[wp-forums] "official" policy should be made

[Vicki Frei]

Podz wrote:
> Matt Mullenweg wrote:
>> Michael B wrote:
>> I like restricting commercial offerings and requests to the wp-pro
>> mailing list, it's what it was created for (sorta).
>>
> 
> I subbed to wp-pro for a while - it's not that busy :)
> It's also an obstacle course for someone who has a reasonable $20 they
> wish to use. It's also an obstacle course for the person offering the
> services and using mailing lists can be confusing for some.
> 
> I would prefer that we do not go down to commercials in the forums, but
> I cannot think how we can avoid them. Can someone write guidelines for
> that? Can someone honestly say that the gray area would be minimal?
> 

Nope, we can't.  That's a problem.  The grey area is going to get wider and 
wider over time I think.

I agree that mailing lists are problematic for people.  Though neither google 
groups nor yahoo (based on list-servs) seem to be which is boggling.... But 
still my preference is to do as little direct intervention as possible....

> No-one has addressed an example I wrote earlier:
> "Example:
> Person A says - in an existing thread - they will install WP along with
> a theme and plugins. They will charge $50 and they link to their
> www.ego_url.com site.
> Person B says - in an existing thread - that DreamHost are great and
> leaves a referral link. That link will generate MORE than the $50.
> One is commercial, open and they work for the cash.
> One is private, possibly hidden to the link clicker and they lift not a
> finger for their money.
> Which is okay ?"
> 

I don't like either one - to me neither is okay.

> Another - I say that A Small Orange is a good host and give a straight
> link. Bob Parsons (who runs Godaddy) has also joined the forum and he
> says that Godaddy can do the job and gives a straight link. Who is
> commercial there?
> 
> --

Well, Bob Parsons is commercial, m'friend, because he IS godaddy, right? 
Whereas you aren't by posting ASO because you don't (unless YOU are hiding that 
from us) make any money off ASO by posting a simple link.

> 
> Vicki Frei wrote:
>> If you're going to offer something for purchase (hosting, themes,
> customizations, counseling, hand-holding etc.), then you need to post to
> the pro list.  Posting to the support forum will get your post closed,
> with a reminder and the list addy.  Outright spam etc. will be treated
> to summary execution as per normal.
> 
> Matt:
> I like that, allowing some or segregated advertising on the forums seems
> like something that would just decline very quickly.
> 
> Okay... how about a one shot deal? They get a single post which will be
> closed. Any replies to that post before we get to close it will be
> deleted. They get to make one post per month and previous posts in that
> forum will be deleted. And we nofollow links.
> Some does post offering ANY services then we edit that post, delete the
> content and point very clearly to the 'sticky for sellers'.
> Any 'Good Host' threads (they drive me nuts) would also get moved there.
> (But then people might post asking if A is better than B.... damn)
> 
> People will make a noise about the fact that WP should be free in every
> respect etc, but those same people can step up to the plate any time
> they choose and give their time and skills for free. Some will, most
> will not.
> 

So here's where I wind up:  I was actually running a matrix on this as I got to 
this part of your post.  And this is where I was getting to myself.  It's a fair 
deal:  we tell them what goes, they get one shot, then we handle the fallout. 
Of course, someone's going to have to do the "bookkeeping" on "once a month", 
and there will have to be a MONSTROUS sticky about the "rules" etc.  And I would 
say we need to call it a "trial run" - we're going to try this, as less 
intrusive than what we MIGHT have to do if things don't improve, etc.

> Or do we not try and get specific? Just have some general rules which we
> all agree are as good as we can get - and undecided posts are put to
> this group?
> 
> P.

I would try for not too specific as regards cases.  Generalism is best until it 
can be seen that specifics are absolutely necessary.  The more specifics, the 
more work, the more loopholes.

Y'all are so far "ahead" of me timewise that this may not make any sense by the 
time you read it, y'know?

[Things didn't used to be so complex 'net-wise.  That began to change when some 
people discovered they could make a LOT of money online by riding people's 
coattails not to mention outright cheating.  Fallout is unfun, and paybacks are 
a bitch.  I will go along with whatever the majority wants to do.... without 
argument....]

V