possible remedies:

• Warn Mr. Warman that unpaid VSPS advocacy will not be tolerated on VC, and close his account if he continues
  
• Reopen the original "Better Screen Protectors" thread, and allow the debating to continue only on that thread
  
• Close any and all new threads on screen protectors immediately, providing a link to the 26 existing threads on the subject -- most of which are still open
  
• Create a new rule on VC prohibiting GIFs for for-profit enterprises in signatures
  
• Send him an invoice for posting his VSPS.com signature ads
  

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1683

On the surface, I would agree with your argument, but after some thought, I'd say its good to have actually companies involved with these discussions.

So, I don't think the solution is to ban posts from commercial entities just because one of them is a complete idiot. There is much to be gained from allowing commercial representatives take part in this discussion forum.

As an alternative solution, I would suggest making one thread in OFF-TOPIC called Warman. Then, set up a filter and any message containing the word Warman goes into there.

Or, we could just ignore parties that are of little value to the discussion.

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: brooklyn
Posts: 268

quote:

---

Originally posted by homer


Or, we could just ignore parties that are of little value to the discussion.

---

__________________
exit, pursued by a bear.

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by homer
On the surface, I would agree with your argument, but after some thought, I'd say its good to have actually companies involved with these discussions.

---

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby
Actually, it seemed to me that the complaint wasn't that it was bad to have companies involved in dicussions, but more that his signature was free advertising. If I was putting my Handspring affiliate link in my sig, I would likely be banned or at least chastised (since there has already been something stated to that effect that it shouldn't be done). Why should Warman be treated any differently?

---

Well his logo isn't clickable that I've seen. Posting a link to his license was inappropriate and it has been closed.

Don't forget that on the weekend things may slip through for a while if we're busy.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1683

I don't think a sig is advertising, per say. It's more of a business card. I post on several bulletin boards related to another industry I am in and always include my logo and a link to our web site. Is it advertising? Sort of...in a word-of-mouth type of way.

Of course, I only post when my feedback and company affiliation is relevant to the topic at hand, which obviously is rarely the case of warman's posts.

I hated the guy at first, now I just think he's a bit crazy and just an annoyance. He's an anomoly (sp?) and I wouldn't go too far out of your way to try and restrict the rules at Visor Central just because of him.

Ultimately, I don't see how his ranting and raving even helps him anyways...it seems to have the opposite affect of advertising (I know, in know, they always say any publicity is good publicity...but you're not SUPPOSED to give YOURSELF bad publicity, are you?)

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: Redwood City CA
Posts: 472

Personally, I like having companies drop in and post or answer questions or provide feedback. As long as they're clearly identified as corporate representatives, anyone with more than a few firing neurons should know to take what is said with a grain of salt.

The problem is that it's hard to come up with an impartial, clearly defined rule that differentiates between advertising and chatting with customers. I'd hate to think that a good communications tool is being cut off because Warman isn't housebroken.

Perhaps set up a new section where people creating a product to sell could start threads about their products?

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Metro Station, Hollywood and Highland
Posts: 1018

Homer:

Let me just say that I do agree with you in principle: a sig isn't a banner ad per se. I was referring more to the context in which the sig was used: i.e. in conjunction with discussions of his products and intellectual property. I happen to think it's unfair to paying advertisers and affiliates to allow someone to promote his product for free unsolicited -- with or without notoriety. It's also unfair to people who genuinely want to discuss screen protection without interference. When a company like Innogear posts on VC, they have the decency to limit the scope of their posts to customer queries (e.g. "What kind of cell phone do you use?") and answers to our posts (as Geodiscovery has done in the past).

Of course, that's a judgement call. I'm not suggesting that there's an objective way to determine what constitutes advertising and what doesn't; it's often a thin line. But if I were moderating the site, my guideline would be: Is my forum being taken advantage of? This is a private website, not the government. No one's civil rights are violated by responsible moderation on a private forum.

By the way, my suggestions were just thinking out loud for the best ones to be considered. I don't believe in complaining about a situation without offering possible ways to correct it -- that's narcicism. It wasn't my intention to categorically ban commercial entities from posting. I think we can apply common sense in determining who's abusing the system.

James:

You're right: the GIF wasn't clickable. I didn't realize that until after I posted. But I want to thank you for closing the latest Warman thread and issuing a warning. That was precisely the appropriate action.

[Edited by Gameboy70 on 10-02-2000 at 03:55 PM]

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049

I agree with your sentiment Gameboy 70, however I don't think that it's wrong are bad to allow Warman, or anybody else, to post missives that are self-serving. I click on his posts for amusement at this point. I will never buy something from him, or one of his licensees, becuase I personally think he is a jerk. I view the advertising from the "legit" companies as such- if I'm interested I click, if not I don't.
My wife was in a similar situation recently. While in a conversation with a contractor we know and trust (at an archery class for our 7 year old) about some work we might like done on the house we are buying, a guy she didn't know butted in and started promoting himself as a "handyman" and touting his ability to do the work. His style was offensive, rude, and patronizing. She chose to ignore him.
Do so with Warman, or anybody else you might feel the same way about. If you feel the need to inform newcomers about the issue, post links to the appropriate threads. Let's keep free speech free. Warman does himself more harm than good, it's the nature of the beast.
I would actually like to see some company reps start to participate in discussions. I would love for them to include URLs in their sigs. That way I would know that someone at the company actually took the time to read posts on this site and I would be more comfortable buying from them (as long as they weren't jerks!) if I was looking at buying that type of product.
But that's just me!
BobbyMike

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Metro Station, Hollywood and Highland
Posts: 1018

quote:

---

I agree with your sentiment Gameboy 70, however I don't think that it's wrong are bad to allow Warman, or anybody else, to post missives that are self-serving.

---

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: Connecticut USA
Posts: 2682

In all of the Warman threads, I don't think he ever talked about or promoted his product... just the patent and the infamous infringers.

As for comparing the warez threads with the screen protector ones, that's apples and oranges. Warez are illegal and, as with all other illegal activities, will not be condoned here at VisorCentral. The Warman stuff is not illegal... unethical, perhaps, but there's a big difference between the two.

I personally take exception to the "double standard" implication. We, as moderators, are here to enforce the rules of the forum. I believe that's what we have done. No one, to my knowledge, has gotten preferential treatment of any kind. If anything, we've been tolerant of more than we should be. In each of the SP threads that ended up being closed, ample warnings to all parties were given. They went unheeded, the diatribes continued, and the threads were closed. The moderators don't set policy, nor do I think we even shape the uniqueness of VC... we simply enforce the rules and keep things in order.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gameboy70
But if I were moderating the site, my guideline would be: Is my forum being taken advantage of?

---

This is exactly how I perform my moderation duties. Once the line is crossed, I do what I feel is necessary to bring things back in order, as I'm sure the other moderators do. Closing and deleting threads are (and should be) a last resort.

Being a moderator means one needs to remain as neutral as possible and not choose sides. We're human, so it's not always easy. It's also difficult because, at least for me, I have trouble these days voicing my own opinions... I don't want anything to be misconstrued because I (proudly) display Discussion Moderator in my signature.

The powers that be have entrusted me with this title and it's responsibilities, and it's something I don't take lightly. VisorCentral is like a second home to me (ok, it's an addiction ). I've gained immeasurable knowledge cruising these forums, and, hopefully, I've been able to pass some of that along to others. I do not believe that the moderation team is guilty of any double standards.

__________________

God bless America, my home sweet home...

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: Metro Station, Hollywood and Highland
Posts: 1018

quote:

---

In all of the Warman threads, I don't think he ever talked about or promoted his product... just the patent and the infamous infringers.

---

All of which was self serving. Remember, this whole debacle was kicked off by a "better screen protectors" post promoting the product (though allegedly not Warman's). I see his trolling -- and this is an opinion, not a fact -- as guerilla marketing for VSPS.com. If Warman had directly and explicitly promoted his product, he would've been kicked off of the boards immediately. He has to be oblique when talking about his product, so the patent issue was a safe way to sustain a dialogue about it while not "really" talking about it. And yes, that's presumptuous -- but accurate.

quote:

---

As for comparing the warez threads with the screen protector ones, that's apples and oranges. Warez are illegal and, as with all other illegal activities, will not be condoned here at VisorCentral. The Warman stuff is not illegal... unethical, perhaps, but there's a big difference between the two.

---

Warez are illegal, but not discussions about them, especially without links. Discussions about illegal activities and discussions about immoral activities are both legal activities. So it's not apples and oranges. You made an editorial choice in both cases.

quote:

---

I personally take exception to the "double standard" implication.

---

I apologize. My intent was to start a dialogue on screen protector threads without starting Yet Another Screen Protector Thread. The "Double Standards on VC" title seemed more provocative at the time, but in hindsight seems rash. I overreacted.

quote:

---

The moderators don't set policy, nor do I think we even shape the uniqueness of VC... we simply enforce the rules and keep things in order.

---

That "shape the uniqueness" comment was related to a previous comment about moderation curtailing free speech, which misapprehends what free speech is. Your right to "enforce the rules and keep things in order" is an integral part of free speech. If the media weren't allowed to exclude certain content without state intervention (propaganda), McCarthyism might still be with us today.

quote:

---

Once the line is crossed, I do what I feel is necessary to bring things back in order, as I'm sure the other moderators do. Closing and deleting threads are (and should be) a last resort.

---

Absolutely true. You'll notice in my first post that I refrained from saying anything about the Warman situation for a long time. The point of the post was to suggest that perhaps, at last, the line has been crossed.

quote:

---

Being a moderator means one needs to remain as neutral as possible and not choose sides. We're human, so it's not always easy. It's also difficult because, at least for me, I have trouble these days voicing my own opinions... I don't want anything to be misconstrued because I (proudly) display Discussion Moderator in my signature.

---

I was a news editor, so I had to my opinions in check every day. Try writing about something like Microsoft.NET with a straight face!

quote:

---

I do not believe that the moderation team is guilty of any double standards.

---

Got your attention, though, didn't I? By the way, James did take appropriate action on the latest Warman thread after I posted my rant, so I'm not complaining. Now maybe we can move on to something less ugly.

[Edited by Gameboy70 on 10-04-2000 at 03:59 AM]