NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm pretty sure this would be illegal if it was a clickthrough to another game... is it illegal in this context?

"Despite all the negative reaction to my opening post, people can visit a web site and can help their fellow human beings by clicking on the following web sites:"

etc

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14667847&postcount=120

If so - it would make the thread basically a slightly extended gambit to get to this point.

Legit?

Eh, I don't see any problem with it.

I seem to recall a game where you recruited people through a click-through link, I was just wondering if this would count as the same thing.

Generally, click-through links are considered problematical if, by clicking, you benefit the poster in some way. It doesn't have to be material benefit -- I think one I killed simply helped a particular college beat another college in the number of people they could get to click.

But I can't see that any of those sites benefit the poster. Since he doesn't know whether anyone clicked or not, he doesn't even get the moral boost of "I helped another person be charitable".

I suppose it's possible the poster is a hungry breast cancer sufferer with sick children who lives in a threatened rainforest amid ill-treated animals, but if they've got that much against them, we don't want to add the excruciating agony of having their thread closed to their burdens.

What I can't understand is the number of mean spirited, and unnecessary comments that have been generated as a result of my thread. As I stated in the OP, I do have some history with the Hunger Site going back to 1999, and I am pleased that a few posters have generated some positive feedback, and to those few, I say thanks.

...As I stated in the OP, I do have some history with the Hunger Site going back to 1999, and I am pleased that a few posters have generated some positive feedback, and to those few, I say thanks.

So, the argument could be made... you do, in some way, 'benefit' from it?

I don't think there's much overall benefit in continuing the argument here after Sirocco's ruled that the thread is fine. Carry it on back in the thread, if you will.