M4,
How about the following proposed rule amendments (under 2(vi)):
"a. Anyone who posts specifically to promote or publicize an agency, except by a clearly identified and authorized agency representative in a thread clearly delineated for that purpose, shalll be subject to immediate and irrevocable banishment from this Board and shall lose his/her posting privileges. The Moderator may, in his/her discretion, impose such other penalties as are fair, just and reasonable based on the circumstances and the history of the trangressor.
b. Anyone who is determined to have used a negative review or negative publicity on this Board, or has threatened same, exclusively to gain a purely personal benefit, shall be subject to iimediate and irrevocable banishment from this Board and shall lose his/her posting privileges. The Moderator may, in his/her discretion, impose such other penalties as are fair, just and reasonable based on the circumstances and the history of the trangressor.
c. Any poster who is determined, on at least three (3) occasions, to have placated or supported posters who are engaging in transgressions of the above rules, will be publicly reprimanded, and may be subject to suspensions upon repeat offenses in the discretion of the Moderator."
I don't think the language of the rules is as important as the enforcement of them. The rules have to be worded broadly, but the shills don't care what the rules say. They will only care once they start seeing consistent and aggressive enforcment. Your enforcement activity does seem to have taken a more aggressive turn recently based on the statistics you have cited.
EB,
RULES
2) Forbidden Activities:
v) Posting false or otherwise unverified information with the intent to either damage the reputation or otherwise of a service provider or agency or, to gain favor of a service provider or agency.
Would your proposed rules replace our existing rule 2(v)?
Please PM me examples of posts you believe would violate rule "c", so I can better understand it. If possible, please also show me a post similar to those, but which would not violate the proposed rule.
Thank you,
M4