Dave Baker Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Ahoy, gang: I propose the following policy re the use of biographical (advertising) text in signature lines (the stuff at the end of a posted message): Your signature line may contain your name, the name of your firm and contact information (e.g., a web address, an email address, a street address, a phone number). No other text concerning your services is permitted (because this generally would constitute a commercial advertisement, which is not permitted on the message boards in the text of messages). Use of such text after being notified by an administrator is grounds for suspension of posting privileges.
david rigby Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Good. The shorter, the better. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
jevd Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Sounds good to me. JEVD Making the complex understandable.
Guest Sieve Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 That should not be just a signature line policy, though, but should apply anywhere in a post.
oriecat Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I think it even sounds too generous. People have profiles and the "About Me" page where they could put their information, then if others want to check them out, they could, and the rest of us wouldn't have to see it all the time. But I'm mean.
BG5150 Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I think it even sounds too generous. People have profiles and the "About Me" page where they could put their information, then if others want to check them out, they could, and the rest of us wouldn't have to see it all the time. But I'm mean. I agree. There is a little drop-down menu when you mouse over someone's name. Their information can be in there. Signatures should be for witty and humorous quips and quotes. Like this: QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPATwo wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
Guest Sieve Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I don't disagree with you orie & BG, but that information isn't available to the many non-members who look to the Board for information and guidance and who never post. And, my understanding is that the Board is not only for professionals to have an opportunity to explore questions with other professionals and to learn from each other, but it's also for non-members to use as a research tool. It wouldn't be counter to that approach, I don't think, to allow members to put contact info on their posts if they wish (and currently, most do not wish to do so).
oriecat Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I don't disagree with you orie & BG, but that information isn't available to the many non-members who look to the Board for information and guidance and who never post. Ah, I didn't realize or think about that.
J Simmons Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Ahoy, gang:I propose the following policy re the use of biographical (advertising) text in signature lines (the stuff at the end of a posted message): Your signature line may contain your name, the name of your firm and contact information (e.g., a web address, an email address, a street address, a phone number). No other text concerning your services is permitted (because this generally would constitute a commercial advertisement, which is not permitted on the message boards in the text of messages). Use of such text after being notified by an administrator is grounds for suspension of posting privileges. Sounds good to me. Will Lance Wallach get an exception? John Simmons johnsimmonslaw@gmail.com Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation.
PensionPro Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 I agree. How about a policy that messages only are posted to the message boards, and articles are posted to the articles (or news or press release) section? PensionPro, CPC, TGPC
Jim Norman Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 Two thumbs up! I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter.
Andy the Actuary Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Excellent and fair policy. The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.
GMK Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 OK as long as it does not eliminate the disclaimers, which are good for non-members and members to consider, and continues to allow the brief witty and humorous quips and quotes, like BG's, which I would miss. But what problem does this solve? Won't he shorten his signature line and continue to advertise in his excessively long posts?
Dave Baker Posted October 12, 2009 Author Posted October 12, 2009 OK as long as it does not eliminate the disclaimers, which are good for non-members and members to consider, and continues to allow the brief witty and humorous quips and quotes, like BG's, which I would miss.But what problem does this solve? Won't he shorten his signature line and continue to advertise in his excessively long posts? Thanks for your comments! I have asked that no further articles be posted. Breach of that policy by him or other members will mean temporary suspension from the board followed at some point in my discretion by permanent suspension. I hate to need to be that strict, but the problem seems to me to be one that many members object to strongly, so my role as the 'administrator' is to follow the dictates of our community wherever possible. David
Dave Baker Posted October 12, 2009 Author Posted October 12, 2009 Great idea, Dave! Can you make it retroactive? Sure can, in the sense that it is part of the new terms of service. So any message on the board would be subject to the new terms of service. That's how I'll apply it, anyhoo. I'll find out if the software provide an easy way to change a signature line with respect to already-posted messages.
Dave Baker Posted October 12, 2009 Author Posted October 12, 2009 I agree. How about a policy that messages only are posted to the message boards, and articles are posted to the articles (or news or press release) section? Not following you; are you referring to an articles section on these message boards (or news or press release section)? We have news at http://benefitslink.com/news and press releases at http://benefitslink.com/pr -- wonder if that's what you mean. David
Bird Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 QUOTE (PensionPro @ Oct 8 2009, 05:12 PM) *I agree. How about a policy that messages only are posted to the message boards, and articles are posted to the articles (or news or press release) section? Not following you; are you referring to an articles section on these message boards (or news or press release section)? We have news at http://benefitslink.com/news and press releases at http://benefitslink.com/pr -- wonder if that's what you mean. He's talking about VEBAPLAN posting and re-posting his own articles, and following up with dumb remarks. I imagine you have an advertising policy and this violates it, although most of the stuff is kind of random and it's really hard to figure out what he's getting at. Ed Snyder
PensionPro Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I agree. How about a policy that messages only are posted to the message boards, and articles are posted to the articles (or news or press release) section? Not following you; are you referring to an articles section on these message boards (or news or press release section)? We have news at http://benefitslink.com/news and press releases at http://benefitslink.com/pr -- wonder if that's what you mean. David Dave, What I meant was ... if a member wants to post and repost articles, the already-existing news or PR section of the site is a more appropriate forum than this discussion/message board. Entirely agree with Bird's previous post. Thanks. PensionPro PensionPro, CPC, TGPC
GMK Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 Thanks for your comments!I have asked that no further articles be posted. Breach of that policy by him or other members will mean temporary suspension from the board followed at some point in my discretion by permanent suspension. I hate to need to be that strict, but the problem seems to me to be one that many members object to strongly, so my role as the 'administrator' is to follow the dictates of our community wherever possible. David Thanks for the update, Dave. We (with one possible exception) appreciate your actions very much.
oriecat Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I'll find out if the software provide an easy way to change a signature line with respect to already-posted messages. In my experience with forum software, the signature is not a static part of the posted messages, it actually pulls from the current signature each time a post is viewed, so updating the signature will automatically change it on old messages.
masteff Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 I'll find out if the software provide an easy way to change a signature line with respect to already-posted messages. In my experience with forum software, the signature is not a static part of the posted messages, it actually pulls from the current signature each time a post is viewed, so updating the signature will automatically change it on old messages. Looks like both oriecat and I played w/ this... I can confirm that sigs on older posts are dynamic, meaning current changes to sigs are reflected on those already existing posts (and not just on future posts). Kurt Vonnegut: 'To be is to do'-Socrates 'To do is to be'-Jean-Paul Sartre 'Do be do be do'-Frank Sinatra
WDIK Posted November 16, 2009 Posted November 16, 2009 It appears that there has been a recent influx of new posters who are making semi-legitimate comments for the sole purpose of gaining exposure for a link in their signatures. (Bestprice, paulfinn31, vijendrasnv, for example). While it is possible to simply delete these posts, there might be some cases where the new posters are on the up and up. Should there be other restrictions, or is this not really a big deal? ...but then again, What Do I Know?
masteff Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 It appears that there has been a recent influx of new posters who are making semi-legitimate comments for the sole purpose of gaining exposure for a link in their signatures. (Bestprice, paulfinn31, vijendrasnv, for example). While it is possible to simply delete these posts, there might be some cases where the new posters are on the up and up. Should there be other restrictions, or is this not really a big deal? On that note, I've wondered if this forum makes adequate use of the "! Report" button in the lower left of each post which allows a user to flag a post for review by a moderator. I've tried to make use of that when a post has a commercial link hidden in a signature. But results (ie a moderator having taken a visible action) have varied. Kurt Vonnegut: 'To be is to do'-Socrates 'To do is to be'-Jean-Paul Sartre 'Do be do be do'-Frank Sinatra
oriecat Posted November 17, 2009 Posted November 17, 2009 I also use the Report button to report obvious spam posts.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now