Oh well Matt maybe he's just not in a good mood?

Ok let's not make a bigger deal out of this than it is. In both cases, I was asked to remove advertising banners on the forum, so I did. I take that as wherever the banner shows up. I don't think that's so far-fetched or out of line, just going by the user's request. I think anyone would agree that it is indded hypocritical though, that it can be shown in one place but not the other.

Might I also direct you to this thread on the advertising policy, made years ago..

http://www.scootdawg.net/showthread.php?t=11552

Admin - This point can very effectively be argued by understanding the nature of banner advertising vs. in forum linking and company representation.

A general consumer sees a banner ad and perceives that as a financial measure of support. A company, or person relating to such, posting is (and should only be) a representational involvement. Naturally as a representational identity, we'll have our companies in our sig lines. (We could certainly make the argument about how re-targeting can change this dynamic a bit, but that is Marketing 201, and probably won't ever apply here.)

Is it a form of marketing? Sure. Does it say to the general consumer, "This company financially supports this forum"? No, it does not. Therein lies the difference.

I think the ad policy written oh so many years ago really was written to keep companies from blatantly manipulating the system for self promotion. I think you'd be hard pressed to get many forum members to say that Jim is blatantly promoting himself on the forum.

I think many would agree with this line of thought as well.

Ultimately, I would think that should this end up being the final Scootdawg, you'd want those few of us that pulled our banners for whatever reasons to get them back up there and support the forum. I don't think any of us said "Hell no, I'll never advertise on that site!", so much as for the time being we'd like to see how things play out before casting our official sign of support. You've apparently taken those banner take down requests very personally.

I'll be the first to apologize for the tone of our first few messages back and forth, as I was rather heated at the time. I know that my approach to the situation is correct however, and it was ultimately not a personal decision, rather purely business.

You also make mention that you don't think it is a big deal, but you may want to reassess that statement, because as you may have noticed, it is a big deal to several influential members of the forum.

Like I said, it's your playground... No one likes to stick around and play with a bully though.


Matt

Very well written and that is what I was trying to say, but must not have used the right words.

Thanks Matt

We'll agree to disagree then. You see it one way, I see it another. Either way, you're getting free advertiisng on a site that I pay for out of my own pocket. If anything, this is a moral issue at the very least. Let's call it what it is.. you wanted to 'hurt' me (or the forum) by requesting to remove your FREE advertising. It doesn't hurt me at all personally, but lets agree that if you want it removed in one place, it only makes sense that you'd want it removed at the other place. Think about that. And bullying? Please.. you obviously don't know me. I'll show you some forums, where if you even MENTION your business name (let alone a link), you get banned. I think you have it pretty good here.

Now like I've said, I couldn't care less, was just pointing out the facts. I've even told Jim he could add his banner again. So this arguing is all to do about nothing.

If you feel it's morally right to do so, then please do.

Fair enough. I don't and won't argue this point.


Matt

This sounds like "High School" Irish