Welcome!
I am not opposed to any of the advice you so freely dispensed, however I contend that if our blogging forefathers had followed it, blogging would still be some emerging technology for that big bad ‘ol Interweb thing y used by a few thousand geeks contemplating the deeper meaning of the last X-Files episode. Consider that one of the first blogs to hit the mainstream, the Drudge Report is most famous for being the first news source to break the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public after Newsweek decided not to publish it. Had Matt followed your rules here- we would not have heard that story and very recent history may be different. It was the freedom from those very rules you mention that are the appeal of the blog medium. Not to say that one can publish slander, but there must be greater latitude in this medium – otherwise you have nothing but another dull website. That being said, I think a new set of rules are in order- that can bridge the gap between traditional journalistic integrity and ethics with the idea of still being a trailblazer and daring in your content choices - of course I in no way mean "it's OK to lie, steal, cheat defame, slander..." Just think that perhaps these guidelines should be modified to accommodate the fluidity and social aspect of the medium.
The longer this plays out the more interesting it gets. A number of anonymous WP blogs have sprung up written by people that claim to be real estate agents using eperks. These people defend the company and never focus on real estate. I went into one called it a shill and was answered rudely by the owner that still refused to state his name. The tactics this company uses are simply despicable. I find it offensive that they would pretend to be real estate agents just to get their point across. The MO is the same everywhere- they set up shill blogs, shill comments and shill accounts on social networks to promote and defend themselves. Mary McKnight www.rsspieces.com
The whole thing is rather shameful on ePerks count. Pay per post is completely acceptable in this industry and the fact that negative comments were a result of the pay per post is also normal. Vlad's second post on the subject was not defamatory in any way and that is where the legal battle started. At that point- the whole threat of legal action didn't make any sense. My understanding is that ePerks is running on investment. How do investors feel about their monies being spent on such frivolity Wouldn’t these legal funds be better spent on rehabbing the image of the company, which was in no great condition when all this started, or advertising? At the end of the day, your business is judged in dollars and cents not on how many lives you can destroy on the road to failure. Vlad is a single, small blogger, why did this Ben character feel the need to go after him so vehemently? It's all very purile.
