"Links policy" means what to us regulars here??

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I really don't understand the hang-up a lot of people seem to have about the "called a liar" part. Be upset about rudeness, sure, I understand that. But personally offended that a stranger on the internet has said something unflattering about someone else?

Certain people in this forum need to grow thicker skin. It's not healthy to care this much about what complete strangers think of you.

I really don't understand how you can NOT be offended by the remark. It had a chilling effect. Here someone was posting a link to be helpful, and got called a liar for it.

And for gosh sakes, I can understand if the mod was feeling testy and snapped--everybody does that sometimes--but I CANNOT understand why there wasn't a quick apology. It would be meaningless at this point, but could have gone a long way to unruffle feathers if it had come immediately. Now, the damage is done.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I really don't understand how you can NOT be offended by the remark. It had a chilling effect. Here someone was posting a link to be helpful, and got called a liar for it.

The person was treated as if she knew very well she posted an affiliate link within hours of being told not to do it. I also assumed she knew very well what she was doing, but since I'm not a moderator I didn't comment on it. Nor have I bothered going into detail about the complete lack of common sense it takes to post a link like that without checking if it's an affiliate link when they are a controversial issue right now. Or the simple fact that breaking rules have consequences, deal with it and move on.

If a person who knows me very well calls me a liar I'll be offended, because they should know better. A person who doesn't know me at all has nothing to base their assessment of me on except whatever they see me do, and if my actions paint me in an unfavorable light, that's on me, and not on whoever else sees my actions and misunderstands them. If I want someone to give me the benefit of doubt, I need to earn that privilege. I can't be bothered to do that, I have no right to complain when no one gives me the benefit of doubt either.

I'm not naive enough to assume you'll believe me when I say I'm an honest person just because I promise you that I'm an honest person and you can really believe me when I say I am. To me it's basic common sense to treat everyone around me the same way.

[jersysman]

Before this gets completely out of hand, why don't we all take a step back. I would be offended if someone called me a liar for no reason, but since it is the internet and complete strangers are emboldened (sp) to say anything they want, I probably would have just blown that off. However, I do recognize that not everyone is like me and they may handle things differently. With that said, please can we all just get along?!?

And no.... ain't no Rodney King here!!!

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by jersysman

With that said, please can we all just get along?!?

But where's the fun in that?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

The person was treated as if she knew very well she posted an affiliate link within hours of being told not to do it. I also assumed she knew very well what she was doing, but since I'm not a moderator I didn't comment on it. Nor have I bothered going into detail about the complete lack of common sense it takes to post a link like that without checking if it's an affiliate link when they are a controversial issue right now. Or the simple fact that breaking rules have consequences, deal with it and move on.

If a person who knows me very well calls me a liar I'll be offended, because they should know better. A person who doesn't know me at all has nothing to base their assessment of me on except whatever they see me do, and if my actions paint me in an unfavorable light, that's on me, and not on whoever else sees my actions and misunderstands them. If I want someone to give me the benefit of doubt, I need to earn that privilege. I can't be bothered to do that, I have no right to complain when no one gives me the benefit of doubt either.

I'm not naive enough to assume you'll believe me when I say I'm an honest person just because I promise you that I'm an honest person and you can really believe me when I say I am. To me it's basic common sense to treat everyone around me the same way.

So you start from the premise that a person is guilty until proven otherwise? Sorry, I don't work that way; I try to give people the benefit of the doubt without their having to earn it. I mean, I'm not going to stake my life or my money on someone's claims on the Internet, but I'm not going to assign evil intentions when someone makes a mistake, and when they say it's a mistake, I believe them.

The point here is that the person posted an affiliate link that SHE DID NOT CREATE, and that did not benefit her in any way. It was just a simple mistake. It was not at all the same situation as if one of the people who habitually post deals had blatantly defied the new edict, and yet it was treated that way.

And the second point is that if you're a moderator, you should be trying to calm a situation, not inflame it with a public accusation.

That is why the discussion has morphed. It was about the few people who consistently posted deals and had affiliate links--the edict affected them directly, and inconvenienced the rest of us; and, OK, after some grumbling chances are we'll deal. But now it's about any of us innocently doing a cut-and-paste occasional link and potentially being called out publicly. I don't know about you, but I certainly feel disinclined to pass on any link to a bargain. As I said earlier, the accusation of lying has a chilling effect.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But now it's about any of us innocently doing a cut-and-paste occasional link and potentially being called out publicly. I don't know about you, but I certainly feel disinclined to pass on any link to a bargain. As I said earlier, the accusation of lying has a chilling effect.

So you stop for a moment, take a few seconds to check whether it's an affiliate link, and if it is, then you go to the site for the store selling the book, look it up there, and post that direct link instead. Problem solved.

As for being publicly called on it, well, yes. This is a public forum. Posts here are public, as are mistakes. And that's not a big deal either.

[sufue]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

As for being publicly called on it, well, yes. This is a public forum. Posts here are public, as are mistakes. And that's not a big deal either.

Yes, it is a public forum, but that doesn't mean we can't try to be polite anyhow. And yes, as ScalyFreak mentioned in an earlier post on this thread, breaking the rules should have consequences. But, those consequences should be in proportion to the nature (in this case, unintended and not benefiting the poster) of the offense. This is a public forum, but there is ALSO a private message system, and it seems to me that would have been a much more appropriate way for the moderator to deliver an appropriate message. For some of us, being accused of lying would be/is a big deal...I make no apologies that I'm one of them.

Originally Posted by Catlady

So you start from the premise that a person is guilty until proven otherwise? Sorry, I don't work that way; I try to give people the benefit of the doubt without their having to earn it. I mean, I'm not going to stake my life or my money on someone's claims on the Internet, but I'm not going to assign evil intentions when someone makes a mistake, and when they say it's a mistake, I believe them.

And, call me naive, but I agree with Catlady - in general, I prefer to assume that most folks have good intentions, not bad. I'm certainly going to use my common sense (don't offer to sell me London Bridge), and I may be wrong every now and then, but I'm a lot happier that way.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So you start from the premise that a person is guilty until proven otherwise? Sorry, I don't work that way;

Originally Posted by sufue

And, call me naive, but I agree with Catlady - in general, I prefer to assume that most folks have good intentions, not bad.

You're both reading way too much into my post, but that's neither here no there.

Frankly, the initial incident has been blown way out of proportion and turned into a much bigger problem than it ever was. Anyone who avoids posting links from a fear of the same thing happening to them is over-reacting to what at best was a mistake, and at worst a lapse of temper. We're all human, and that includes moderators. They're allowed to make mistakes, same as everyone else.

Don't you think it's possible that the moderators are reading this thread and noticing the reactions, and realizing that the initial snap reaction was a mistake? If you genuinely meant what you said about granting others the benefit of doubt and assume that they have good intentions, you have to be willing to extend that way of thinking to the moderator team as well.

With that, I think I'll bow out of this thread. I can tell I'm starting to offend you (or have been for a while now), and since none of us will ever convince the other to change their mind, we might as well drop this before it risks escalating.

It's been a very enjoyable discussion, so thank you for that.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Frankly, the initial incident has been blown way out of proportion and turned into a much bigger problem than it ever was. Anyone who avoids posting links from a fear of the same thing happening to them is over-reacting to what at best was a mistake, and at worst a lapse of temper. We're all human, and that includes moderators. They're allowed to make mistakes, same as everyone else.

OK, so an individual makes a mistake and gets pounced on, but a moderator makes a mistake and we should overlook it? Sorry, no, that's not fair. We should hold both to the same standard when it comes to perceived mistakes, or, frankly, if there should be different standards, it's the moderators who should be held to a HIGHER, stricter standard.

If you go back to the beginning of the thread in question, the poster is the only one who apologized for making a mistake.

Don't you think it's possible that the moderators are reading this thread and noticing the reactions, and realizing that the initial snap reaction was a mistake? If you genuinely meant what you said about granting others the benefit of doubt and assume that they have good intentions, you have to be willing to extend that way of thinking to the moderator team as well.

I do grant the benefit of the doubt--for a time. But when no attempt is made to retract, apologize for, or even soften the comment--when it's let to stand in all its glory--then I am left believing that the comment was not a mistake or a burst of anger, but fully intentional and deliberate.

With that, I think I'll bow out of this thread. I can tell I'm starting to offend you (or have been for a while now), and since none of us will ever convince the other to change their mind, we might as well drop this before it risks escalating.

It's been a very enjoyable discussion, so thank you for that.

I am in no way offended by the discussion. I am only offended by the possibility of being berated for making a simple mistake.

[cfrizz]

Catlady, you are right on the money. To have a few malcontents complain and end up with the Mods not only breaking a system that worked very well, but also end up being rude and disrespectful to a poster who made and innocent mistake while trying to be helpful is inexcusable!

If some knew that others were possibly making a few cents off of a link and didn't like it, all they had to do was avoid the links. I bet the rest of us didn't know and don't care, but were grateful to have a link to a book they were interested in.

This has made something that worked just fine and is now broken needlessly. And my enjoyment of this forum has decreased just a bit as a result.

Nice going Mods.

[Nyssa]

I'm still confused on how does this effect me as a MobileRead member? I will honestly say it is a case of information overload between this links issue and the Kindle release extravaganza.

If I post a link to a book it is a direct link (usually to Amazon) at no benefit to me. I don't use other people's links, other than to quote them (at which point I use the quote option). Is there anything else specifically that I need to know?

[Indio777]

Perhaps this topic has gone on too long but.....

I don't think it was "at best" a mistake. I think it was just a mistake. I searched some earlier links that apesmom had provided earlier and links looked clean.

Yes, people should check links, but it is obvious that many people were not aware of the whole affiliation thing. The aff link policy is still pretty new and I suspect apesmom did not know what to look for. I didn't know (although I do now). apesmom was quick to apologize once the problem was pointed out.

The initial post that the link was deleted because it was an aff link was okay. I don't think the one informing apesmom that she(?) was a liar was. It was just plain rude.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

I'm still confused on how does this effect me as a MobileRead member? I will honestly say it is a case of information overload between this links issue and the Kindle release extravaganza.

If I post a link to a book it is a direct link (usually to Amazon) at no benefit to me. I don't use other people's links, other than to quote them (at which point I use the quote option). Is there anything else specifically that I need to know?

Doesn't affect you at all. Non-affiliate links can continue to be posted exactly as before.

[Nyssa]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Doesn't affect you at all. Non-affiliate links can continue to be posted exactly as before.

Good to know. Just want to make sure that if I quote someone and they happen to have an affiliated link that I won't be held "responsible" for it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

Good to know. Just want to make sure that if I quote someone and they happen to have an affiliated link that I won't be held "responsible" for it.

Sorry, we may perhaps be talking slightly at cross-purposes. Please don't copy or quote affiliate links. Remove the affiliate tag first if you wish to quote such a post. If it's an Amazon URL, this will be the part saying either "tag=something" or "t=something" (or both).