Every post signature that includes a link to that poster's commercial website is a breach of that rule.
There is a whole section in Amplifiers dedicated to Pass Labs...which is a commercial operation. Why isn't this in the Vendors section? I know why of course (because Nelson Pass owns this site), but I'm just showing how the forum's rules are pretty malleable.
Last edited:
Traderbam. Nelson does NOT own this site. Jason Donald an Australian started and owns this site.
Neslon Pass does not sell anything in the forum which bears his company name. Do you see ads for megabucks Pass Labs systems there? Do you think his normal customers would be generally browsing a diy Audio forum? He selflessly creates projects and gives his time to people here who want to build them.
Maybe you should click on the last in the page index of pass labs and have a look how long it has been there, and what the first posts were about. Not a hint of commercialism.
On the post signatures, that is one area it has been deemed ok to have commercial links. No one with a commercial link in their signature line is breaking any rules.
Tony.
Neslon Pass does not sell anything in the forum which bears his company name. Do you see ads for megabucks Pass Labs systems there? Do you think his normal customers would be generally browsing a diy Audio forum? He selflessly creates projects and gives his time to people here who want to build them.
Maybe you should click on the last in the page index of pass labs and have a look how long it has been there, and what the first posts were about. Not a hint of commercialism.
On the post signatures, that is one area it has been deemed ok to have commercial links. No one with a commercial link in their signature line is breaking any rules.
Tony.
We should encourage those with a commercial interest in audio to include a link in their signature. That would reduce the amount of undeclared interests (and alleged undeclared interests) we sometimes encounter. It would also make it easier to confirm that there is little correlation between commercial interest in audio and technical competence in audio.
Thanks, I stand corrected. Who pays for this site?
Oh come on...we are not stupid. It's a big ad for Pass labs and it isn't in the Vendor area.
They are breaking them as the rules are currently worded. Why not change the wording of the rules?
In any event, I am just pointing out how I see the forum to be. It is very commercial. It seems to be an awkward compromise at times between DIY and commercial.
I think that is a fair suggestion...to make members who have a commercial interest declare it in their posts. But as well, ban commercialism from the "DIY" areas including links to their sites on their posts. I see too much of this opportunism going on for my taste.
Another suggestion. I just had a quick look and I can't find an "About this site" button. Sorry if I am being blind. It might be appropriate to have an explanation of who runs the site and why and what developments are in the pipeline.
It may be in the interests of this site not "going downhill" for a review of how it is run and who contributes and who finances it and so on.
I will look forward to a beta release of the next incarnation and help you with it.
Here Late Ceiling Splash audiokinesis accused me of insulting him when I commented on the nature of his posts and suggested it should be in the commercial section
Well traderbam has a point in that the rule about commercialism is not being followed as written. I'm not saying there is anything wrong or that needs to be changed. I guess wht is happening is mods or longtime members read that rule and mentally add a lot of detail such as "self serving commercial interests" or "disguised self advertising" which we all feel is more heinous, but the rule does not say any of that detail, and as written it is indeed broken all the time.
It is common for rules and laws to allow for some interpretation. Agree it makes it harder to know exactly what is and isn't allowed, but it sometimes seems to be necessary anyway. Rigidly strict enforcement of any commercial content could be taken to prohibit BOM lists of parts for projects available at Mouser or Digikey. Or, make it a violation to say the part number of a transistor used in a circuit if it is only produced by one manufacturer.
Well, he contributes since 2002, and with thougthful posts, which have a value for this entire site, I wouldn't call this "consume".
This site lives from good contributions, without them it would be a store.
Others do contribute as well, AND have some links to commercial offerings, and I suppose they do not pay anything for that (I'm not talking about the commercial area, as I believe there is some kind of fee to pay for being listed).
So yes, there is some elasticity in how it is run, and how the rules are to be interpreted.
Which is not a good thing in my eyes, especially considering the very large community.
It is precisely in the DIY areas where a link to a commercial site is most useful, because it alerts us to a potential commercial interest in the discussion.traderbam said:
If Fred Bloggs, who makes and sells amplifiers, pops up in a DIY area to tell us about his approach to amplifiers and how he does electronic design then this is helpful. He may even give us the circuit for his latest creation. Some of this goes on already; it is to be encouraged.
On the other hand, if Fred Smith, who makes and sells cables, pops up in a DIY area to tell us how we all need special cables but somehow forgets to tell us that he sells cables then this is underhand and should be deprecated.
I fear you are confusing these two quite different scenarios.
Last edited:
If by that you mean links in signature lines, that is certainly allowed and even encouraged from long date. If someone has commercial interest in audio, it's useful for the membership to know that.
I think the interpretation as taken by the moderators right now is quite natural. If you think something should be taken a violation, then report it and some decision will be made. There is no guarantee you will like the decision, but such is always a possible outcome of legal disputes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.