Suggestion for rule alteration: promoting other websites

As I'm sure many of you are aware promoting other websites in posts or creating threads for the sole purpose of advertising other pet-related websites is currently against the forum rules.

This is the rule I'm referring to.

We do not allow members to advertise other pet community websites which are in competition with this website either via the forum or via pm. This includes in your signature and via visitor messages, anyone repeatedly caught doing this after a warning will be banned permanently from our forums.

However, there are occasions where posting a link to another pet-related website is sometimes useful if the website contains useful information to answer a question and ultimately means helping another member. What I'm suggesting is very simple, altering the current rule to allow for posting links to websites that are relevant to a thread.

For example, if somebody asked me in the fish forum for suggestions on a suitable species of Plec for their aquarium, I would direct them to the species catalogue (the Cat-eLog) on PlanetCatfish • the online home of aquarium catfishes. I have two reasons for this:

1) There are literally hundreds of species of Plec and as such it is hard to recommend a particular species; I would leave it up to the OP of the thread to look through the calalogue and find a suitable species.

2) The Planet Catfish website is relevant to the example I have used, as it contains information on catfish.

Obviously, simply submitting threads/posts with a direct link to another pet-related website or a general pet forum without reason is blatant advertising and these would be removed. But, I do think the rule should be altered to allow members to post links to relevant websites or articles where they are required.

This could be made quite clear in the forum rules to avoid confusion.

I'm sure these rules are not adhered to rigidly, I and others have linked to a dog orthopedic site with a forum and it was never removed or even mentioned
Being a specialist site, it is not in direct competition with PF

[lymorelynn]

The rule really refers to other forum type websites rather than one which might contain relevant information.

Originally Posted by rona

I'm sure these rules are not adhered to rigidly

Sadly they are, I have a perfect example of this particular rule enforced recently by one of the new moderators after a certain disgruntled member had a small rant. I won't go into specifics.

Said moderator was apparently 'tested' by this member into removing links to two other websites posted by me in the fish forum with the aim of helping another member. The reason why this member wanted my links removing was because links to other sites in one of their posts were allegedly removed a few months before in a different part of the forum.

Tit for tat, to put it bluntly; and exactly why this rule needs altering so the moderators know where to spend their time actually 'moderating'.

Originally Posted by lymorelynn

The rule really refers to other forum type websites rather than one which might contain relevant information.

Unfortunately, most of the members aren't telepathic and I did actually explain this very clearly to Mark and the moderator I mentioned; complete with a PM containing a small selection from a list of posts (to prove my point) submitted by other members in the past with links to other websites (most of them direct links to competing forums) and the suggestion that if they're going to remove my links then they should also remove all other links to 'competing sites' on the forum.

It's a bit worrying to think that a 'personal test of character' put on a moderator by a member has taken over common sense and ultimately ruled in that moderator's decision.

Rules for some, rules for others - as usual.