Another thread about recasting

[Too Much Garlic]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 16 2006, 11:16 PM) [snapback]1301795[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(NoHumorMan @ Aug 16 2006, 04:55 PM) [snapback]1301775[/snapback]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Aug 16 2006, 10:54 PM) [snapback]1301773[/snapback]

There's already a mechanism in place: "Banned members and their products: not allowed."
[/b]

Apparently, that rule only applies to SOME banned members and not ALL.
Be consistent mods or not at all.
[/b][/quote]
How is it inconsistent? Discussion of banned member products is not permitted. From that I understand it means items being actively sold by that banned member. Can you give an example where it is not consistent?
[/b][/quote]
Well, the rule is very specific, yet, in this very post and in two other topics, three different mods define the rule in three different ways:

<div class='quotetop'>(Treadwell @ Aug 16 2006, 09:58 PM) [snapback]1301723[/snapback]</div>

It depends on whether the discussion is serving the sales of the banned member's offerings as much as it is the discussion itself.
If someone buys an item made by a banned member, and makes a show-off thread, maybe even showing/discussing modifications he's making or how he's painting it, etc, well, that's what this board is about. It's even less of a problem if it's an item the banned member doesn't even sell anymore anyway.
But if it amounts to an advertisement for the banned member's current product, then that is what crosses the line.
That line is very fine. Makes our job that much more interesting.
[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>(bbabich @ Aug 16 2006, 08:40 PM) [snapback]1301665[/snapback]</div>

Ok guys, like it has been mentioned, TE is not the topic, and we should move back onto topic. This has been a great read as far as the information in this thread goes, I would hate to have to close it.
Thanks,
Bryan
[/b]

<div class='quotetop'>(rocketeer25 @ Aug 14 2006, 09:51 PM) [snapback]1300331[/snapback]</div>

SithLord is correct. SPFX is banned, so his products cannot be discussed here.
[/b]

I can not live with a rule that can be interpreted in three or more different ways by three different mods and by you. Either the rule stays simple as it is written or it should be changed to more closely mirror WHAT the mods really want the rule to specifically target.

In neither of the topics these mod-posts were taken from were there ever any mention of advocating sales for any particular banned members items. But since the rule is: "Banned members and their products: not allowed." then who cares if anyone were advocating sales... as the topic should have been closed by the mere mentioning of a banned member and/or their product or at least steered into another direction by the mods, as: "Banned members and their products: not allowed.".

If you can't see inconsistency in that... then I'm very sorry, but I can and I require clarification on the rule, as it appears to me that not even the mods know for sure.

 

[GINO]

[/quote]How is it inconsistent? Discussion of banned member products is not permitted. From that I understand it means items being actively sold by that banned member. Can you give an example where it is not consistent?
[/quote]


I think what NoHumorMan is talking about is that recently there was a thread that mentioned the SPFX (banned) vader helmet which was nuked, while there is a TE (banned) fiberglass trooper helmet in the junkyard which mods have posted in and show their support for. It gives the impression to onlookers as if it's okay for some and not for others.

I have a suggestion. If it were up to me (and it's not) I would say that discussion of a banned members items should be prohibited ONLY if the reason they were banned for was due to recasting. No one wants to promote or even assist in the exposure of a recast item. That should in my opinion be the only reason why it's not allowed.

my $.02

 

[JunkSabers1138]

<div class='quotetop'>(GINO @ Aug 16 2006, 04:59 PM) [snapback]1301825[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

How is it inconsistent? Discussion of banned member products is not permitted. From that I understand it means items being actively sold by that banned member. Can you give an example where it is not consistent?
[/b]

I think what NoHumorMan is talking about is that recently there was a thread that mentioned the SPFX (banned) vader helmet which was nuked, while there is a TE (banned) fiberglass trooper helmet in the junkyard which mods have posted in and show their support for. It gives the impression to onlookers as if it's okay for some and not for others.

I have a suggestion. If it were up to me (and it's not) I would say that discussion of a banned members items should be prohibited ONLY if the reason they were banned for was due to recasting. No one wants to promote or even assist in the exposure of a recast item. That should in my opinion be the only reason why it's not allowed.

my $.02
[/b][/quote]

Just like he said, why is it wrong to discuss a banned members products even if he wasn't banned for any product reasons (i.e. recasting)?

 

[Treadwell]

The reason for the banning has nothing to do with it. A banned member loses the priveledges of membership and thus should not enjoy the profits gained from utilizing the RPF as a customer base. Period.

As for discussing banned member products....the staff is discussing how to clarify the rule for everyone and how to apply it evenly and consistently. We'll make a statement when we've ironed it out. Might not be today, might not be tomorrow. But we'll make an announcement.

So let's not speculate about such policy any more in this thread, which is supposed to be about the issue of recasting, yes?