Poll for Ads in users signatures

Discussion in 'Discussions' started by moneyblades, Feb 23, 2016.

?

Should Ads be allowed in users signatures?

  1. Yes

    10 vote(s)
    23.8%
  2. No

    21 vote(s)
    50.0%
  3. Doesn't matter to me

    11 vote(s)
    26.2%
  1. Hello, we are all aware that many people, including myself are being paid to host advertisements in our signatures. While some players are fine with this, it seems to be a problem to others. I will start a poll so we can get a community response on it.
     
  2. I don't particularly care, though I offered to advertise on Sythe instead since that's a more market-focused forum, while this forum is a programming-oriented forum.
     
  3. Doesn't really matter 'cause I use mobile 99,99% of the time.
     
  4. It's a bit like saying you don't care about rape because you've never been raped before. It's a serious matter, but why would you care, right?

    OK rape is probably worse than ads (might be a tie, fuck ads), but you get the point.

    I'm not trying to force opinions, as you might know my vote is a solid no to ads in signatures, but it's worth thinking about your fellow forum visitors before making a decision.

    That being said, if you don't change your vote, that's fine. I'm just trying to shed light on the situation.
     
    CantSeeMeHomie and Exia like this.
  5. Well, it doesn't matter to me. Might change the vote later, but I'm too lazy atm.
     
    Derk likes this.
  6. With adblockers being a somewhat staple-point in browsing experience, I don't think it's a terrible thing to have ads from individual users or from the site itself. Most adblockers allow right-click > block element and then you never have to see them again. That being said, I've never understood the purpose of this type of advertising. That being said, does Runemate staff have the time resources required to 'check' into each one of these requests and the desire to remove said signatures if/when the advertiser doesn't follow through with payments, their website/service is not what it claims to be, etc.

    I suppose it still boils down to your own risk when dealing with other communities. When I did a Community Management position for WoWPlus, we had gold sellers contacting us quite a bit, and most of them were illegitimate so we turned a lot of them away from advertising with us. Eventually moved to the position of no advertising at all because we could not control them obviously and only had ads that were approved by staff from larger, more reputable sites that we advertised to our member base. No members were allowed to advertise directly besides specific sections of the forum we designated for such purposes, and the script bot authors for various hacks could have their own advertisement if they themselves provided a service, but not to advertise for a third-party.

    I voted yes because this is a different situation. We're all more or less using people's work for free and money is a good incentive for people to continue development, come up with new bots, etc. Why not give a little kickback to the people that are creating content? Idk that's just my two-cents.
     
  7. You have a good point there.
    Though I don't know in what way a bot author would be more productive with $5-$10 per month.

    I think it would be fair to only allow advertising 3rd party services with donating at least 2 or 3 bucks per month to runemate. Because in the end you are abusing the actual use of the forum and of signatures.
     
  8. The forums should stay related to RuneMate related content except where admins see it fit in order to advertise to keep RM running. RM should be benefiting at least in some kind of way from the use of signatures, whether this be by improving community or earning revenue for itself. Allowing signatures to be sold without directly benefiting RM is in my opinion the first step to becoming a terrible community like Powerbot.

    Also it's a flawed argument to say that we should just use adblockers. It should go the other way and cater content to those who use adblockers so they aren't needed in the first place. I wouldn't mind advertisements for bots being allowed to be put in signatures for some kind of compensation (MateCoins) because it would help RM to operate.

    On the other hand I think the user in question broke rule #1 of not being a dick by not asking for explicit approval before going ahead with this operation, it also seems like this user is aware that this makes people angry. This should be grounds enough for prompt removal of his advertisements from the forum until a decision is made.

    TL;DR
    [​IMG] ?
     
    Revelation343 likes this.
  9. Well, now one have to donate to ad in the signature space.So, the guy who wants to advertise will be helping RM developers. :p
     
  10. That has actually always been the rule. Any external advertising whatsoever requires Supporter.
     
  11. So just keep the rule, right?
     
  12. I think it should stay that way honestly, the people that dont like it don't like that specific ad not ads in general. The complaints only started when RR started advertising but I personally don't see it as a problem since it can easily be hidden if you dont like seeing it
     
    IamN5 likes this.
  13. The discussion here is separate from the existing rule of requiring Supporter to post external links. We are now discussing allowing for the sale of signature space for sponsored ads. Advertising your own service with the owner/operators' permission is very different from paying someone to advertise their service on a website one does not own/operate.
     
    Savior likes this.
  14. Plus it's abusing signatures and the forum.
     
  15. The poll results make the community's opinion on the matter rather clear. I will give RuneRoom and its sponsors until the end of the week to remove the ads from signatures, arrange for contract termination, etc. After that point infractions will be handed out and signatures removed by Staff.
     
    Savior, YubiBotter and Derk like this.
  16. I don't care about your advertisement in your signature.
    But I do care about your fucking 800x600 image. That's stupid.
     
  17. @Arbiter, you already know I am sensible when it comes to height, can we maybe set a limit for image height in signatures? lol
     
  18. l0l

    I agree doe.
     
  19. I'm going on the assumption my signature isn't considered an advertisement, though it does specify the website which generates it.
    I also agree with a height limit, some people have such obnoxiously large images. Moneyblades is a good example of this, as I'm running a 2560x1440 panel and his post will take this much of my screen.
    http://i.imgur.com/LP575uT.png
     
    Savior likes this.
  20. I swear I'll kill anyone who trynna remove my harvey sig
     

Share This Page

Loading...