Even The Best in the Business(tm) have bad days

[TightEnd]

I'm busy all afternoon so just to give you the background


When blonde started there was a pretty half hearted attempt to set up a series of affiliate deals with major rooms, alongside an "open" forum where any member can post about any event on any room, and for live cardrooms too

A decision was then made to open a card-room on tribeca. All good in 2006-early 08. Kev and I on board from mid 06 or so. No affiliate effort at all with other rooms

Tribeca is bought by IPoker and closed. Business transfers to IPoker under a cage

cage is bought by Aqua

Severe cardroom problems 09-10, I Poker network policies and the mix of our online business

cardroom closes

do we continue?

cannot do widescale affiliate deals as we have a mature userbase (you all have cardroom accounts in all established rooms) and growth of that userbase from new members was low (so affiliate sign ups will be low)

so sponsorships, then. We found out in 06-08 that they work best on here when they are exclusive. Messages get mixed when individual boards are sponsored

So DTD. All good, promote it well, but can't get anyone to play on the online side

Sky Poker.

We are where we are. We don't have the capital to launch another skin. We don't have a member base that provides much upside from existing/dormant affiliate relationships. We are growing strongly again, though.

So we have an exclusive sponsorship

Alongside this we have an open forum

I (sponsorship) and mods team (forum) have to manage the two alongside each other, and sometimes what is required for each conflicts

We are not naive enough to think that members won't speak to each other privately about the marketplace and what is on offer

What I or the team do not appreciate is when this is conducted publically, as it is most often is conducted by individuals who do not contribute to the success of blonde by playing with our sponsors, and often by those who do not seek permission first

Alongside all this I am developing a series of relationships with potential future sponsors, advertisers etc and trying to fund live updates without asking members for donations etc etc

Ultimately my aim, alongside my personal motivations both financial (it is part of my income) and because I live and breathe blonde, is to secure a return for Messrs Dempsey and Kendall without whom the site would not exist.

The forum, its members, their posts and the key role of the mods is an essential element in that

[doogan]

I think that seeing as how the updates are largely being funded by members donations and that brings in a huge volume of your visitors these kind of bans are just redic.

We had the DTD links up but was a horrid site to play on, now we have the sky ones up but the site isnt for all. If people aint openly spamming I cant see the harm.

[TightEnd]

would you like me to remove my sig tighty?

Preferably.

We did post up Karl's press release announcing your good news as it was "newsworthy" given your presence on here and the many friendships you have on here, only right that people should know and be able to share in your news. You also don't seek to take advantage by promoting Encore on the forum. Of course you would be expected to respond to private queries, 

define that please

I am not sure what needs defining?

Cos doesn't post a lot saying "Encore are great, PM me for a good deal etc"

He knows the score, he doesn't try to take advantage

The problem with a grey area like this is that it can be suggested rules are enforced more vigorously for different people. I am not suggesting that is the case btw, but can see why it would be suggested. If the sig of a popular member promoting another site appears mutiple times each day then that is constant endorsement. So the statement that such a member doesn't post a lot saying site x is great is like saying Sebastian Vettel doesn't talk about Red Bull a lot when he's driving around Imola. I can see how the modding task is a rather difficult one here.

I agree. I have tried to explain why we are where we are

Third party sites should not be promoted in sig lines.

I have also explained why sometimes the rules are not enforced.

[outragous76]

would you like me to remove my sig tighty?

Preferably.

We did post up Karl's press release announcing your good news as it was "newsworthy" given your presence on here and the many friendships you have on here, only right that people should know and be able to share in your news. You also don't seek to take advantage by promoting Encore on the forum. Of course you would be expected to respond to private queries, 

define that please

I am not sure what needs defining?

Cos doesn't post a lot saying "Encore are great, PM me for a good deal etc"

He knows the score, he doesn't try to take advantage

The problem with a grey area like this is that it can be suggested rules are enforced more vigorously for different people. I am not suggesting that is the case btw, but can see why it would be suggested. If the sig of a popular member promoting another site appears mutiple times each day then that is constant endorsement. So the statement that such a member doesn't post a lot saying site x is great is like saying Sebastian Vettel doesn't talk about Red Bull a lot when he's driving around Imola. I can see how the modding task is a rather difficult one here.

I agree. I have tried to explain why we are where we are

Third party sites should not be promoted in sig lines.

I have also explained why sometimes the rules are not enforced.

and to be blunt that doesnt work - because it causes confusion as there is never anything explicit said

[TightEnd]

I think that seeing as how the updates are largely being funded by members donations and that brings in a huge volume of your visitors these kind of bans are just redic.

We had the DTD links up but was a horrid site to play on, now we have the sky ones up but the site isnt for all. If people aint openly spamming I cant see the harm.

If an individual is asked not to openly spam, and continues, then it becomes a problem

Funding live updates from members donations is not and cannot be a long term strategy.

Unless they become fundable they will at some stage stop, no matter the goodwill of all those who donate.

Seeing open spam from members who have not asked permission or sought advertising rates is a slap in the face for the forum which has to cover its costs, minimum, to exist.

Does such spam affect the likelihood of people playing with our sponsors? Possibly not, but the principle is important not least to our sponsors who look at the forum threads constantly and want value for money 

[TightEnd]

would you like me to remove my sig tighty?

Preferably.

We did post up Karl's press release announcing your good news as it was "newsworthy" given your presence on here and the many friendships you have on here, only right that people should know and be able to share in your news. You also don't seek to take advantage by promoting Encore on the forum. Of course you would be expected to respond to private queries, 

define that please

I am not sure what needs defining?

Cos doesn't post a lot saying "Encore are great, PM me for a good deal etc"

He knows the score, he doesn't try to take advantage

The problem with a grey area like this is that it can be suggested rules are enforced more vigorously for different people. I am not suggesting that is the case btw, but can see why it would be suggested. If the sig of a popular member promoting another site appears mutiple times each day then that is constant endorsement. So the statement that such a member doesn't post a lot saying site x is great is like saying Sebastian Vettel doesn't talk about Red Bull a lot when he's driving around Imola. I can see how the modding task is a rather difficult one here.

I agree. I have tried to explain why we are where we are

Third party sites should not be promoted in sig lines.

I have also explained why sometimes the rules are not enforced.

and to be blunt that doesnt work - because it causes confusion as there is never anything explicit said

It IS explicitly said

http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=25383.0

Links

Members are no doubt all too aware of the numerous incidences of blatant spam which take up a significant amount of our time to deal with.  Many of you also take the trouble to report these posts to us, for which we are grateful.

However, in addition to this there are many posts made which include links to external websites of various types, including other poker fora, blogs, and other poker and non-poker related sites.

Generally, we allow links to other poker fora such as 2+2, as these are usually made to draw attention to a topic of interest or to provide reference or guidance to another member.  With regard to other site links, our decision to allow or remove a link is largely based on whether the linked site is seeking to gain commercially from the link being there.  This includes, but is not restricted to, affiliate sites and sites which compete with blonde and/or its paying sponsors.  This policy is also intended to protect blonde members, particularly those new to poker, from innocently activating affiliated links without their knowledge.

We also ask that members do not copy content directly from other websites in their posts without proper accreditation being given to the source.


what needs to explicitly happen is that it is enforced better, I think

[outragous76]

you misunderstand

you cannot be explicit about not enforcing rules - thats the point im making

Like i said in MY op, i couldnt care less about P Leno, but I can easily see how people can fall foul of rules when they arent rules

[George2Loose]

Tighty has made his point. Sure Pleno was given fair warning that this might happen

[TightEnd]

you misunderstand

you cannot be explicit about not enforcing rules - thats the point im making

Like i said in MY op, i couldnt care less about P Leno, but I can easily see how people can fall foul of rules when they arent rules

they are guidelines. As with a lot of mod issues, some subjectivity comes into play..we've seen this from examples in this thread too

Anyway, its a good debate into an insight into the world of the forum, and this particularly tricky area.

[smashedagain]

[X] would hate the stress tighty has/gets.
[X] have to support him/site
[X] seems petty banning anyone given freedom of speech

[TightEnd]

[X] would hate the stress tighty has/gets.
[X] have to support him/site
[X] seems petty banning anyone given freedom of speech

thank you for the support

As to bans, they are never placed lightly, often warnings are given first and the mods often bend over backwards to avoid them. The time we spend.......

[cambridgealex]

[X] would hate the stress tighty has/gets.
[X] have to support him/site
[X] seems petty banning anyone given freedom of speech

[ ] Jason uses checkboxes appropriately

[GreekStein]

get boshi to ring guy and chat it through.

would be the most tilting convo ever

[outragous76]

for the nth time - i couldnt care less about the banning, if he was warned several times then so be it, but there does seem to be a "make it up as we go along" line in here

[smashedagain]

[X] would hate the stress tighty has/gets.
[X] have to support him/site
[X] seems petty banning anyone given freedom of speech

[ ] Jason uses checkboxes appropriately

stop picking on me. add me on facebook and get an avatar with a clean shave. no wait a minute prob have more embarrasing photos on their. feel free to upload from the hendon mob tho. but remember to blurr out any sponsors. would hate either of us to get banned