What websites do you allow links to?

[PurelyRetro]

Following on from the other thread that was just locked by Stuart. Although you allow links to other sites, is there any that aren't allowed to be linked to other than "CTF"?

Cheers

PR

[Polarbert]

Why the lock the thread also?

Surely everyone is grown up enough within a debate that this doesn't have to be called for?
No need for it to be locked whatsover.

[Stuart]

I'm all for debate. I'm not for endlessly going over the same point with someone who is ultimately closely involved with another site and could therefore be said to have an agenda. Just because someone disagrees with a policy does not mean that we are going to change it; it was like this when PH belonged to Ted, and nothing has changed under our ownership.

I would say that you can link to whatever you would like to link to. Moderators will edit out links to sites with content which is NSFW, to sites which we deem are unfairly promoting businesses belonging to the poster, or in response to valid reports from other users to the moderator's forum.

Further discussion on CTF will not be entered into on this thread.

Thanks,

Stuart

[xllifts]

Think its fairly self explanatory really and its tiresome.

CTF is not allowed to be linked to and thats that, we all reserve the right to post elsewhere.

Please stop this back biting, he said, she said, etc its getting really boring and childish.

This is a Car based web forum FFS and fast becoming a circus because certain people can't take No for an answer.

[ali_kat]

Stuart said:

I'm all for debate. I'm not for endlessly going over the same point with someone who is ultimately closely involved with another site and could therefore be said to have an agenda. Just because someone disagrees with a policy does not mean that we are going to change it; it was like this when PH belonged to Ted, and nothing has changed under our ownership.

So will you read what I have to say please, as (one of the highest 25 posters here ) I clearly do not have an agenda, and I would like to 'correct' your idea of why CTF was set up, as one of the original members of the site

Originally, it was set up for a little game called "inselkampf", because we needed a forum and although we asked for one here, were told that it was not possible due to bandwith. Fair Dos

Chat then developed on other stuff, as it does And other areas were added to the forum for this. Then, with the banning of a couple of PHers for trangressions that were deemed unfair by a few people, it grew, mostly as it was a place that already existed where they were members as they were playing the game that had originated on PH, and were unable to discuss it here. I won't debate the rights and wrongs of the bans, as I made my thoughts on the subjects clear at the time i would say however that the site had already swapped 'hosting' homes, and the plan to change the name and swap again was already underway.

Pigeon is correct in his statement that there has never been any mention of PH being deleted from there, although talking about PH IS discouraged (along with porn). It IS referred to as 'the other place' but not in the derogatory way that was implied, merely as an attempt not to be associated with PH.

However, it IS a place where some of the more 'non PH' threads can take place, those types of 'FHM threads' that we all complain about happening in the P&P. And for that, even I am guilty of pointing people in the direction of in an attempt to clean up the P&P.

I'm sure that when C2 was first banned, there were emails flying around through PH as a medium, along with it being mentioned in threads, BUT this was NOT as advertising, merely as answering questions being asked as to where people had gone.

I'm not asking you to change your policy, but the world wide web is more than big enough for both sites, especially as they serve such different purposes, and I think the removal of the link in that thread was petty.

Stuart said:

I would say that you can link to whatever you would like to link to. Moderators will edit out links to sites with content which is NSFW, to sites which we deem are unfairly promoting businesses belonging to the poster, or in response to valid reports from other users to the moderator's forum.

For which of these reasons was Pigeon's post linking to the MS Paint thread elsewhere deleted? It was not a case of it being NSFW, it is not a business. So was it reported by other users?

Stuart said:

Further discussion on CTF will not be entered into on this thread.

Thanks,

Stuart

Then please email me your response. I'm sure that a lot of the Moderators will tell you that I speak as I find, truthfully

[PurelyRetro]

ali_kat said:

I'm not asking you to change your policy, but the world wide web is more than big enough for both sites, especially as they serve such different purposes, and I think the removal of the link in that thread was petty.

Completely agree with you there ali_kat, which was why I asked the questions about other sites that the don't allow. However, by the looks of it any link can be posted apart "CTF", can links be done to other forums though?

[Stuart]

PurelyRetro said:

ali_kat said:

I'm not asking you to change your policy, but the world wide web is more than big enough for both sites, especially as they serve such different purposes, and I think the removal of the link in that thread was petty.

Completely agree with you there ali_kat, which was why I asked the questions about other sites that the don't allow. However, by the looks of it any link can be posted apart "CTF", can links be done to other forums though?

If relevant and in context to the post, yes.

[ali_kat]

[Pigeon]

Stuart said:

someone who is ultimately closely involved with another site and could therefore be said to have an agenda.

Yes, I am fully aware that I can be seen in such a light and was therefore careful to make my point in sufficiently general terms as to make such considerations irrelevant. I drew several comparisons with other fora, particularly the Volvo Owners Club forum and the Barclay James Harvest forum, to which it might be relevant to post links. I am not closely involved with either of those sites and indeed have not posted on either of them for months. But I would still react in the same way if links to them were persistently deleted without reasonable explanation.

Stuart said:

I'm all for debate. I'm not for endlessly going over the same point

I am sorry, but the reason the thread was "endlessly going over the same point" was your failure to move on to my subsequent points.

My first point was simply to ask for the reasons, which you gave. Fine.

My second point was to point out that the premises on which you had based those reasons were untrue. You failed to engage with this point, instead you misinterpreted my post as thinking that you had acknowledged the untruth, which puzzled me as I thought I had been clearer than that. So I had to explain it again.

My third point was to question the validity of maintaining a policy once it was known that the premises underlying the reasons for it were false. The first time I posted this you ignored it, so I posted it again, and this time you simply denied it, asserted without justification that I was wrong on a subject about which I think it is fair to say that it is obvious that I am better positioned than you are to know the truth of, and thereby effectively moved the debate backwards to before I had made the second point.

Stuart said:

Just because someone disagrees with a policy does not mean that we are going to change it

I have no argument with that, it is entirely reasonable and I would not suggest that it should be otherwise.

The question is not whether I or anyone personally disagree with the policy, it is whether the policy is logically valid.

xllifts said:

its tiresome.

As I said in the other thread, I agree, indeed perhaps I am finding it more tiresome than anyone.

xllifts said:

Please stop this back biting, he said, she said, etc its getting really boring and childish.

I am doing my level best to conduct the debate in a rational manner and avoid "he said, she said"; I am not back-biting or making personal attacks of any kind.

It is interesting that you use the word "childish", I do indeed feel that I and others who share my concerns are being treated like children, especially in the refusal to accept or even acknowledge our attempts to dispel the misapprehensions regarding CTF.

xllifts said:

certain people can't take No for an answer.

I am perfectly capable of "taking No for an answer" if the reasons provided are valid. If valid reasons had been provided then I would have ceased posting. Unfortunately, the reasons turned out to be based on premises which I knew to be untrue. When I and others pointed this out, we were ignored. Surely it is not surprising that I will not accept something which is based on a falsehood.

[Stuart]

Enough. Good night all.