Agenda Threads

An Agenda Thread is basically a bait thread that pushes your own idea or "agenda" Think "Liberal Agenda", etc.

Theres a handy link provided right there in the rules

http://filebay1.home.comcast.net/~filebay1/agenda.html

Thank you Mighty 1650 RETRO RADIO for coming back so fast with the reply!

Attention Part 15(dot)us site moderators.

I strongly recommend you embed a link to the definition supplied above by Mighty 1650 directly in the line "agenda threads" in the Rules.

I instantly recognized the "bait agenda" described in the Roget/Webster description.

It was confusing to me because, naturally, virtually every post has some agenda behind it, the majority being good and acceptable.

The very Rules themselves begin with several agendas, i.e., "encourage part 15 bobbyists, and so on."

Calm seas overnight.

Plauge upon this website/forum by letting my personal feelings get in the way when I don't agree with some ones constant rule thumping. In fact this post is nearly a violation in itself. My apoligies, i have no further comment.

I guess if I state I hate the XX$$ and mention an organization that also feels the same way I do would be an agenda sort of.  Feeling hostile would be an agenda because I may feel like that organization for whatever reason needs to get shut down.  Since this is part 15 not political forum or anti political forum that sort of thing would be considered spam on some forums.  Agenda threads may sort of bend the topic outside of what the original intent was.  It really is a fine line when you talk agenda threads.  Moderators may feel its a form of spamming and that too will get you kicked off a board.  Maybe that is what was meant by Agenda thread from the article I read from the link.

Rock95seven and TheLegacy, the site moderators can check me on this, but I don't think they want to stifle open and honest opinion about our broadcast activities, even when those opinions are critical and disapproving.

It's the secret, sly, hidden type agenda which might flag as an "agenda thread," as described in the link.

When ya throw stuff out here that was posted on another site and then whine about it, that's an agenda..

Pokin' another member in the open forum over and over again is an agenda. If ya got something to say about another member that YOU feel is improtant to vent, use the private message function..

I don't tend to get to worried about rules because I generally think I'm a pretty straight shooter, but taken literally I have issues.

Clearly an agenda is an agenda.  For example, if I were secretly an agent of ASCAP and was trying to get everyone to pay their music licensing fees, that would be an agenda (I assure I'm not). 

If I were a maker of a transmitter and was posting test results showing how wonderful it was without stating I was the maker, that would be an agenda.

But what if I were a maker of a new transmitter, and posted such results.  Clearly my agenda would be to pitch my new transmitter but it would not be a hidden agenda.  But if I were designing a transmitter for sale this would give me pause to post about it. 

But we are also not to "refer to sources who are not participating". So this, taken literally would pretty much prevent ever posting any reference to anything that wasn't created here.  e.g. "Over on 'Busters Kollege of Radio Knowledge" they said the Superblaster transmitter had a field strength of 777 uV/m and a range of 6 miles" would not be allowed, as Buster would not be participating in the post, and the post would have referenced him.

Also "User contributiions become the property of..." Does this imply that once posted the copyright and ownership of posted information is no longer the property of the poster, but is now the property of Part15.us?  So if I decided to do an article for some other website or magazine I can't use information I posted here as it's now the property of Part15.us?  What if I wanted to go over to Buster's page and post my recent FM transmitter test posts there. I'm not allowed now beause my work and writings are now property of Part15.us?  This would certainly have a bearing on whether I wanted to share further test information.

Probably overthinking, but that's how it reads to me 🙂

TIB

Tim in Bovey raises some interesting questions and I have given over 5-minutes of thinking to a few of them and will toss some thoughts.

Rule#3 - "Post only your own work and refrain from refering to sources who are not participating and who cannot be verified"... I don't think this rule was intended to stop making links to published low power news events or other relevant information. One thing I'm sure it seeks to prevent is, for example, "someone told me that Chairman Wheeler is stepping down, but I'm not at liberty to say any more."

An important thing to know and to keep in mind is that each individual who posts here reserves the right to issue our own "standards and practices" or "terms and conditions," such as saying: "Whereas Rule# 10 allows Part15(dot)us to subsume ownership of my intellectual contribution, I do not relinquish ultimate ownership of same and reserve the right to issue a cease and desist notice in the event I disapprove of any particular use of my contributed work."

I own some ideas you don't know about, but I won't say what they are.

Tim,

I believe you have hit on something by questioning "Please post only your own work and please refrain from referring to sources who are not participating and who cannot be verified." This doesn't make sense to me. The intent seems to be to discourage hearsay information. Perhaps this should be changed to "Please post only your own work and please refrain from referring to sources who are not participating OR who cannot be verified." I think citing 'Busters Kollege of Radio Knowledge" content would not be a problem as long as there is not too much copy and pasting of this into a thread.

[EDIT I changed my mind. The original wording is not too clear but it says to avoid referring to sources who are not participating AND who cannot be verified. If they are participating then the reference is obvious, if they are not participating then the way to know if the reference is correct is to be able to verify it such as by attribution or a link. Hence the word AND makes both conditions necessary, they are not participating and it cannot be verified.]

Regarding copyright, the intent of copyrighting content is to prevent mining the forum content for use on other sites or publications. All I know for sure about the author's rights is that when I had articles published in professional journals subject to copyright by the journal there was a statement that I retained my rights to the material. For example, it is common practice to request reprints by contacting the author rather than the journal. The author is free to send the requested reprint, at least this was the case the last time I was involved. You might contact Jon Paul via the CONTACT button if you want his take on this but I don't think it is an issue.

Neil