Food for thought as this discussion continues.
Does the link in anyway bring value to the discussion
Please do your best to define or articulate "value"
, such that the definition can be easily used to delete links. (The pron "I know it when I see it" analogy never really worked.)
IF the TOS interjects a "value judgment", requiring all links to be judged for value by a mod
, what effect might that have on the willingness of ~"quality folk" ( :P and :-/ ) to volunteer to moderate at WebmasterWorld
To be perfectly honest, if I'm "assigned" that task chances are I'll resign as I just don't see performing that task
as measurably adding value in the time I have to volunteer. I'd rather spend what time I have responding to questions (when that appears appropriate), initiating threads, etc. (Maybe there will be a need for a paid WebmasterWorld "link policeman/woman" to fob off such a task?)
Quality moderation, by quality volunteer
moderators, has an significant effect on the quality of the dialogue and the forum itself. Most mods, to my knowledge, do NOT enjoy the "policing component" of the moderator role.
Almost every policy modification can have unintended consequences, or unforeseen consequences IF the dialogue doesn't plunge into the depths of the issue before the policy change takes effect. (Kudos to BT for taking the approach) This issue
- of link drops - is about as DEEP as it gets to touching on a fundamental policy or practice of WebmasterWorld. It has been the absence of link drops
that has been one of the most defining characteristics of WebmasterWorld, so a change of policy requires great deliberation.
I'd really like to see a policy that could work . . within the limits of the revised policy . . . but first someone (y'all) needs to do an excellent job of crafting the policy, its verbiage, etc.
SO . . please do so. ;)