Ads on ERT

[coral1]

As I understand it, this is about ads on ERT, not linked member sites used for content.

There may be a option not use a site IF it is loaded with ads, but that's not what is being voted on now.

[Esopo]

What right should ERT's governing council have to decide if the External page can have ads or not?

IMO, and not to discredit your point, even when framed the page gets accessed through the ERT navigation system and becomes part of ERT. Because of that ERT has the right to set rules and quality standards or the link just won't be allowed. Yes, the content is owned by the author and perhaps only available through the author's site, but it is still being displayed at ERT and is either abiding by the site's rules or simply not allowed. It may sound a bit dramatic, but it is in everybody's best interest; besides, I don't think authors have problems complying since most of the authors are the same people helping define the rules.

[Srirangan]

IMO, and not to discredit your point, even when framed the page gets accessed through the ERT navigation system and becomes part of ERT. Because of that ERT has the right to set rules and quality standards or the link just won't be allowed. Yes, the content is owned by the author and perhaps only available through the author's site, but it is still being displayed at ERT and is either abiding by the site's rules or simply not allowed. It may sound a bit dramatic, but it is in everybody's best interest; besides, I don't think authors have problems complying since most of the authors are the same people helping define the rules.

I wouldn't want ERT dictating me rules I should follow on my website. ;) It's a matter for jurisdiction and principle.

[Srirangan]

I don't think authors have problems complying

Agreed. But that's not the point.

[Esopo]

I wouldn't want ERT dictating me rules I should follow on my website. ;) It's a matter for jurisdiction and principle.

I agree with that, but then members have to abide by the rules or their content doesn't get posted. Members can have whatever they want on their websites, but the stuff they want posted on ERT has to follow ERT's guidelines.

[COBOLdinosaur]

In the city where I live, every three years, we elect a City Council and Mayor.  They holde public council meetings where individuals may asked to be put on the adgenda as a delegation to make a presentation on any issue that the Council has before it.  

After hearing delegates, doing research and debating issues the Council may vote on the issue, defer it for further study, or decide that it requires  a vote by the citizens. In some municipalites there are some types of bylaws that require a vote of the citizens, because of broad impact.  

If members of that Council screw up, they will get tossed out of office in the next election.  It gives you a small group of active members who represent the wider community; and who are accountable to it. That means you have a group doing the analysis to understand the issues being voted on; staying active on important issues; and making sure that there is support for the actions taken. If the whole community votes on everything, you get voter apathy, you have no accountablility, and it is very difficult to actually get good legislation.

Just look at ERT.  When we started we had a bunch of votes.  The first few had high participation, and then it started to fall off.  Important issues like the Members agreement got less participation then the vote on whether to keep smilies.  There was broad participation on simple things, but the complex issues had very low voter turnout.  

How many votes are going to be required to resolve this issue of ads on the site?

Let's walk through the simple way to do it, and see it it makes sense to schedule all the votes necessary.

Vote 1:  Shall we allow ads? yes/no/maybe/

If yes wins then the next day are popups, popunders, flash banners, text links, and referrals all allowed?  Will ads for porno site, gambling, Viagra, and penis enlargement be allowed?

If no wins does that mean only ads directly on the site are not allowed? Frames content? Linked content?  Can you post a link to a site that carries adds? Can ERT promote itself?  Does the ban extend to member sub-domains and profiles?

If maybe wins; what does that mean?

So before we can have a vote on ads we are going to need some definitions, and parameters.  Are there ads that we will never consider having on the site?  If so we need definitions for banned ads, befeore we can make any other decision about whether or not we are going to allow ads. Are there sites that we will never allow links to because of the ads they carry? More study and definition need. Is ERT promoting some feature of ERT considered and ad?  Are news feeds barred because they constitute an ad for the site providing the feed?  Is external content banned if it carries ads?  Does the links page have to be removed because the links are considered ads?  Does framed content have to conform to ERT rules? Does linked content have to comply to ERT rules?  Are Mentors not allowed to do self promotion in their profiles...  If so that that will require ammendments to previously passed items like the Members agreement and Mentors's Charter?  Are avatars like the one Richard uses ads?  If a Mentor recommends a book or another web site is that an ad?  If recommending another site is allowed, does that site have to comply with ERT no ad rules to be allowed?  Is it okay to post free ads for non-profit charitable groups? If yes, how is that group defined?

After all of that, if anyone is still interested in just one more vote; we can hold Vote 1.  Very few will understand what we are actually voting to do.  Most will be tired of votes on ads.  The day after the vote is passed, it will appear to be getting violated, because someone will have found a loophole (all complex sets of rules have loopholes). So now we will debate whether to allow the loophole or change the rules. So another round of votes to define what we are going to vote on.

Meanwhile another dozen complex issues are going through the same definition, refinment, debate, and vote process. A demoracy like that is guaranteed to die choking on apathy, confusion, and a backlog of votes, and debates about what the rules actually are.  Without a small legislative group to digest the complex inacting issues; the demoracy will fail and revert to the common model of arbitray administration acting to keep things functioning and making up the rules as they go along waiting for someone to figure out what the community actually wants and supports.  

We can do the direct vote right now for some simple issues because the community is still small, but even with the small group we have voter turnout averages less than 20%; only a small group have been participating; and there is real danger of this becoming an aristocracy instead of a democracy if that trend continues for too long.

If you want an aristocracy instead of a democracy, that is fine with me as long as I am the King and have absolute power. :wink:

Cd&

[nicholassolutions]

I agree with Esopo's last point. I haven't really formed an opinion on ads myself, but as to the general idea of dictating what members can and cannot put on their sites: you have a right to put whatever content on your site you want, be it ads, racist propaganda, pornography, religious texts, athiestic articles, links to government websites, none or all of the above. But ERT has a right to decide whether or not to associate itself with your site. It's just that simple. So, the issue is not whether people can put content on their site (they have the passwords, anyway, right?), it's whether or not ERT should include your content if it includes certain types of material that the community has agreed is not appropriate for ERT. Some of the things I listed above obviously fall into that category; whether ads do or not is what we have to decide.

[nicholassolutions]

So that leaves just one question: when do we vote on the Council :wink:

[COBOLdinosaur]

I am prepared to post a proposal for election of the Governing Council if we are ready to hold an election.  However the growth of membership has been slower than I originally anticipated, and I think that it might be best at this time to elect a smaller interim Governing Council for a short term of 6 or 8 months and let them sort out things like election rules; how the Council will work; how the democracy will work and complex issues that already need to be addressed.

I have not done it up to this point, because the serious polititcal issues for the site seem not to get the attention and participation that less important things like smilies and site features seem to get.

If we are ready we can move ahead, or we can wait until we are ready.

Cd&

[nicholassolutions]

The longer we wait to start making decisions, the longer it will be until they are made, and the less progress there will be. I agree that we should probably have a fairly short term for the first group, but it seems like now is as good a time as any to move forward. If nothing else, there are people here with skills that are not being utilized who could make good decisions, especially in consultation with experts more familiar with the technology we are using. Getting them more involved would be a good thing, and help take some of the load off of others. Give people responsibility, and they will act more responsibly (as you described above) provided you don't choose extremely useless people, and I havent seen many around here. The "Help Wanted" thread got at least a couple people who have not had much chance to contribute to help out, and those tasks required specialized skills.

I don't think the decisions that any council we elect now makes will be terrible. If they are, they can always get changed by the next one, which will be elected itself in the fairly near future.

[COBOLdinosaur]

The longer we wait to start making decisions, the longer it will be until they are made, and the less progress there will be.

Well said.

I will have the propsal for an Iterim Governing Council up later today or some time tomorrow. Our vote overseer, Coral1 has got this one, so let's move toward getting an election done, and start the journey.

 :cheers:

[nicholassolutions]

:thumbup:

[seandelaney]

=D>

[rdivilbiss]

So, the issue is not whether people can put content on their site (they have the passwords, anyway, right?), it's whether or not ERT should include your content if it includes certain types of material that the community has agreed is not appropriate for ERT. Some of the things I listed above obviously fall into that category; whether ads do or not is what we have to decide.

I agree with what you say, but think you can not define acceptable without creating too much work.

In my case, with the exception of the link back to my site (about me), my submissions have been (and are) separate from my other site pages...e.g. no ads, BUT ... I suppose absent some restriction from ERT, I would be free to plop an ad into those articles since they exist on my site.

I also agree with Cd&, that we need to be careful how the rules are written lest we offend authors or provide complexity which leads to loop hole arguments.

If participation is an issue, then adding further administrative burden (policing the policy) will not be constructive.  Best keep this rule very simple...which tends to make me think we should err on the side of offending authors (sorry Srirangan) and say no ads in the pages submitted as content for the site.