Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 13:36:33 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 16:25:13, Sune Larsson wrote: >On February 13, 2006 at 13:10:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 13, 2006 at 02:24:30, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 12, 2006 at 13:32:33, Peter Skinner wrote: >>> >>>>This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt in polling users about possible >>>>commercial payment possibilities for your program, and as such I am removing the >>>>thread. >>>> >>>>As per the charter: >>>> >>>>Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >>>>post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >>>>messages: >>>> >>>> 1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >>>> 2. Are not abusive in nature >>>> 3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >>>> 4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >>>> 5. Are not of questionable legal status. >>>> >>>>What about rule #4 do you not understand? >>>> >>>>Peter >>> >>>I do not understand why do you make a special post about it. >>> >>>Usually moderators delete posts of people that do not obey to the rules and send >>>an email to them and they do not post in order to insult them. >>> >>>Note that in this case not everybody understand rule number 4 in the same way >>>so if vasik was wrong in understanding rule number 4 you could send him an email >>>and explain it to him and make a general post not directed at Vas that explain >>>the problem. >>> >>>Note that I did not understand that vasik's post was against rule number 4 and I >>>am not the only one. >>> >>>If this was the intention it is better to explain rule number 4 better in the >>>charter. >>> >>>Uri >> >>"flagrant commercial exhortation" >> >>"flagrant" -> Obvious, conspicuous, flaunting, blatant >> >>"commercial" -> having profit as a chief aim, related to commerce or sales, >>sponsored or supported by advertising, etc. >> >>"exhortation" -> discourse that advises or encourages. >> >>Now that wasn't so hard to understand was it? >> >>Anything that is obviously about selling something to make a profit, falls >>directly under charter rule 4. Now would you want to say that the discussion >>about subscription service, converting purchases to subscriptions, retaining old >>customers, obtaining new sales, etc doesn't fit under that fairly >>straight-forward umbrella of forbidden activity??? > > > And posting direct order links of course - for your own items - friends of > yours - people you know - companies etc. > > /S Do your arms ever tire from all the reaching? -elc.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.