• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ok, Its my turn on the member contact thrust!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It's amazing how a mouse will chew off it's own leg to escape from a trap that it didn't have the foresight to avoid entering in the first place.


DanC-
Your attack against ViRGE is less than admirable! WAY outnumbered is a terrible exaggeration and being brash, offensive, and vocal is not equivalent to wise!:|

Osmo.
 
1. Here is the Official Distributed.Net page on their Policies: DNET Official Policies

2. The previous discussions on this topic had to do with [/i]recruiting[/i] new members using DNET email addresses, or asking non-participating members to re-activate. This discussion is about sending a short email to active members.

3. Just because the DPCs may have done it and gotten away with it doesn't mean we should. 2 wrongs don't make a right sort of thing. However, no one has yet provided the FACTS (not opinion) that this would be SPAM. In definition, intent, OR legality.

4. Everybody needs to take a deep breath and tone it down a bit. We get passionate about this stuff, but surely we can discuss differences of opinion without resorting to name calling, personal attacks, or profanity. We ARE teammates after all. 🙂

In order to convince me we should not do this, please prove with factual evidence that this would be spam, and that it would violate DNET's official policies.
 
Ray-

Where is the list of names coming from?
Have the participants on the list agreed to be contacted via email?

If it's DNet property, it's no good, If we collected the names, I'm all for it!🙂

Osmo.
 
Osmo -
I'm sick of beating my head against the wall trying to get those who would be otherwise apathetic motivated.

Only again.. .and again.. and again - VIRGE - "We can't Do this", "It's not Fair", "somone ought to make a law" - "They'll BAN us" - crap.

Yes - it's entirely appropriate. Virge has been flamed. Big deal. I'm tired of the negativity. This is why the DPC will win. Mark my words.
 
For me, the answer is made clear by this single sentence:



<< Emailing people who have not expressed a prior interest in distributed.net is a very bad thing. >>



NOWHERE in the polices does it say that we cannot eMail people who HAVE expressed a prior interest. Clearly, ANYONE who has cracked for Team AnandTech HAS expressed a &quot;prior&quot; interest. They were cracking.

Please show me anything in the policies that says we cannot contact our own previous members.

Russ, NCNE
 
You are right Ray, and I already apologized. The facts are that this has not been determined to be spam by ANY definition by DNET or Moose or the dictionary. I can't say any more about it than that.

Osmo, and just how are we going to get these permissions? Send them an email? No catch 22 here!🙁

I agree that a mass mailing to anybody anywhere is indeed spam. That is spam by definition. This is a targeted mailing (not indiscriminate as defined) and has no comercial value. Nowhere in the Dnet policy does it say it is. In fact, it says &quot;Emailing people who have not expressed a prior interest in distributed.net is a very bad thing&quot;. Are we looking to email people with no prior interest? NO! This is not an issue as I said before. We are not doing anything wrong or not already being done.

If you don't agree well fine, but nothing says otherwise and we ARE free to do it.

[edit]spelling![/edit]
 
Osmo,
1. The names are coming from a list published and accessable by the general public. No copyright notices, No &quot;this is for private use only&quot; notices, etc. Even DNET has a disclaimer:
<Finally, we make no guarantee as to the privacy of your email address, except that we will never intentionally release it except through the stats system without the owner's consent.>

2. I don't know until I contact them if they wish to be contacted. By joining DNET they understand that their email will be published and available to the general public. (See note above and DNETS Official policies) Anyone not wishing to have their email displayed publically can change what is displayed.

By default, once can assume that those that have their emails displayed on a publically accessible webpage with no disclaimers as to inappropriate use or access don't mind getting emails from strangers.

3. Since there are no copyright notices or other &quot;private use&quot; only statements, then apparently the intent is for public use and access.

I've looked at DNETs Official Policies, I've looked at the stats pages, I've even read some of the existing and pending legislation on SPAM.

No one has yet to define or prove to me how this email is SPAM, other than their own personal opinion.
 
I guess it boils down to doing it with class in a professional manner. You might as well pick up the phone book and start dialing!😱 It's desperate, pathetic, and below what the TA distributed Teams used to exemplify.🙁 If this turns out to be the irrational behavior in which TA continues to condone, then I'm certainly on the wrong team!🙁

Osmo.
 
I think the issue stands that Dnet will nail us if we use their DB. However, using the pproxy DB is a grey area, which I don't think Dnet could easily nail us for.

PS DanC, in your own words

<< Bite me >>

 
Well there you have it. The children win.

Virge - in your dreams you teenage twit. You're still wondering what you're going to turn in for 7th period homework while some of us really do this in the real world.

Ban me - I DARE you.
 
Then there's a third source of e-mails no one seems to have considered lately: the forums. If we search the Distributed Computing archives, and find some members who haven't posted in, say, a year, who also have e-mails listed, I think that would be an acceptable (if small) mailing list, don't you?

Likewise, people who have posted here, but mainly post elsewhere, could be good targets for Dennil. 🙂
 
Osmo,
I've looked at the facts, stated my interpretation of them, and have not gotten a reasonable reply based on the facts yet. I've done research, and tried to verify what I could before posting. Seems fairly rational to me, and is what I would consider professional behavior.

Yes, we are in a desperate situation. DPCs are doing 1 mil better than us on a daily basis. :Q

What is pathetic about trying to notify active members of Team Anandtech of new events, and give them the opportunity to opt-in for future emails?

I've sent emails to Dnet on this and other matters, non have been answered. Now that's unprofessional.
 
osmo, you are definitly intitled to your opinion but I totally disagree with it.

I posted this because I think there are several good ideas in all that discussion. We need to go through with them. The Web site, newsletter and a mailing to our fellow members asking them to come chat with us in the forums. There are other ideas in there too.

Another reason is I wanted to show everyone all the things we do that are fun here. We operate as a group more than we think. We share common interest more than we think too. The guy's that are working on methods to improve this site as a whole are doing a fantastic job and we need to use these things to attract more members. We have to get the word out about them somehow. Word of mouth is very effective yes, so let's start with a known interested base and ask them to come see and to tell everyone else about it. Frankly I think not telling them is a great injustice to those that have worked so hard to make it happen.

It really has been a big issue obviously, if you combine all the posts on the subject you can easily see that. Most have been for doing things and without any even simi-concrete evidence that shows this as something we shouldn't be doing I for one cannot expect everyone else not to do these suggested and worthy tasks. If I really thought it was wrong I think it is obvious I WOULD say so.

I have looked at this from the recipt end too. If I got an email that said &quot;Hey DC friend, we know you are still doing the DC project but we haven't seen you in the forums for a while. We want to ask you to come check us out as we think we have a great bunch of folks here and are sure you would enjoy it. We know we would really enjoy you being there ad we think every DC project member is important.&quot; I would just love to recieve some sort of email like that. That is by no means spam.

If I got an email that said &quot;hey, do you like anandtech.com? If you do be sure to check out the DC forum so you can show your support for this great web site&quot; That would be spam. It makes a great web site ad, but not an email.

Does this make any sense?

 
Sorry MW -
I am neither out of line, nor will I apologize. I make my living building professional teams. This one - has proven to be both really great - and really dysfunctional at times. We have what should be a &quot;leader&quot; - who is negative about absolutely everything that doesn't fit his personal agenda. &quot;naming a box&quot; - that's really important.

I have tried my d**ndest - to get some people excited and motivated. All I get is a couple of Mooos and lip service and there's good 'ol Virge telling me (after 20 years in the IT industry) what is and isn't...

I feel I'm entitled to respect because of my experience. Virge feels entitled to respect for God-knows-what-reason. When he stops acting like the voice of AnandTech - I'll quit slapping him. When he knows more than I do about team-building... I'll listen to him. Till then - well... Que Sara-sara.

There's a reason that the cheerleaders in my mind's eye don't yell &quot;Go, Fight, Lose&quot; - That's because I don't know how to play the game that way. I'm in it to win - or I'm not in it. Period.
 
Again I'll state:

I fully support the idea of creating an email list through subscription, either past or present and using it to contact those people regarding TA DC related information.😎

I'm only questioning the ethics behind making a list from emails contained within the list of TA members from the DNET team stats page for TA. We don't need dictionaries or published sponsor policies to decide wether or not this kind of action is in the best interest of the team.

Ray- I'm the last person on this team that will disagree with you and state that DNET has been a professional organization.

Osmo.
 
As one who probably receives more spam every day than anyone at these forums, (and I HATE real spam), I can say, without hesitation, that it would not bother me one bit to receive this type of notification. As long as it's not some novel I have to sift thru, and simply a quick, witty invite back, I'd read it without animosity.

As an example, I get tons of &quot;we haven't seen you in a while&quot; mail from the many BBS's I've signed up with over the years. Sometimes, I even pay a re-visit to them just to see what's up.

Russ, NCNE
 
Let's all try to show some class as we discuss this like grown-ups, please.

I notice those who wish to email inactives and the &quot;bottom 400&quot; are willing to tailor the email so as to try to cooperate with the rules as they are read by their literal meaning. That is certainly better than simply saying &quot;the heck with the rules, I'll do what I want,&quot; so I give credit for that. I also liked Keng6's suggestion, which shows a willingness to try to get the addresses independently of Dnet's stats.

On the other hand, we have Dnet's judgement of the rules. They have given us clarification of their intent in making the rules. Seems very clear how they view it, even if their judgement seems to go a bit beyond the literal reading of the rules by those who would favor sending email, and perhaps they do need to re-write them if a literal reading of the rules is not communicating their intent.

I think most of you know where I stand: we should cooperate with Distributed's intent, since they have made it very clear by posting here in this forum. If there's an email to be composed, maybe it's to request that they rewrite their rules to bracket their intentions more accurately.

I question the position that it is all-important to win at the cost of defying Distributed. It is also not helpful to descend to name-calling or labelling. Let's show some professionalism, people.
 
mech -
I'm in no mood... you are bordering on raising my ire.

NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DNETS FSCKING EMAIL ADDRESSES!!!!! did you HEAR ME?
Now... that said -

This is the same issue. dnet is the height of unprofessional in not responding to a pointed e-mail regarding this very thing. That being said ... (and I'll post it if you'd like) - this is in the absence of being rejected, an endorsement. Period.

Neither dnet - nor the CIA - (which some seem to hold in equal awe) can prevent us from contacting our own membership. Debate the damned thing to death - I intend to do something about it.
 
I take it the target members are the bottom 400, as well as the fallen-away, if you will. One question: how do we even know in the first place that they exist? Because of Dnet's stats list.

Personally, I am looking forward to the WebBox being online so we can start to model our team a little more closely after the DPC. They are indeed very successful, motivated, organized and, it seems to me, centralized. We, on the other hand, are not. Anandtech doesn't have front-page stats and I suspect many of the members, especially the ones we're talking about emailing, have never set foot in this Forum and never will. If Anandtech's links all aim at one place with current news, events, graphs, etc, we will start picking up steam and we can get the independent permission of the new member to email them. As you can see, it will take time to build the list-- that's the legacy of the disorganized past.

edit: I'm not sure what you referred to about an email to dnet, could you elaborate and yes, please post it if you would.

 
Hey my TeAm Anandtech Happy Family...How are we....? Are we fighting again....NO! Not while the Fed's are residing in Mika's house Presidental Suite....!!!

My opinion: I don't mind what we do as long as it's not against the Rules and as long as it doesn't irritate others...If a mailing of past TA members or the bottom 400 TA members would NOT break the rules, then Great...I wan't to WIN....but not disqualified...

This is where I'm taking the trout away from everyone and asking for civility....Everyone is speculating on what is OK and not OK.....Some rule interpretations one way or the other....?

How about a nice, new simple e-mail (no SPAM 😛) to Moose or someone else at D.net asking if we can e-mail our own members on our own pproxy address list? If D.net says NO...I guess NO it is...Why fight when this will settle it? If NO, then D.net is a wiennie IMO!...If YES, then all settled...right!

Denis is doing something right.....He's ass laminating like hell! (P.S. I love the work you're doing Denis!)....

I'm not sitting back on this one while the Family (TeAm) breaks again....Time to move on either way!

Have a great Day all! You should feel better Today...The Feds dumped on all your butts yesterday!

Thanks for listening....
 
We are debating about this list that was being taken from DNET stats, and now it is not.😛 DanC, yes there have been references in this thread to that end.😉 How about a fresh start with a clear concise intent with no misconceptions and a little more civility?🙁

Osmo.
 
Fine. My lack of civility came in the face of continuous negativity - which I distain.


Letter to dnet-

Sorry to disturb you...

Our team is having a heated on-going discussion surrounding contacting our membership.
Reading your official policy against &quot;Spam&quot; - does not address our making contact with our own team for the purpose of disseminating information, providing encouragement, newsletter, encouraging participation in our forum, etc.

We agree that spam isn't a good thing. We appeal that contacting our membership is vital.

Without the ability to use the very technology that we run the clients with - we cannot compete with the teams that do contact their members.

What I am seeking is a definitive ruling on whether:

We may e-mail from our list of members automatically - and provide an &quot;opt out&quot; mechanism.
We may e-mail listed team members who have ceased producing blocks
We may e-mail Team members to encourage participation in our forum.

No spamming newsgroups, no recruiting messages - just those who are listed on our team.

Does distributed.net object to this concept? Our sources of addresses are from other than your pages.

___________________________

no response. VERY professional...

Give me one example of a team being banned by dnet. I've never heard of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top