[admin]

In another post, there have been some concerns expressed over how we handle advertising by teachers. I have several comments about that.

First: I apologize to you members who find the modding too harsh. On reflection, you may be right.

Second: I agree with the suggestions for improving/clarifying the TOS. As an admin, I hate vague rules. I don't want to have to make Solomonic decisions every morning over breakfast. And even if I did have the wisdom to do it, still not everyone would be happy with the results because whatever decision would not be clearly in accordance with the TOS.

Third: There are several complications. I'm going to ask a bunch of speculative questions below. Some of them are clearly extreme examples that I don't really expect to encounter. I include them as an attempt to define the boundaries of the issue.

1) Do we let anybody advertise? Or do we have some restrictions? Do we police it? Or is it buyer beware?
A) If somebody is giving bad advice, and we know it, do we step in? What if he claims to be 7D and we know that he really only maintains a rating of 3D? What about players who have lots of knowledge but don't maintain a high rating because of illness or age?
B) If someone is defrauding his customers by taking money and not showing for lessons, do we step in? Do we let a known fraudster continue to advertise?

2) Do we permit reviews of teachers by other members? And if so, are negative reviews a violation of the TOS clause about not criticizing other members?
And what do we do if there are members who log in only to offer praise of the teacher, but post nothing else? Do we assume astroturfing?

3) Do we have a lower limit on strength? Pros only? Or maybe high dans? Or is it ok if a SDK wants to teach DDKs?
And if we have a limit, how do we verify? What if the member name is tartrate?

4) Do we sell advertising? ( This might cover the server expenses if done right )
Although I recall that Jordus was concerned about over-commercialization of the forum.

[/admin]

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

1) Do we let anybody advertise?

I do not want to see lots of ads. I see nothing wrong with ads by teachers, but only in a subforum designated specifically for that purpose.

2) Do we permit reviews of teachers by other members?

I think that teachers should be permitted one thread each, according to my response to item 1 and that anyone who has had lessons from them be allowed to give reviews, positive or negative. This is not really a violation of the TOS clause because the comment concerns the quality of the teaching of someone who as advertised themselves as a teacher and, as such, is not a personal attack on the member. However, excessively negative comments which go beyond that which is necessary to convey the point should still be against the TOS.

3) Do we have a lower limit on strength?

No, even SDK's have something to offer DDK's. However, I do not think that any prices should be permitted to be published here. Someone can offer free lessons or paid lessons. If paid then it is up to anyone interested to contact the prospecitve teacher for a quote.

4) Do we sell advertising?

No. Not unless the forum is in danger of folding through lack of funds.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Hi Joaz,

Thank you for your open post. I assume the questions you have posted are not just rhetorical. As someone pointed out in the other threads: if we are a forum owned by "the community" we should be able to have an open discussion about these things. This is my personal opinion on the points you mentioned. You or other members may not agree, but you're not required to. It's opinion, after all. I'm sure we can find some middle ground among most members of L19, which may or may not materialize as an altered ToS.


1) I'm ok with advertising, as long as it's go-related. I don't want to see ads for vacuum cleaners or a new kitchen robot.
A) if we know somebody is giving bad advice, we should be able to step in. Evidence is required before these actions are taken.
B) Obviously we step in. We cannot let these people advertize. Evidence is required before these actions are taken.


2) yes, reviews of teachers are definitely something that should be possible on the forum. Same rules apply as with other posts: don't write any baseless attacks on a person, but include evidence and stick to observable behaviour. In fact, both positive or negative, it's something I would enjoy reading. Members that only offer praise of certain teachers are a tad difficult. I would say delete the posts (and ban after repeat offenses).


3) I don't think we have to regulate a lower limit, doesn't the market do that for us? There are plenty of free places where DDKs can get teaching games and reviews from SDKs and low-level dan-players (GTL, KTL, ASR league). I don't think there's many people that would pay for go lessons not from high-dan amateurs or professionals anyway.

I think rather than playing strength, ability to teach is also very important. I've had many awful reviews from high dans that I couldn't do anything with, while people only a few stones stronger than myself have given me some of the most structured and useful advice on go I've ever seen. I'm all for innocent until proven guilty. If somebody from L19 takes a class with a person advertising his or her classes on the forum, and it turns out to be bad, we should be able to put negative feedback next to the ad, or remove the ad completely. I would say a craigslist model is best here: use your head. If something smells iffy, don't take classes unless you've seen positive feedback from trusted L19-members.


4) Do we need to? I'd be more than happy to make a recurring yearly donation to keep the servers running. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

Hope this helps,
Hush

Can you please clarify this?
I took for granted that a description of a product includes specs such as price. In my experience, one of the red flags for scammers in any venue is lack of a clearly stated price.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Someone can say "I am 7d and willing to teach 4k-2d. Please PM me for rates." Or something like that.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Can you clarify why you are opposed to costs being advertised? It's highly unlikely that anyone is going to follow up on an advertisement without prices. All you'll see, I imagine, is replies asking for prices.

Thank you, Joaz, I appreciate the way you talk with us.

Ideas about “real” ads (for example YMI or other vendors):

- YES for non-members of this forum … I’m sure many people visit without registering (but you and Jordus will have numbers, I guess)
- perhaps for members who have not donated

?

I can’t remember whether I’ve ever donated, but I intend to do so in a while when my current shortage has gone by.


Greetings, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

You cannot PM without being a member. Guests can read anything posted but the ads should be directed at members who have the capability of following up. Please, it also sounds a little less commercial without the price.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

My opinion is that policing is not necessary - a forum should be a self-policing as possible. Advertisers know that this is a discussion forum and since their advertisements will take place in threads, it should be understood that the ads are open to public scrutiny and comment. L19 can declare that it bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the advertisements.

The line to be drawn is whether a post criticizes the teacher or the quality of his or her teaching. As to praise ballooning, this does seem to be a growing problem on Amazon etc., but I doubt that in our niche market that this has much potential to get out of hand.

I agree with DrStraw that players of all levels may have something to offer and should be allowed to present their offers, but I don't agree about the prices. Some people may want to use price as a selling point, others not. Why shouldn't teachers be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to emphasize? I've heard of pros who will quickly end the conversation if the first question is about the price of their lessons.

I don't think we should sell rights to post in the forum, and I don't think that we want any other form of ads here either. I agree with Hushfield that we should stick with the donation model for funding.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

A separate forum (this is doubly useful, it keeps the threads away from the main forums and acts as a handy way of catching people who are doing a drive-by ad and not even bothering to read through the list of forums).

Reviews, really I would avoid this. One negative review could cause a lot of trouble. Allowing positive only is similarly problematic. A compromise is to allow the teacher to post a few testimonials from past students in their original post. Or provide past students (who are happy to chat about it) as references.

I would be opposed to people with undeclared or unverifiable ranks advertising.



Avoid a list of very specific rules in the TOS, you're just inviting trouble on yourself doing this (it's easy to miss some sub point). The above could be codified simply as "Only in Teachers forum, no reviews only testimonials, teachers must have a verifiable rank."

I'm tentatively thinking that way too. But how do we verify? It seems like an unending headache for admins.

_________________
Help make L19 more organized. Make an index: https://lifein19x19.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5207

Personally now I have a problem with the suggestions and advertising stuff (but I answer the proposals below, as myself.) I have been an student in NGA for almost two years already, and I have promoted them whenever there was some occasion, since I like them (and etc, won't get into it.) Since Monday 30th March I also take charge of all online promotion, and posting in their blog, so my position is now more formal (they thought that since I work on this in my day-to-day, I was already doing it informally, and they are growing lately they could "use" me ). And I have a problem: I don't want to create another account just for posting "their" stuff. This is why the recent announcement I posted was posted in "Announcements," but I used a more formal tone. But I don't want to stop talking about them in my study journal, my opinions are my own, still. Should I now be double checking my writing? Avoid expressing my opinion just because it may sound too much like an advert? I don't know what to expect, now...





I think the forum is easily self-policing in this respect. It's not like we have a shortage of teachers: if someone is a fraud, some student will appear and tell us, and anyway, most students will pick a more reputable one: there are a lot of possible choices and prices.



As daal says, criticizing the teaching is one thing, the person another. The line is there, a line which should not be crossed. As for users who have one post, and just for praising... I'd always expect the worse. Just in case.



Agree with all others. A SDK can teach a DDK, a DDK a total beginner. Lessons can be free, for a small price, in exchange of something else. So, anyone can teach. It's up to the student to pick the teacher.



I think the forum is fine as it is, and selling advertising can be seen as a grievance to other potential advertisers.

_________________
Geek of all trades, master of none: the motto for my blog mostlymaths.net

Personally I think it is the responsibility of the student to ensure that the credentials posted by a teacher offering his or her services are legitimate. Even adding the organization or server to a rating is not enough these days; I could put myself down as a KGS 8d, but it's the student's responsibility to ask for my account information and look at the games that I played. Winning just enough 6-handi blitz games to solidify an 8d rank is not the same as maintaining an 8d rank over many games and winning against players like MilanMilan and kghin. I don't think it should be the moderator's responsibility to enforce transparency from these teachers.

Yes. (Any go-related teacher.) Because there are various kinds of teachers, incl. DDK for DDK teachers.



Post teaching ads / announcements in the / a Teachers... forum. No further restrictions are needed, because law and TOS are already by far more than enough restriction.



What?!



As with any services or products, the customers or buyers must be aware.



Of course, somebody may point out good, mediocre or bad advice. Facts support the somebody's claims. Facts support the teacher's claims. Missing facts can have different reasons, such as a) wrong characterisation or b) a teacher's respect of a pupil's right to data protection.



This suggests that all would share the same opinion on the somebody. I would never expect a single opinion by all on the same person.



Ambiguous example. (E.g., is the "7D" a rating, and if yes, is it of the same rating system?)



This example is more specialised than necessary, because strength is not always meansured by only one specific rating system, and because there can be reasons other than illness or age.

I think that my answer to "Do we let anybody advertise?" answers also this.



What do you mean by "step in"? The proper instance for real fraud is the regular courts. There can be reasons for not showing up, such as internet disconnection. Then a date is rescheduled, of course. You seem to be asking about criminals pretending to be teachers and never showing up. Uggh. Do we really need to discuss this?



Suppose the highest regular court has judged.

a) While the person is in prison, disallow his advertisements.

b) After he has regularly left prison, allow his advertisements again, because then again he is trusted quite like anybody else.

But... forum rules for that are an overkill!



Yes. (Why do you ask; is there any difference to book or software reviews?!)



Describing a member's teaching is not the same as describing the member as a person. Therefore, if the criticism describes the teaching rather than the teacher, there is, of course, no violation of the TOS.



I would love to see verified real name users only. However, since L19 has also unverified, no-real-name users, your question is immaterial in comparison to the extremely great potential to say something arbitrary about any topic by hiding behind anonymity.



No. See above.



You might as well ask: do we ruin everybody, except for the few financially biggest businesses?

So, of course: No.

I think the overall aim is to make the community better. Most questions you pose, Joaz, can be answered by applying some common sense. I think this is the key here, common sense.

With that in mind, below are my answers:


I see nothing wrong with Go-related ads. Even the current TOS makes allowances for that, from what I see. So this should be a no-brainer, it is already ok, why even ask? The only change I would like to see is to have a separate forum for ads and possibly reviews of products/services related to these ads.

Somebody mentioned prices. Personally, I do not mind prices being posted for the products/services. This makes it easier for potential customers/pupils to decide and compare without the hassle of having to contact each provider/seller separately. When a provider does not want to post the prices, he/she can always post a contact-me disclaimer, or whatever.


What do we do if somebody is giving bad advice when commenting a game here? Hopefully somebody will jump in and explain why the advice is bad. Maybe then his reasons are bad and somebody else will say something. Before we know, we might have a discussion, right? Well, this is what this forum is all about, so I see no problem. Let it self regulate in this respect rather than impose artificial restrictions which will, by definition, be either hard to impose or look draconian, as case might be.

We have enough smart people here, and enough people willing to speak up, apparently, that such self-regulation is probably best.

Of course, in extreme cases, the admin will have to step in.


We let those defrauded write reviews and speak up and tell everybody how they got defrauded. In extreme cases, I think it might be good to manually link to such reviews when a person advertises again. So that there is a link to the reviews right by the ad. This might be a good idea regardless of defrauding or not. Each service/product could then have one thread for ads, and one thread for reviews, if any.

You mention Amazon. Well - so just like on Amazon, sort-of. It takes as much or as little work than removing the ad or red-inking the review.


Most of the time it is pretty easy to tell malice from honest review. Some people deserve bad reviews, so obviously such should be allowed. But negative review should be factual, not ranting. In some cases it might be necessary to block a review (bump it down to drafts folder) and send the note to the author to rewrite it.

As said before - there are always extreme cases when the admin has to step in. But the keyword here is: "extreme".


This is a very silly question.

Everybody can teach, and everybody can ask for money for the teaching. You are not responsible for him/her getting students. Nor for the quality of his/her teaching. Nor for the prices.

The question you ask takes the restrictions you might be thinking of far too far.
Whoever wants to teach, let them try to get students.
If they do, good for them.

You are not teaching police.


I have no problem with that, although I suspect I will be in a minority.
I don't mind some paid ads, as long as it is done tastefully and does not interfere with the function of the forum. For example - popups are a strong NO. But a think left-side (or right-side) column with some banner ads would be ok with me. And if we allow ads, we should be mindful that this is family-friendly site.

And I don't really care where the money, if any, goes. Towards the forum, towards the admins, or into the forum owner's personal account, does not matter to me.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

What's the problem with this? I'm Joe blow, I teach go! Nobody's forcing anybody to sign up for my services. Don't you think customers can decide for themselves who they want as a teacher?

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Quite, If the admins think it is their job to personally verify, vet and endorse every post made on these forums they are much mistaken. I basically agree with Bantari's post (except I don't want ads), particularly:

IMO, the rules for commercial offers/advertisements in general, should be something like:

Posting a thread to announce a commercial go-related product or service (teaching, paid sites, books, equipment, etc) is fine. Threads are easy to ignore. Doing it every month is not. Do not post again unless you have something new.

Replying to go-related questions with a commercial offer ("Buy my service/product, which can teach you about this") is not OK. Also, do not give an incomplete answer with a commercial offer for more. Comments are less easy to ignore than threads, as they get mixed in with the relevant content.

Replying to someone who is specifically seeking teaching or advice on buying books/equipment with a relevant offer is ok (i.e: No offering dan-level books to DDKs just to get your product out there).

Advertising your go-related product or service in your signature is fine, as long as it is non-intrusive. Keep it as small as possible. Never post with the purpose of getting your signature into the thread.

Reviews of any product or service are always OK, except if they involve sock-puppetry (i.e. creating fake personas to review things and thereby attract attention to them).

I'm thinking of something as light as: this my KGS account or this is my EGF page or similar. I think it should very much be self-regulated by the community but that prospective teachers should identify themselves beyond their forum pseudo-name, even if it's only a KGS account.

What's the issue with wanting someone to refer to their KGS account or EGF page or similar? Almost everyone that I've seen advertising go teaching does this already as part of their pitch.