Restrictions on Service Content in Specific Sections

[Ally]

Services are currently permitted to offer a range of services in a thread even if the whole thread is not relevant to the Forum section it's being posted in. This includes "GFX" in "Bot Development" and vice versa - even if they still offer "Bot Development". The obvious issue is that now these services are being seen in multiple sections and therefore granted multiple advertisements for multiple of their services.

The purpose of this suggestion is to prevent the above from happening through an amendment to 1.21 and 5.2 as a subrule:
"Threads may only contain content pertinent to the forum/section in which they are being posted."

If anyone's looking for evidence of this happening, the first 3 "Other Development" threads I clicked on (Service Teams) were guilty of this;
https://www.mc-market.org/threads/443313/
https://www.mc-market.org/threads/549910/
https://www.mc-market.org/threads/538249/

That being said, people and collectives who offer a variety of services should be permitted to post in multiple sections with content pertinent to the forum only.

 

[Justis]

I can see a rule like this helping to make it clearer that posting the exact same thread with the exact same content in multiple different sections is not allowed. Currently it is only forbidden by 1.8’s forbiddance of redundant content.

However, I want to point out the the reason most people do this is not because they think they’ll get more customers to their graphics business if they post about it in the development section. They do it because they only want to have to pay for a single thread design which they can use for all of their services, rather than needing to pay for a new one to be made for each individual section.

Currently, with only 1.8, users are still able to use the same thread design in all of their sections as long as their threads are still unique to each section. Such as the thread in the development section having all of the fine details about their development services, whereas their graphics thread omits that, and instead delves into the fine details of their graphics service.

Adding the rule you suggested would prevent users from being able to re-use their multi-service thread designs to supplement their service threads. It would also mean that countless users would immediately need to pay for new thread designs, and everyone who has already purchased a thread design to represent all of their services would no longer be able to use it. I’m sure that would piss a lot of people off.

 

[Geek]

Adding the rule you suggested would prevent users from being able to re-use their multi-service thread designs to supplement their service threads. It would also mean that countless users would immediately need to pay for new thread designs, and everyone who has already purchased a thread design to represent all of their services would no longer be able to use it. I’m sure that would piss a lot of people off.

Couldn't we just expand upon 1.21 for this? 1.21 already states that the users must not post content in the wrong forum/section. If we just made a 1.21.1, then perhaps this could be implemented easier?

 

[Justis]

Couldn't we just expand upon 1.21 for this? 1.21 already states that the users must not post content in the wrong forum/section. If we just made a 1.21.1, then perhaps this could be implemented easier?

My original response was made with the assumption that 1.21 was what would need to be extended to create the rule Ally suggested. That’s the most logical place for such a rule, but in terms of enforcement, putting it there wouldn’t make any difference over making it separate. All of the consequences I spoke of would still exist.

I don’t see a worthwhile benefit in forbidding people from mentioning their other services within a thread on an unrelated section. As long as the primary content of the thread is on focus, what’s the harm in mentioning your other content?
MC-Market should be supporting its users in connecting with each other, and unnecessarily limiting the flow of information like this isn’t helpful to that end.

 

[Mick]

My original response was made with the assumption that 1.21 was what would need to be extended to create the rule Ally suggested. That’s the most logical place for such a rule, but in terms of enforcement, putting it there wouldn’t make any difference over making it separate. All of the consequences I spoke of would still exist.

I don’t see a worthwhile benefit in forbidding people from mentioning their other services within a thread on an unrelated section. As long as the primary content of the thread is on focus, what’s the harm in mentioning your other content?
MC-Market should be supporting its users in connecting with each other, and unnecessarily limiting the flow of information like this isn’t helpful to that end.

When I had first read the suggestion I thought it was a pretty great idea, but yeah that is also a really good point.

Denied, thanks for the suggestion