aussiedodger, on Friday, March 23rd, 2012, 8:36 PM, said:
Unlike you I don't know what Daniel was thinking but I do know he has been playing around with editing etc.Playing the commercial for the topic he was starting out with seems to fall into editing in this context AFAIK.PLEASE find a definition of spam that even REMOTELY resembles this situation let alone COMMON SENSEGo the ankles Mushu - go go go
Okay, so you don't think an actual commercial
is inappropriate? Really?When he edited it & put in the commercial I'm sure he wasn't thinking: Hmmmmm, this might not pass the 2+2 no advertising edict. He was just thinking I can do whatever I want in my vblog & he is certainly correct in that regard. However, as soon as he posted it himself
on 2+2 he's responsible for breaking the no advertising rule because it has an actual commercial in it & commercials are advertising. If I had posted it, he could say that he had no control over it & there would be no consequences to him, nor should there be. I'm pretty sure the mods at 2+2 don't have a real big problem with the vblog's overall content considering they never took it down & knew that someone else would cross post it eventually anyway, but have a slight problem with the commercial @ the beginning. My question to DN would be, is he more upset about how it was handled after the fact or does he think there is nothing wrong with anything he did?edit:I've just listened to his interview on QJ's & he makes some very valid points & answers my questions during this interview.