Your suggestions will only make the owners more money. I'm still upset that people who PAID me for sig links had them stolen by DP! Why would they try to cut in on our sig link profits? I had 4 links up, now only 2. I don't really even see the big deal of having lots of links in sigs. Sure there needs to be a limit but only 2 links? Then you have to pay at least $25 in order to add more than 2? DP has alot of google ads and traffic here to make money. Any member should only be concerned about their own money and DP rules. Paying to bump topics? That defeats the purpose of being on a free forum. If anything they should limit the bumps to at least one. Banning people for posting is not just silly to me, it's just crazy! I sure hope the mods who run in to defend DP and this thread are getting paid. If not, then what's the point?
For them to be stolen, it would have to imply that you owned them in the first place, which you didn't. Your membership in this forum does not grant you any ownership rights.
ROFL... Not really our fault your business model has something to do with selling intangible items on a site you have no ownership or control over. Might be time to think of a new business plan.
Thanks for not wasting my time trying to make excuses for it. Even though I think it's wrong I have to respect you honesty no matter how immature it is. One more thing. My business model isn't/wasn't the problem, yours was/is! If you are rolling on the floor laughing because you cheated someone out of something they paid for on your forum, that's fine. As long as I can point to this thread if it ever becomes a problem with my clients.
Clearly you are right and I stand corrected. Selling advertising on a site you have no control whatsoever is indeed a good business model. Except no one ever paid for anything on my forum. You can point whoever you want to whatever thread you want, it doesn't mean we sold anything to anyone.
How can you fault us for doing what your tos allowed? You changed it without notice now you want to mock me for accepting money? Yet at the same time you think someones going to pay you when you might just have another "ROFL" moment and change the policy again? I never said that you sold anything, you did. No one has ever paid anything on this forum? You mean to you right? People have been paid money in good faith for signature links which you allow. You without warning removed the links and decided to charge a price under the guise of premium membership. You know it and everyone else here reading this knows. Not only did you do that but you think it's funny that someone would be upset over it. Please don't turn this on me like I'm a bad business person because I was willing to voice my opinion over this issue. If anything, it was bad business on your part. Sure you'll make more money but look at the cost! This is what everyone thinks until they get banned. Read through this thread: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=966953 As I said before also there may be a good reason but a banned member can't know the reason why. There is no pm or e-mail sent, you are just banned!
Nothing in our terms of service changed, nor is there (or was there ever) a clause allowing users to sell their signature links. There also isn't a clause that disallows it, so if it's not covered (at all) in the terms of service it's 100% done at your own risk. My signature isn't for sale, so I'm really not sure what you are referring to... people can't pay me for my signature even if they wanted to. Again, the policy regarding the sale of signature links has never changed here, it's the same as it was the day we opened (see above). See above. Signatures were getting more and more spammy over time. There was discussion about disabling everyone's signatures or making them all nofollow long before premium memberships. In fact I was simply going to nofollow them all and be done with it. Reducing to 2 links with the option of 4 for premium members was actually a compromise devised by moderators. You can thank the mods that users have any dofollow links. As far as a "warning", I wasn't aware we needing to get things approved when we are doing things to make the forum less spammy. If we institute PM spam prevention technology, are you expecting some sort of warning beforehand? (If so, it's not going to happen). You never warned us you were selling your signature, so how would we even know who to "warn"? 2 links on signatures is one (very small) benefit. If you were to poll premium users, I would suspect very few would list that as their #1 most liked benefit of premium membership. The main thing I find amusing is you feel you are entitled to sell advertising on a site you have no control over or ownership in. Reduction of signature links had nothing to do with making money and had everything to do with the reduction of spam. I'm not exactly clear where we made a bad business decision in reducing on-site spam, but I'm sure you will explain it to me. And what exactly is the heavy "cost" we incurred by making the change... Less spam = good in my opinion. Actually every infraction sends an email to the user letting them know the reason as well as quoting the original post they were infracted for unless the user specifically goes out of their way to disable the notifications. It has always been there and has always defaulted to sending notices.
This happened in October have you not been active on DP? Anyway, the problem is easily solved. Refund the sig link buyers or upgrade to premium membership. Don't make yourself look like the victim. It's the sig link buyers which are no longer getting what they paid for which suffer from this and it's your job as the link seller to "make it right".
Well since you guys have deleted my post, given me 2 infractions one of which doesn't expire until 3-16-2010, called my opinion "shit" and manipulated this thread and placed me as the topic starter I don't think there is anything else to discuss. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=1615766