Alcohol advertising

Victor

Jagermeister are advertising on the Personal Issues board, given that we deal with substance abuse(rs), can it be reviewed?

http://adserver.adtech.de/adlink|809|1703793|0|170|AdId=2354044;BnId=1;itime=358893942;ku=78828;key=127+2+127;nodecode=yes;link=http://www.jagermeister.com/

http://aka-cdn-ns.adtech.de/apps/380/Ad2354044St3Sz170Sq2826211V1Id1/Boards_MPU_300X250.jpg

6th

Well seeing as this is feedback .....

I dont see the harm really, you cant protect people from everything. They are gonna see it on TV, hear it on the radio etc.

Boston

6th wrote: »

Well seeing as this is feedback .....

I dont see the harm really, you cant protect people from everything. They are gonna see it on TV, hear it on the radio etc.

What people hear and see on the radio is regulated. Also not to keen about advertising alcohol to minors.

fred funk }{

Where does it end? stop advertising food to people with food problems? No poker advertising encase people who are addicted to gambling will fall off the wagon. Rubbish idea TBH.

Boston

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Where does it end? stop advertising food to people with food problems? No poker advertising encase people who are addicted to gambling will fall off the wagon. Rubbish idea TBH.

The nature of google add sense means that a thread about alcohol addiction is far more likely to be targeted with adds for alcohol then is normal.

iDontReallyCare

Ching....Ching...

(Sound of a Till cashing in btw)

Orion

fred funk }{ wrote: »

Where does it end? stop advertising food to people with food problems? No poker advertising encase people who are addicted to gambling will fall off the wagon. Rubbish idea TBH.

People of all ages eat food - crazy bastards :rolleyes:

Boards.ie is not restricted to >18s. Alcohol advertising should be restricted on the site imo.

But don't mind me - I'm drunk. :pac:

AlmightyCushion

Macros42 wrote: »

People of all ages eat food - crazy bastards :rolleyes:

Boards.ie is not restricted to >18s. Alcohol advertising should be restricted on the site imo.

But don't mind me - I'm drunk. :pac:

TV or print media isn't restricted to over 18s but they still have drink ads as far as I know.

4zn76tysfajdxp

I don't think the ads should be blocked but this does look like it could turn into quite a heated discussion. Perhaps a drink to think about it before moving ahead with the shouting and such?



AAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!! That's refreshing...

Rabies

Seriously :-/

Christ on bike.

Tom Dunne

I recently saw a Google ad for hair loss treatment on BGRH.

It happens, are we going to vet every ad on every thread in every forum?

I think not.

tbh

It doesn't make any sense to make a comparison between Alcohol advertising in PI and Hair restoration products in BGRH, with respect.
The question is not "should we vet every single ad on every single forum", it's "Should we have the ability to control what ads are displayed per forum? "

Having seen ads for stem cell treatments for diabetics in the LTI forum, my answer would be a resounding YES, We should.

Tom Dunne

tbh wrote: »

It doesn't make any sense to make a comparison between Alcohol advertising in PI and Hair restoration products in BGRH, with respect.
The question is not "should we vet every single ad on every single forum", it's "Should we have the ability to control what ads are displayed per forum? "

In hindsight, the intention was not to make light of alcohol addiction, my point, rather badly made, was that Google picks up keywords from the page in question and displays ads as it sees relevant.

Is it technically possible to limit certain types of adds to certain types of pages? Do the ads come categorised? Or is it "well page X contains the following words a,b,c, add Y contains word b, so we will display that add?"

Do Ross and the lads want to go through each add and check how appropriate it is for each forum? I am not so sure (a) it is possible and (b) they would have the time for it.

Unfortunately, people see inappropriate things on the internet all the time, it's a fact of the medium.

tbh

surely, tho, we should be able to say "this ad should never be shown in this forum". I'm not saying that every ad should be checked before it's displayed, but surely we should be able to pull an ad if it's seen to be unacceptable.

Do Ross and the lads want to go through each add and check how appropriate it is for each forum? I am not so sure (a) it is possible and (b) they would have the time for it.

Just treat ads like posts, and you remove the need for Ross to do anything. If a forum mod thinks an ad is unacceptable, it should be pulled, imHo

tbh

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

TV or print media isn't restricted to over 18s but they still have drink ads as far as I know.

at certain times, and with certain restrictions.

Tom Dunne

tbh wrote: »

Just treat ads like posts, and you remove the need for Ross to do anything. If a forum mod thinks an ad is unacceptable, it should be pulled, imHo

You see each ad is dynamically generated. When you pull up a page, you may get one ad. When I pull up the same page, I may get another.

Perhaps somebody more acquainted with the inner workings of Google ads could clarify what the options are.

tbh

yeah, I know what you mean - but if I see an ad like this:

Stem Cell Breakthrough
Treating MS & Other Devastating Diseases! Taking Patients Now.
www.xxxxxx.com/xxxx

(that's an actual ad)


in LTI, I don't want it there, and I think it's reasonable to expect we can get it removed so it's never served on boards again (or at least LTI).

Boston

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

TV or print media isn't restricted to over 18s but they still have drink ads as far as I know.

Where ever possible it is restricted. You wont see adds for alcohol in print media aimed at Kids or in add breaks for shows aimed at kids, though you will see them on our forums for teenagers (CTYI, that clearicil one, ect).

We can get into a detailed debate about the morality of advertising but the issue here is whether or not boards LTD has a responsibility towards its membership to ensure that an advertising standard is applied. If I posted on a PI thread about alcoholism and asserted that a user should "knock back a drink", I'd be banned, but an add saying the same thing at the top of the page is supposedly OK?

tbh wrote: »

at certain times, and with certain restrictions.

Exactly.

Tom Dunne wrote: »

You see each ad is dynamically generated. When you pull up a page, you may get one ad. When I pull up the same page, I may get another.

Perhaps somebody more acquainted with the inner workings of Google ads could clarify what the options are.

They do not have direct control but they can request that certain adds are taken out of the mix. I've no idea how fine tuned it is.

ShooterSF

Seriously?

Can I introduce my friend Mr Power, first name Will?

If someone off the sauce is so easily persuaded to drink again by an advert they are beyond boards help. Are they going to stop reading magazines, listening to radio (and those funny Dara ads), watching TV after the watershed? Never watch another Liverpool game again or step inside a sports shop in case they have jerseys on sale? Etc....

Orion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

TV or print media isn't restricted to over 18s but they still have drink ads as far as I know.

Only after the watershed - you can't police everything but common sense applies. Parents have to accept responsibility if they let their children watch TV after 9pm. But boards.ie is a public forum rated 13+ iirc. There could be issues with allowing adverts on a forum that minors are welcome in.

My comments are probably not related to the OP - ads in PI dont' bother me at all regardless of the thread topics - ads in general don't bother me tbh. I'm just commenting on the grey area surrounding alchohol adverts in such a forum as boards.ie in general.

Boston

ShooterSF wrote: »

Seriously?

Can I introduce my friend Mr Power, first name Will?

If someone off the sauce is so easily persuaded to drink again by an advert they are beyond boards help. Are they going to stop reading magazines, listening to radio (and those funny Dara ads), watching TV after the watershed? Never watch another Liverpool game again or step inside a sports shop in case they have jerseys on sale? Etc....

How unbelievably arrogant, who are you to decide a person is beyond help? A football match isn't a place where someone is going to go to looking for support to kick a habit PI is. Have you ever encounter an add for alcohol which was specifically targeted at people trying to quit? That (unintentionally) how ad-sense adds work in this case.

tbh

ShooterSF wrote: »

Seriously?

Can I introduce my friend Mr Power, first name Will?

If someone off the sauce is so easily persuaded to drink again by an advert they are beyond boards help. Are they going to stop reading magazines, listening to radio (and those funny Dara ads), watching TV after the watershed? Never watch another Liverpool game again or step inside a sports shop in case they have jerseys on sale? Etc....

you're missing the point. The question is "can we block certain ads", not anything to do with any specific ads - the Jaeger ad is used as an example (a good one, IMO).

Boston is right tho, the ad serving software just looks for words, not context. SO if you have a thread with a post where someone says "I'm finding it really hard to stay off drink" Adsense says "Drink! They are talking about drink! I'll show them a Jaeger ad". It's not appropriate, maybe it's not the worst thing in the world, but I think it's important that if a mod or anyone says "This ad is inappropriate" then we should be able to disable that ad being shown. Why would anyone argue against that?

Victor

Some tailoring can be done. There was a time that car ads were linked to news stories about road traffic deaths "Would you like to buy a new car?" [/Starship Troopers voice]. This no longer happens. On a basic level, google allow you to opt into or out of certain categories, e.g. Irish Rail seem to only have accommodation- and international travel-linked ads. Boards.ie does have a ban list of sites, e.g. some adult / porn sites were showing up. Boardsd like the poker forum show almost exclusively poker and related ads.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Can I introduce my friend Mr Power, first name Will?

Which many an alcoholic are lacking.

If someone off the sauce is so easily persuaded to drink again by an advert they are beyond boards help.

Not quite, its someone off (or on) the sauce who is in a vulnerable position.

ShooterSF

tbh wrote: »

you're missing the point. The question is "can we block certain ads", not anything to do with any specific ads - the Jaeger ad is used as an example (a good one, IMO).

Boston is right tho, the ad serving software just looks for words, not context. SO if you have a thread with a post where someone says "I'm finding it really hard to stay off drink" Adsense says "Drink! They are talking about drink! I'll show them a Jaeger ad". It's not appropriate, maybe it's not the worst thing in the world, but I think it's important that if a mod or anyone says "This ad is inappropriate" then we should be able to disable that ad being shown. Why would anyone argue against that?

Ok I may have been a bit harsh. However I stand by what I say. I understand that adsense (or whatever it is) can end up focusing an ad at the wrong audience. It might make sense to block the ad so that a more appropiate(sp?) one with more of a chance of success be shown instead. For that reason I'd see a use in blocking it.
My own personal opinion is that people that are so easily persuaded/offended by an ad have a more serious problem than whatever it advertises. People need to be able to take an ad and establish a value of it's message to themself. Right now I am very hungover from been out watching the football last night. I really don't want a drink. If I see an ad for Jager it's only likely effect on me is I may get sick a little.

tbh

I understand what you mean, there was an issue a while ago where someone was talking about cooking frozen chicken. My feeling there was that if someone follows bad advice, it's their own lookout. I know that I'm being a bit inconsistent with this, but I do think it's important that if an ad comes up that either the mods or the users feel is inappropriate for a forum, it should be fairly easy to remove it.

Boston

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok I may have been a bit harsh. However I stand by what I say. I understand that adsense (or whatever it is) can end up focusing an ad at the wrong audience. It might make sense to block the ad so that a more appropiate(sp?) one with more of a chance of success be shown instead. For that reason I'd see a use in blocking it.
My own personal opinion is that people that are so easily persuaded/offended by an ad have a more serious problem than whatever it advertises. People need to be able to take an ad and establish a value of it's message to themself. Right now I am very hungover from been out watching the football last night. I really don't want a drink. If I see an ad for Jager it's only likely effect on me is I may get sick a little.

Well done for that alcoholics have a "serious problem". There should be stars or an awards system of some sort.

ShooterSF

tbh wrote: »

I understand what you mean, there was an issue a while ago where someone was talking about cooking frozen chicken. My feeling there was that if someone follows bad advice, it's their own lookout. I know that I'm being a bit inconsistent with this, but I do think it's important that if an ad comes up that either the mods or the users feel is inappropriate for a forum, it should be fairly easy to remove it.

The issue then becomes who decides and what is or isn't offensive and how much man hours or money would be required to make it happen. I get what your saying and if it was an easy situation to fix I'd imagine it would have been done by now.

Boston wrote: »

Well done for that alcoholics have a "serious problem". There should be stars or an awards system of some sort.

I can only assume you are refering to the fact that I got drunk last night. See here's the thing I wanted to get drunk last night and I did. Today I don't want to go near the stuff. I might have a couple for the Ireland game but won't get hammered, I am well capable of having one or two and leaving it at that. My birthday is in the middle of next month and if I feel like getting drunk then I will.
You see I accept responsibility for my decisions and I am capable of following through with any decision on the issue I make. I don't go around blaming an advert.
I recognise some people are incapable of doing the same. My post above outlines why I think they have a more serious problem than, in this examples case, alcoholism.
Nothing of what I said or did makes me feel like a hypocrite.
Apologies if that's not what you meant.

Boston

ShooterSF wrote: »

The issue then becomes who decides and what is or isn't offensive and how much man hours or money would be required to make it happen. I get what your saying and if it was an easy situation to fix I'd imagine it would have been done by now.

"If it was easy, someone else would have done it by now, ergo it must be hard thus we shouldn't bother doing it." You Sir, are a legend. I haven't seen circular logic like that since I stopped reading the politics forum.

I can only assume you are refering to the fact that I got drunk last night. See here's the thing I wanted to get drunk last night and I did. Today I don't want to go near the stuff. I might have a couple for the Ireland game but won't get hammered, I am well capable of having one or two and leaving it at that. My birthday is in the middle of next month and if I feel like getting drunk then I will.
You see I accept responsibility for my decisions and I am capable of following through with any decision on the issue I make. I don't go around blaming an advert.
I recognise some people are incapable of doing the same. My post above outlines why I think they have a more serious problem than, in this examples case, alcoholism.
Nothing of what I said or did makes me feel like a hypocrite.
Apologies if that's not what you meant.

I genuinely think you deserve a pat on the back for being able to abstain from doing something you don't want to do.

We all know that the majority of people won't be overly swayed by an alcohol add. But someone whose vulnerable may be. The question is, do we say "Hard luck, that's your problem" or do we try not to make things harder then they have to be. I've seen no argument that a moderator shouldn't be able to limit adds they feel inappropriate. When adds first appear it was agree that they shouldn't negatively impact on the community. It is apparent that these adds do.

DeVore

Should we block ads that give offence? Stem Cell research in the Christianity forum for example?

I'm not saying yea/nay to this idea, but I think you are all being a bit naive if you think this is a black-n-white issue of "block" or "dont block".... leaving aside the technical/management side of things (something we can overcome or at least try to once we have made the right decisions in our minds).

So, anyone wanna take on the stem-cell / christians question?

Who will make these decisions? When is it offensive *enough* or targetting sufficiently vulnerable people? These questions need answers even if thats "on a case by case, make it up as you go along" basis...

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

Should we block ads that give offence? Stem Cell research in the Christianity forum for example?

I'm not saying yea/nay to this idea, but I think you are all being a bit naive if you think this is a black-n-white issue of "block" or "dont block".... leaving aside the technical/management side of things (something we can overcome or at least try to once we have made the right decisions in our minds).

So, anyone wanna take on the stem-cell / christians question?

Who will make these decisions? When is it offensive *enough* or targetting sufficiently vulnerable people? These questions need answers even if thats "on a case by case, make it up as you go along" basis...

DeV.

It's not about adds which give offence. Its about adds which may prove harmful. Adds which cause offense is an entirely separate subject.

You ask the question, "Who decides". Well, to my mind it seems that obviously the forum moderators should decide. As it stands they already determine what posts are or arn't appropriate why shouldn't they equality be entrust to determine what adds are or arn't appropriate.

You have a set of site wide regulations with regards to what's allowed. (No porn for example) Then each forum's moderators can partition for exceptions. If a poster wouldn't be allowed post it ( for reasons beyond relevance), it shouldn't be advertised.

DeVore

I wouldnt be opposed to the idea of a mod bringing a potentially harmful ad to our attention in a particular forum but aside from PI and LTI, I wouldnt expect to get more then 1-2 year (just as reference to the scale of things).

What about controversial topics like faith healers? Reiki? What about when it gets more blurred, like acupunture? I suppose we can take a "no threads, no ads" approach whereby if the thread wouldnt be allowed, neither should the ad but I dont think we should be getting into policing the internet or raising other peoples kids.

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

What about controversial topics like faith healers? Reiki? What about when it gets more blurred, like acupunture? I suppose we can take a "no threads, no ads" approach whereby if the thread wouldnt be allowed, neither should the ad but I dont think we should be getting into policing the internet or raising other peoples kids.

DeV.

I think a "no threads, no ads" policy is the most sensible approach. You're already in the business of policing the internet, we ban certain content and pretending otherwise is counter productive. Everyday boards-LTD moderator's filter content to protect users. 4Chan doesn't police the internet, boards-LTD most certainly does. That's no bad thing. Do you really want to run a site with no social conscience?

Dav

I'd have to say I don't completely agree with your interpretation there Boston. We police *our* bit of the internet to a certain extent. We don't want to have to ban things, and it certainly isn't through wanting to be the baby-sitter. The simple facts are that people can't and won't be civil or mature when it comes to certain issues, so we don't allow them. I think that's an important distinction to make.

I do see a lot of merrit to the "no threads - no ads" suggestion though, I'll look a bit more into this with the technical people.

Orion

Just to restate - I don't find ads offensive just like I won't be offended by a TV show - if I don't like it I just won't look at it. And the filtering of ads as the OP suggests is a ludicrous idea.

However, there may be legal issues with allowing alchohol advertising in general on a 13 rated site. Particularly with proposed new laws (I know that the Vintners have pre-empted them with a voluntary code) restricting alchohol advertising. This is not the same as 'policing the internet' as DeV said. I completely agree it is up to parents to raise their own kids. If seeing an ad for beer turns a kid to drink then there's something wrong at home - it's not the ads fault. This is not a legal opinion of course as I'm no lawyer but it is something that struck me.

tbh

also, just to say that I don't really want to force boards to have a hard and fast set of rules about what's allowed, and what's not. What I would like, however, is the ability to report a dodgy ad and if the powers that be agree that it's inappropriate, it can be removed.

JIZZLORD

in fairness google does throw up some odd ones

DeVore

tbh wrote: »

also, just to say that I don't really want to force boards to have a hard and fast set of rules about what's allowed, and what's not. What I would like, however, is the ability to report a dodgy ad and if the powers that be agree that it's inappropriate, it can be removed.

This is basically what I think too. But its going to come down to a judgement call by the admins and my vote is going to go to blocking the truely unacceptible.

DeV.

Boston

Dav wrote: »

I'd have to say I don't completely agree with your interpretation there Boston. We police *our* bit of the internet to a certain extent. We don't want to have to ban things, and it certainly isn't through wanting to be the baby-sitter. The simple facts are that people can't and won't be civil or mature when it comes to certain issues, so we don't allow them. I think that's an important distinction to make.

I do see a lot of merrit to the "no threads - no ads" suggestion though, I'll look a bit more into this with the technical people.

I didn't mean to imply there's a desire to police the internet. I'm sure there's no desire for that responsibility. However, boards-LTD is a moderated site, as such it is policed and there is responsibility towards the users.

DeVore wrote: »

This is basically what I think too. But its going to come down to a judgement call by the admins and my vote is going to go to blocking the truely unacceptible.

DeV.

Only the "truely" unacceptable? The kinda unacceptable being ok? I Get your point, you want to put as few limitations on the site as possible. But this isn't someones opinion you're curtailing, the rules for what can be advertised on a forum should be more strict then what can be posted for the simple reason advertisements have an Air boards-LTD backed legitmacy.

DublinWriter

Out of curiosity, can you specify which ads can be shown via your adsence account?

For example, if someone wanted to set up a catholic discussion board and didn't want ads for certain types of services coming through etc...

DeVore

There is a method of excluding particular ads but afair you need to know about the ad before you can exclude it (ie: there isnt a blanket ban on keywords ... I could be wrong about that though)

DeV.

Victor

DeVore wrote: »

I wouldnt be opposed to the idea of a mod bringing a potentially harmful ad to our attention in a particular forum but aside from PI and LTI, I wouldnt expect to get more then 1-2 year (just as reference to the scale of things).

Sometimes there are ads for "Date Married Women" and the like, invariably on "my relationship is breaking down"-type threads.

What about controversial topics like faith healers? Reiki? What about when it gets more blurred, like acupunture?

The assertive position is that alternative medicine is not OK, complimentary medicine is OK. Some people are cured by the placebo effect. However, God said "ask and you shall receive". Praying to God only works so far, he espects you to ask for a bandage if you are suffering from serious blood loss.

I suppose we can take a "no threads, no ads" approach whereby if the thread wouldnt be allowed, neither should the ad but I dont think we should be getting into policing the internet or raising other peoples kids.

At the same time, its been a long held principle, that we don't allow things that would bring boards into disrepute.

Marketing companies like to "normalise" certain behaviours amongst the impressionable. That is why smoking advertising is all but illegal and alcohol advertising is being restricted.

Macros42 wrote: »

Just to restate - I don't find ads offensive just like I won't be offended by a TV show - if I don't like it I just won't look at it. And the filtering of ads as the OP suggests is a ludicrous idea.

I'm asking can a small percentage of ads be filtered in certain locations. I'm not sure what filters are available.

If seeing an ad for beer turns a kid to drink then there's something wrong at home

Probably. But lets face it, 50% of homes are below average.

JIZZLORD wrote: »

in fairness google does throw up some odd ones

One of the hottest women I've ever known was an amputee, but targetting amputees is another matter. Now maybe there are genuine reasons for it - do amputees find it difficult to get dates? I would think not and I would defer to amputee advocates on that. However, it does seem to be the type of ad aimed at amputee fetishists.

Orion

Victor wrote: »

I'm asking can a small percentage of ads be filtered in certain locations. I'm not sure what filters are available.

But as others have said where do you stop with that? Should dating ads be banned from Relationship Issues? Should Quake ads be banned from the Unreal Tournament forum? Should religious ads be banned from the Atheist/Agnostic section?

At the end of the day they are just ads. It's up to you whether or not you click on them. It's not Boards.ie's job to protect you. It's up to you to protect yourself.

[edit]btw - ludicrous was too strong a word in my last post- no offence was intended

Nevyn

It's about the PI/RI mods feeling that we have some what of a duty of care.
Google banner ads are one thing but the larger ones at the bottom of the page are selected per forum and I don't think there is any harm what so ever in asking what can be done and if certain types of ads can be restricted.

Lets find out what can be done and then where and why it should be done.

Boston

Macros42 wrote: »

But as others have said where do you stop with that? Should dating ads be banned from Relationship Issues? Should Quake ads be banned from the Unreal Tournament forum? Should religious ads be banned from the Atheist/Agnostic section?

You ignore relevance. It would be seldom appropriate to post on a thread advertising anything. Should dating adds be banned on personal issues? No, since the only reason dating threads aren't allowed is because its simply not what the forum is about.

Take the religious one for example, no religious adds shouldn't be banned from the atheist forum since its just a matter of relevance, however maybe catholic adds about converting pagans should be allowed on the spirituality forum?

At the end of the day they are just ads. It's up to you whether or not you click on them. It's not Boards.ie's job to protect you. It's up to you to protect yourself.

[edit]btw - ludicrous was too strong a word in my last post- no offence was intended

I just go straight a head and post the avi I have of two girls sharing a cup, its OK once I put NSFW in the thread title right? Don't be so disingenuous.

Orion

Boston wrote: »

I just go straight a head and post the avi I have of two girls sharing a cup, its OK once I put NSFW in the thread title right? Don't be so disingenuous.

I wasn't being disingenuous. I reread my post and realised that it could have been interpreted in a manner it wasn't intended. Thanks for the input.

Boston

Macros42 wrote: »

I wasn't being disingenuous. I reread my post and realised that it could have been interpreted in a manner it wasn't intended. Thanks for the input.

I interpreted your assertions correctly. If Boards-LTD is forcibly made responsible for content, examples being porn due to public image, warez due to legality, then its OK for it to be censored, but the minute its not Boards-LTD responsibility then it becomes a case of "User beware".

The owners wanted this site to be a place where people could come to seek support and also to build their communities. It's not OK to simply shirk the resulting responsibility. If these adds didn't make boards.ie money we wouldn't be having this debate about who should be policing what. That's actually the truly disingenuous thing, theres a duplicity in this I find quiet unpalatable.

DeVore

Thats rubbish Boston, trollish rubbish and you know it. The amount we are talking about in lost revenue is laughable and has never entered my thoughts or arguments. Now who is being disingenuous.

Please, spare me your supposedly high-minded digs. I've said if we can come to a reasonable basis on which to make these decisions I'm happy to go with that.

As far as I can see, it will be a case by case basis. There will be half a dozen genuine cases and we'll deal with them. The rest of this is storm in a teacup PC crap being argued as a semantic game of fencing for laughs.

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

Thats rubbish Boston, trollish rubbish and you know it. The amount we are talking about in lost revenue is laughable and has never entered my thoughts or arguments. Now who is being disingenuous.

So what's the problem? Why so long for a straight answer? Through out the thread you've been hinting at being OK in principle but clucking at straws for reasons not to put your support behind the idea. Call it trolling or whatever you want, but now we know where you stand on this. If I'd taken the gentle approach we'ed still be waiting.

Please, spare me your supposedly high-minded digs. I've said if we can come to a reasonable basis on which to make these decisions I'm happy to go with that.

A reasonable bases was established some pages back. "No thread, no Add".

As far as I can see, it will be a case by case basis. There will be half a dozen genuine cases and we'll deal with them. The rest of this is storm in a teacup PC crap being argued as a semantic game of fencing for laughs.

DeV.

You know, when I see people like Macros42 make comments wholly against what I personally feel the ethos of Boards.ie-LTD is and a site owner says nothing to contradict them, I have to take it that those views are also the views of the site owner.

DeVore

Balloney.

As for taking my time... its called "thinking something through and considering the consequences of your actions and decisions". I do quite a bit of it you know.

I'm out to the Mods Town-Hall meeting tonight, so I wont be responding here tonight. tbh, I dont have a great deal more to add to this anyway. I'll leave others to have the final word.

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

Balloney.

As for taking my time... its called "thinking something through and considering the consequences of your actions and decisions". I do quite a bit of it you know.

DeV.

I could say something, but I think I best not.

Anyway, I got what I wanted, it doesn't really matter if you feel how I went about it is baloney.

Enjoy the town hall meeting.

Boston.

jhegarty

DeVore wrote: »

There is a method of excluding particular ads but afair you need to know about the ad before you can exclude it (ie: there isnt a blanket ban on keywords ... I could be wrong about that though)

DeV.

You can't ban by keyword , only URL.

You can select so that only pre-approved ads are displayed. But that's only for targeted ads , not the keyword based ones.


So on a technical side it would be difficult to achieve.

On the other hand how quickly would a posted who suggested a drink on a drink problem thread be hit with the site-ban stick ? Very quickly I would assume.