引用:
原帖由 peninsula 於 2007-8-2 21:57 發表
AD??
I can't tell. Actually there's no knowing if this report is a genuine user report or an ad by a hired writer (Please note that I am not passing judgement, accusing or condemning the member who wrote this report).
In the absence of concrete evidence pointing to an ad, members here are always still free to cast/express doubts on a report no matter how dubious it is. However, as board master I would like members to do so with restraint so that overall harmony is maintained. If the reporting member is indeed a genuine sauna visitor and not paid to report here, and it is just that his writing style is interestingly like an ad, our caution in expressing doubt can prevent us from antagonising that member. After all we can always ask the 'dubious' reporting member questions for more information before making our individual judgements. To sum up, while a board master has to get rid of 'proven' ad reports, if concrete evidence against a dubious eport is absent, the reporting member still has the benefit of doubt. He may be subject to other members' queries or criticisms but his report can remain.
The forum rule against advertising does not
empower the board master to ban a member merely because he is dubious but without evidence against him. This is a fair interpretation of that rule.
However, if anyone explicitly accuses the reporting member to be a staff/in-house ad writer from the sauna in question or from an advertising agency such as man169 but does not give any evidence, this is to be discouraged as it could directly initiate argument.
A milder expression of doubt, such as that by you, brother peninsula, may be more easily tolerated by the reporting member, especially if he is indeed a genuine user rather than an ad writer.
[
本帖最後由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-2 22:40 編輯 ]
