Signature Policy & Guidelines

Why aren't we allowed to post links to nonprofit organizations?

Doesn't that go against the whole idea of a forum being a space for sharing ideas and information?

PS: I'll probably be getting close with one of the moderators soon—then I won't have to deal with these mindless arguments where the answer is, in my opinion, pretty obvious.

PPS: Quick question—are we all actually aware of how vital civil society is to a functioning democracy? Personally, I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by it all.

Taylor Campbell4 said:Why isn't it allowed to post a link to a nonprofit organization's website?

Doesn't that go against the whole point of having a forum—to share information and exchange ideas?

Not quite... there’s a big difference between discussing a topic here and dropping a link to drive traffic elsewhere (especially if you're selling books on that site).

Taylor Campbell4 said:P.S. I might be getting close with one of the moderators soon, so I won't have to deal with these kinds of pointless arguments where the answer seems obvious to me.

I'm not sure if any of them would be interested, but I can look into it...

Laura Evans3 said:No... because there’s a massive difference between just writing about a topic and actually linking to it specifically to sell books...

I don't know if anyone here would be interested, but I'll look into it...

That isn't an explanation. What exactly is the distinction?
So, by this logic, I shouldn't even link to, say, the Arthritis Foundation, simply because that Association happens to publish a magazine called Rheumatology Association that people can buy?

I wouldn't be allowed to link to a non-profit like the ACLU, for instance, because that Association might have published one or two books on a certain topic—which probably funds, let's be real, maybe 5% of their total operations at most.

Isn't that incredibly regressive and undemocratic? Doesn't it ultimately harm the society we live in (all of us)? What kind of principle does such a rule even rest on? (Because to me, this feels like capitalism being even more extreme than a predatory bank that leaves sick people homeless over a mortgage).
I get that linking to a corporation is one thing, but linking to a non-profit Association is something else entirely.
In a country with a more developed democracy and robust civil society—honestly, even in places like Canada—it wouldn't cross anyone's mind to enforce such bans, and frankly, I'm stunned.

Based on how the moderators are arguing this, the core issue is that this Association sells a few books to fund a tiny fraction of its activities? So the main problem is those 3-5 percent of pages on a website containing info about books available for purchase? If that weren't there, would the link be allowed? Could a non-profit be put in a signature as long as they only fund themselves through donations or membership fees?
Isn't that absurd?

Honestly, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall because it seems people here have no concept of what an Association is, or what civil society and democracy actually entail—or what constitutes "good" within those frameworks. Regardless of the fact that this forum isn't public property but private (and even if you contacted the owner, they'd tell you not to mess around with this), it should still function as a democratic part of this community—a space that supports the democratic exchange of information.

Or is the sole purpose of this forum to line the owner's pockets? I certainly don't think that's the case. But when someone starts interpreting rules without any thought for the consequences of that interpretation, that's how it looks. (Because by banning links to a civil, non-profit Association that realizes less than 5% of its income from book sales, you are essentially acting as if you're protecting the commercial interests of the company that owns this forum).
And then we shouldn't be surprised or outraged when medicine and education remain accessible only to the wealthy—because that's exactly how we behave.

PS: If any smart person here wants to, they're welcome to; for example, a PhD holder.

The world's tiniest violin is playing the saddest song just for you.

Look, you don't have an answer and you aren't really an expert on this specific topic—not that we can all be pros at everything—so maybe someone else here will weigh in.

So, what would your response be? The site admins have decided you aren't allowed to keep that link in your signature, and that’s that. If you're having a hard time processing that, well, okay...

Taylor Campbell4 said:Look, you clearly haven't got an answer for this and you're totally out of your depth on the subject, so maybe someone else around here actually knows what they're talking about.

Honestly, if the folks running the show over at the site administration—you know, the ones setting all these rules about signatures and whatnot—actually thought we needed more discussion on this, they would have just implemented it already. Sometimes, the fact that nobody’s saying anything is the loudest answer you're gonna get.🙂

I’ve been looking into Scripta elegans lately—it's quite an interesting specimen. I was actually reading up on its specific traits just the other day while grabbing coffee in Seattle. kaže:
What would my response be? The editorial board of the forum made the call—you can't have that link in your signature, and that’s that. If you're having a hard time wrapping your head around it, well, that's on you...

I honestly feel that providing an explanation would be the civilized thing to do.
I consider myself a man of principle, and I intend to fight for them.
If you all can't manage to have an actual, reasoned discussion about the issue at hand, then there isn't much I can do—it’s out of my hands, really.
Furthermore, if you aren't able to provide a coherent explanation, that isn't a reflection on me.
I’m going to wait either way—I suppose I just have a certain faith in people and the diverse range of talents they bring to the table. 😉

feraltrucker5 said:If the folks setting the rules around here—you know, the ones handling signatures and all that administrative stuff—actually thought adding more regulations was necessary, they’d just go ahead and do it. Sometimes, the silence itself is the answer. 🙂

I'm hoping they're just tied up at the moment—busy schedules can be a real headache—but I'm optimistic they'll track him down eventually.
This topic comes up constantly—and frankly, in my opinion, it’s just absurd.

I suppose I realize that most people find it difficult to admit when they’re wrong—they often convince themselves there isn't even a question to be asked, let alone a need to discuss the possibility of an error. But, as I've said before, I believe in people, so I have plenty of patience.

Rules are rules 🤷 There can be no exceptions. If you were granted one, then every other member on this forum would have to be an exception as well. To be quite honest, I volunteer for a local non-profit, and I find this kind of blatant self-promotion to be entirely unnecessary. If they are truly interested in advertising, there is always marketing 😉

Taylor Campbell4 said:..

I feel like I’ve explained this at least five times now. You seem to be "politely" ignoring the point. If the rule says no links to external sites, then there are no links. It’s really that simple. What part of that isn't clicking? 😕

If you actually want to swap information, why not just start a new thread and share what you know?

silentsailor5 said:Rules are rules 🤷—no exceptions. If you were an exception, then every other user here would have to be one too. I volunteer for a non-profit Association, and frankly, I think this kind of self-promotion is completely unnecessary. If they actually care about advertising, there’s always marketing 😉

Of course I'm not looking for a special pass just for myself. My point is more general—I'm appealing to common sense here. We should allow links to non-profit Association sites or personal pages that aren't being used for commercial gain.

The original logic behind these restrictive signature rules from a few years back was likely to stop people from plugging their own businesses or corporations in their signatures (there's plenty of room for marketing elsewhere), as well as preventing links to competing forums, blogs, or news sites. But you guys have gone way too far and stifled communication by basically banning almost every type of link...
I simply believe this approach is flawed and I'm trying to point that out—people react differently to that, obviously. I'll try to illustrate how absurd this really is later on when I have more time—right now, I just don't—(assuming you even care to read through old discussions or offer any actual arguments as to why this is okay and useful)

I honestly don't get why signatures are being scrubbed when the signature rules haven't changed since they were first implemented. What's the real reason here??

Which specific link counts as "advertising" anyway? Enlighten me.
The controversial link in my signature is nothing more than a link to a non-profit Association.

If we aren't making exceptions, then I guess I shouldn't even include a link to the Awakening Association, www.awakening.org , which provides information regarding ADHD, because technically that's "advertising" the Association, especially since they sell a book that informs people about ADHD. It's the exact same situation here. Isn't it actually beneficial for more people to learn about ADHD and perhaps stumble upon a helpful link in someone's signature?

Oh, I see! You're saying the Awakening Association or some other group should pay for marketing instead? Well, that sounds like a wonderful way to run things.

How does this violate the signature rules? In both cases, the goal isn't promotion—it's strictly about providing information.

That's what I'm trying to show you—after successfully pointing out the absurdity of banning these kinds of links once before, here I am doing it all over again. It's as if the moderators back then were just being foolish when they allowed them in the first place.

I just received a private message claiming that red lettering is prohibited in signatures... since when? I've been using this exact signature for over two years now without anyone ever raising an eyebrow, and there isn't even a single mention of such a rule in the guidelines.🤷😕🤷

Laura Evans3 said:I feel like I've explained this to you—maybe five times now—but you’re just being "civilized" about trolling... if the rule says no links to external sites, then there are no links. Which part of that isn't clicking? 😕

If you want to swap info, why don't you just start a thread and share it there?

So, we aren't allowed to link to any websites at all? (Since when?) And what kind of sites *are* actually okay?
Do you guys even get why this rule was put in place, or why you're taking it to such ridiculous extremes?

And I'm the one trolling? Haha.

Back in the day, I actually banned someone and deleted a perfectly normal signature, only to allow that exact same signature later.
Then, just two weeks ago, I banned the same permitted signature, only to approve and restore it shortly after—then a week later, I banned it again and handed out a red card just because I was the one who brought it back.

Asking a question counts as trolling to you, but when I hide behind my moderator powers and mess things up, suddenly I'm not trolling anymore. 🙄

darkjackal70 said:I just received a private message claiming that using red lettering in signatures is strictly prohibited... since when was that a rule? I have been utilizing this exact signature style for well over two years now without a single soul ever mentioning a problem, and quite frankly, I have searched through the signature guidelines extensively and found absolutely nothing regarding such a restriction...🤷😕 🤷

There is absolutely no rule forbidding the use of red letters within a signature.
Best regards.
🙂

I’ve included links to three different non-profit organizations in my signature, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't violate any signature rules.
One could argue it breaks the rules since Transparency International—look at that—is essentially "advertising" the fight against corruption.
The "Awakening" group is advertising information regarding ADHD.
And the Veterans Association is promoting veteran affairs issues. 🙄
Technically, that should be perfectly acceptable—I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise—to people who can't see past their own noses. To them, everything is either an advertisement or it isn't; there's no middle ground. They don't even seem to grasp what a non-profit organization is or how civil society actually functions. Just a bunch of kids 🙄

Every one of those organizations has a publications section on its website where they release at least one book related to their mission—that's just what serious organizations do. I'll probably add more links to similar causes soon, simply because these issues matter to me.
Some people find value in a funny YouTube clip (which is also "advertising" a band or an album, for instance) or some quote they think sounds smart, whereas I aim to provide information 😁 that I genuinely believe is valuable, useful, and true.

So, feel free to download whatever you want.
If you go through with it, I’ll be reaching out to my U.S. Representative. And others. I'll let them know that having links to vital information in a public forum signature shouldn't be an issue. Etc., etc.—I've already touched on this in the previous thread, and frankly, I highly doubt any of the moderators participating in this debate would truly grasp the point.

goranbo, these signature rules are set in stone. We drafted them, we follow them, and we enforce them against anyone who breaks them.

You can either play by the rules, or you can keep up this crusade of yours—but if you do, you’ll just end up banned from the forum. Feel free to tell whoever you want about it. Go ahead and give your local Congressman a call, too... I'm sure he's dying to hear about what's happening on a private American web forum.

With that, the forum administration considers the discussion regarding your signature closed.