The New Sudoku Players' Forum

[udosuk]

I just want to run a quick poll to see how our members think. If there is an overwhelming demand to take down those ads I think Ruud or I would act promptly.

And please post any comments/thoughts you have for this issue. I'll pay particular attention to the view points of members who have 100 posts or more as they're the regular members of this community.

NOTE: don't post any ads/links to commercial sites in this thread. I'll remove them as soon as seeing them.

Thanks for the help in advance.

[Cec]

I'm unsure what defines a "gaming" site to vote on this poll. Sudoku is a game and I don't object to posts which outline solving techniques, programmes, etc. Also, one recent post outlined hints for solving the rubic cube which was of interest to me. I think a definition of "gaming" site needs to be clarified before I could vote on this matter.

Cec

[Cec]

OOps! Having now belatingly noticed the post "Play Sudoku vs Other Players WIN CASH!" which I ignored before I now realize what the "gaming" sites is referring to .. The "No" vote has just increased by one!

Cec

[udosuk]

Cec, I think "gaming" is just a glamourised version of the word "gambling".

The reason we (Ruud and I) have been so lenient towards the said "gaming" ad (GA) post while being so strict to take down the links about funny video clips etc is probably the manner of posting. While the video links are posted as separate threads in quick succession, the GA post serves as a single thread and the original poster have written a pretty detailed description about what it is (whether they're misleading information I won't comment on here). Also since the original poster has replied to our response in detail, he/she is clearly not a automatic posting robot program.

That leaves us to the morality issues. But since morality is a very subjective thing and freedom of speech is also very important to us we need to see how others think about it before we take action. Currently the voting result is 4:0 in favour of banning them. I think perhaps we run this poll for a couple more days and if the result shows that the majority of our visitors don't like it we (the moderators) will take action.

[Smythe Dakota]

.... Currently the voting result is 4:0 in favour of banning ....

Make that 5:0.

Pardon me for getting so steamed about this (in the other thread), but gambling (by any name) ruins marriages, families, and lives. I've seen it first-hand. No way should this forum provide a conduit for such destruction.

Bill Smythe

[MCC]

By allowing this link to remain we are, in effect, giving free advertisement to their site and getting nothing in return.
By "Nothing" I don't mean a cash incentive but an active involvement in the discussion of sudoku.

I vote in favour of banning such ads.


MCC

[Ruud]

I am a little surprised by the fierce reactions. Especially MCC after your earlier "big brother" remarks.

There are several webmasters of Sudoku sites and publishers of commercial Sudoku programs and books who have placed their links in this forum. Few of them give anything in return. When I brought some of these links to the attention of Scott, this was his reply:

I agree it is a bit grating to put up with outright ads, but our policy is to allow one such post in good faith, as long as it's Sudoku-related and not just spam. One of the things we have to try and balance is our nature as a commerical venture and our desire to be "Sudoku HQ" and the one place all the serious Sudoku folks go. Sometimes those are at odds, and right now I'm leaning more towards the latter when it comes to grey areas.

Thanks again though, and I'll have words with the fellow if he pushes his luck!

The GA post is Sudoku-related. It is not placed by a bot. There are no repeated topics and the guy is answering our concerns.

I suggest we seek a compromise. I've tweaked the URL in the GA post in such a way that it is no longer interpreted as a link. You now have to copy the url and paste it in the address bar of your browser if you want to know what it's all about. This also prevents the site from gaining a search engine ranking benefit through this site.

And we'll have words with the fellow if he pushes his luck!

Ruud

[MCC]

I am a little surprised by the fierce reactions. Especially MCC after your earlier "big brother" remarks.

The "Big Brother" remark was concerning a web link that people wanted deleting over the person's enthusiastic postings. As far as I know, the links weren't sites that were actively trying to extract money from people.

I suggest we seek a compromise. I've tweaked the URL in the GA post in such a way that it is no longer interpreted as a link. You now have to copy the url and paste it in the address bar of your browser if you want to know what it's all about. This also prevents the site from gaining a search engine ranking benefit through this site.

So long as people are aware of the nature of a particular site then I will go with the compromise.


MCC

[udosuk]

I also agree with Ruud's compromise for now. I also added a warning directly below the url - sort of like the government warning messages on tobacco products.

Another viewpoint of it is that the majority of our visitors are very intelligent and logically-minded, and I doubt if any of us will take the bait and actually spend money playing there.

So far the voting result is 8-0 with 1 neutral vote. I was sort of expecting more votes. Either many people don't care about this issue at all or there are just a small number of people visiting here. In that case the ad isn't doing too much potential harm anyway.

[Hud]

I think I would take non votes as "no preference".

[lunababy_moonchild]

I voted no because the address leads to a casino site, which in turn can lead to other problems. I'm not convinced by the 'arguments' for the site from the original poster. Casinos are gambling houses designed to make money, if you want to go there that's your choice (and that's what search engines are for) but I'm not for promoting them on this site.

Luna

[Smythe Dakota]

In fact, it's about time the moderators listened to the voters (already 10-0 with 2 neutral votes) and got rid of this stuff entirely and permanently. No "compromises", please.

Bill Smythe

[Ruud]

OK, the message is clear. This poll is now closed. The offending topic has been removed.

Ruud