Banner Ad Blues

Joshua_w · Post by **Joshua_w** » Fri Jan 19, 2001 6:19 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ginrai:
 Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow, that is one damn excessive use of swearing for ONE POST. And that was just the tip of the iceburg. Why the hell can't we all just act like civilized people?WhooT!!
--josh------------------
Josh Hammerstedt,
Photon Jockey.
<A HREF="http://insidejoke.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Inside Joke</A> (now DAILY).
<A HREF="http://www.keenspace.com/cgi-bin/ubb/fo ... &number=90" TARGET=_blank>Forum</A> (always been DAILY).
Enjoy. DAILY.

Insult · Post by **Insult** » Fri Jan 19, 2001 6:25 am

If there had been a scantily-clad character on the front page, would you have made the same allowance? 'Cause there's even less info in a banner ad. How can you be offended by a banner ad, and not by clicking on a link taking you to a potentially offensive graphic that's 5 times larger? Skip the boobies and look at the archives, just to see that it's a "a very gentle strip, with lots of insight and political blah blah blah"? Yeah, right. "Uh-oh, cartoon sex, call Rev. Falwell!!"A bit of advice- if you keep worrying about people being offended, you end up with something that looks like the Disney Corporation. And we already have to deal with one of those, ok? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Kan Kong:
Lord knows those Roadrunner cartoons made me want to take an uzi to class . . . . <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/rolleyes.gif">I took the liberty of checking "Nip and Tuck" out. Oh, sure, it has a bit of slapstick (I've seen worse in Marx Brothers movies), but on the whole it's really a very gentle strip, with lots of insight and political satire. All in all, it's an intelligent strip with only the occasional (though quite funny) bout of physical humor. One that I wouldn't hesitate to link to from my own site--which I intend to do at my next update.A bit of advice--read the archives before you make your judgement.[This message has been edited by Kan Kong (edited 01-18-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>------------------
insult to injury
lame ass webcomic updated thrice weekly
<A HREF="http://insult.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://insult.keenspace.com</A>

Kan Kong · Post by **Kan Kong** » Fri Jan 19, 2001 8:03 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by insult:
If there had been a scantily-clad character on the front page, would you have made the same allowance? 'Cause there's even less info in a banner ad. How can you be offended by a banner ad, and not by clicking on a link taking you to a potentially offensive graphic that's 5 times larger? Skip the boobies and look at the archives, just to see that it's a "a very gentle strip, with lots of insight and political blah blah blah"? Yeah, right. "Uh-oh, cartoon sex, call Rev. Falwell!!"A bit of advice- if you keep worrying about people being offended, you end up with something that looks like the Disney Corporation. And we already have to deal with one of those, ok?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay, you're selectively ignoring what I'm saying.One--I wasn't offended by the banner ad, or even by the strip it led to. I love "Sinfest." I read it every day. Ditto "Road Waffles," and "The Mr. Chuck Show," and "Krazy Larry" and "Red Meat," all of which may be considered "offensive" to some degree (I've said something along those lines twice already). But, because of the age of some of my readers, I choose not to endorse them on my site. If I was writing something aimed specifically at adults, as opposed to all ages, I would have links to all of them, and possibly others. I'm not, so I don't.Two--Just because I don't wish to expose younger readers to sexuality and harsh language doesn't mean I'm some closed-minded puritan. Your assumption that, because I feel some things are inappropriate for some people, I'm some Bible-thumping prude is stereotyped and rather shallow. Let's not get religion mixed up in this, shall we?Three--You associated me with Disney. You die now. <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">What's ironic about this whole discussion is that I'm coming across as a lot more conservative than I really am. I'm actually a very hard person to offend. But there are some things out there that just aren't suitable for younger people. It's a maturity thing (I suppose the argument could be made that there are a whole bunch of immature adults out there, but I'm gonna avoid that line of argument).(By the way, I could bore you with a commentary on how insightful and intelligent "Sinfest" is, but I won't.)[This message has been edited by Kan Kong (edited 01-19-2001).]

Insult · Post by **Insult** » Fri Jan 19, 2001 9:07 am

OK, after much deliberation, i have to apologize for the disney remark. that's probably the meanest thing i've ever said to anyone <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">I think this might be the crux of the problem: pretty much everybod on the board (except maybe for that anarchy guy) will agree that some things are not meant for children. But what is and what isn't? That's a pretty subjective decision to make, and it most likely differs from parent to parent. One way to accomplish this would be to have a page in the site maintenance section in which you could turn off certain strips being shown in your **ad** tag. (But not all of them!) I wouldn't really have a problem with this, except for perhaps the fact that it could be used in a personal attack against someone.Main problem with this approach is that i don't think that's technically feasible, since they are not running the ad network. I might be wrong on this, though.
------------------
insult to injury
lame ass webcomic updated thrice weekly
<A HREF="http://insult.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>http://insult.keenspace.com</A>

Kan Kong · Post by **Kan Kong** » Fri Jan 19, 2001 9:58 am

You're right; there's probably no really good solution. Pity, really.(Supreme irony o' the month--no sooner do I put a disclaimer by the banner on my page than it starts advertising my favorite webcomic. Now where's the justice in that? <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">)

Ginrai · Post by **Ginrai** » Fri Jan 19, 2001 10:35 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by insult:
I think this might be the crux of the problem: pretty much everybod on the board (except maybe for that anarchy guy) will agree that some things are not meant for children. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Here's the thing: They're not our children. It doesn't matter if everyone on this board agreed that some things weren't meant for children. If it isn't your children, it isn't your choice. My mother thought that I was perfectly fit to see Halloween and Return of the Living Dead at age 7. I have yet to go on any violent killing sprees. It's not up to us to decide what is and isn't right for the children... it is their parents' responsibility. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> But what is and what isn't? That's a pretty subjective decision to make, and it most likely differs from parent to parent. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One way to accomplish this would be to have a page in the site maintenance section in which you could turn off certain strips being shown in your **ad** tag. (But not all of them!) I wouldn't really have a problem with this, except for perhaps the fact that it could be used in a personal attack against someone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><Nods> Someone unpopular on the Keen boards could easily be blackballed in wonderful McCarthyist fashion. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Main problem with this approach is that i don't think that's technically feasible, since they are not running the ad network. I might be wrong on this, though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No clue on the technical end, but every suggestion made thus far to solve this "problem" just reeks with even more problems in my less than humble opinion.------------------
-Space Cadet Ginrai
* Super Prolific Cocaine-Laced Late Night Sex-O-Rama *
http://sex-o-rama.keenspace.com

ZOMBIE USER 197 · Post by **ZOMBIE USER 197** » Fri Jan 19, 2001 10:53 am

One solution lies in the work being done by <A HREF="http://www.icra.org/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.icra.org/</A> (Internet Content Rating Association). Simply put, if we'd all rate our sites (their ratings are QUITE granular, with separate headings for violence, nudity, language, sexuality, and I think maybe some other stuff) we'd be most of the way there.The second half of the solution requires targeted advertising, which is being built by the Keen Fab Four right now. With that, you could, in theory, filter default ads based on ICRA values. Don't like violence? Filter out ads for sites that feature it. There are lots of folks creating web content today who say that everything should be free, and all information should be automatically accessible to anyone. I feel that intellectual properties should be remunerable and defensible, and that content providers should be able to choose everything that they link to, and everything that links back to them. (Note that "should be able" is different from "this is what I'd actually do"). The ICRA is the best system I've yet seen to begin building that.Go check it out. <A HREF="http://www.icra.org/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.icra.org/</A>
--Howard

Seven3 · Post by **Seven3** » Fri Jan 19, 2001 11:29 am

Here's my two cents:People rating their own sites is pretty much pointless, if they can't be objective. They'll put stuff on their site at a level they feel comfortable at, so chances are they won't see it being as bad as what others would probably rate it. Then of course you'll have those that'll buck the system and rate their site at a lower level than what even they would say it should be.What there needs to be more of, is active participation on the part of parents, teachers and anyone else that play a part in
shaping young minds. They need to get involved with their children and see just what they get up to on-line. Unfortunately kids are a lot more computer savvy than their folks, so programs Like Net Nanny and Cyber-Sitter won't always do the trick, and
parents just don't have as much time as they should to look after them.That's partly the reason I keep the violence/sex/profanity to a minimum. That and I just don't like gratuitous v/s/p.------------------
Time will tell. Sooner or later, time will tell - Albert Einstein, Red Alert.
Don't Panic. - Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Spam Works(tm) - Overloaded billboard, <A HREF="http://portside.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>PortSide</A>
__|__P /_._
. |/ .. . |/
. / . .. / _
A pic from the first violent video game, Axe.

Ginrai · Post by **Ginrai** » Fri Jan 19, 2001 12:00 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Howard:
One solution lies in the work being done by <A HREF="http://www.icra.org/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.icra.org/</A> (Internet Content Rating Association). Simply put, if we'd all rate our sites (their ratings are QUITE granular, with separate headings for violence, nudity, language, sexuality, and I think maybe some other stuff) we'd be most of the way there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Problem one: that ICRS thing requires IE 4.0 and up. What about those of us who prefer Netscape or <gasp> Opera? Problem two: doing to Keenspace what has happened to the motion picture industy in the US is an extremely bad idea, IMO. Any movie that the ratings guys don't like they can give an NC-17 (or whatever it's called these days) and essentially kill it. Again, this is straying into the country of opening up a place for blackballing. What if I or other refuse to rate my (or our) site/s? Hmm? Then what? We get kicked off? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The second half of the solution requires targeted advertising, which is being built by the Keen Fab Four right now. With that, you could, in theory, filter default ads based on ICRA values. Don't like violence? Filter out ads for sites that feature it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that targetted advertising is intelligent for everyone involved, but basing it on ICRA has the same problems that I just mentioned above. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There are lots of folks creating web content today who say that everything should be free, and all information should be automatically accessible to anyone. I feel that intellectual properties should be remunerable and defensible, and that content providers should be able to choose everything that they link to, and everything that links back to them. (Note that "should be able" is different from "this is what I'd actually do"). The ICRA is the best system I've yet seen to begin building that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I disagree highly about being able to control who links TO you. I find that beyond rediculous. What would the world be like if movie studios could choose to disallow certain people (who may have negative opinions of their movies) to view them and/or comment on them in a public forum, (like the Internet)? I go and write a review of crapolaweb.com, but can't even link to that site? What if I love joeblowswebsite.com, but Joe Blow has 16 million letters every day and doesn't have time to wade through requests to link TO him? I do not like it, Sam I Am. It'd be like if I did a review on someone's ... I don't know, their telephone. But I'm not allowed to post contact information, like a phone number where you can call for info? That just reeks of bullshit, and I could see it leading to companies SELLING the right to link to their site, furthering an elitist media controlled by very few, just like traditional print media. One of the wonderful things about the World Wide Web is that anyone can make a website.

------------------
-Space Cadet Ginrai
* Super Prolific Cocaine-Laced Late Night Sex-O-Rama *
http://sex-o-rama.keenspace.com

PDI · Post by **PDI** » Sat Jan 20, 2001 1:22 am

Warning:
I have not yet read to the end of the thread. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Howard:
One solution lies in the work being done by <A HREF="http://www.icra.org/" TARGET=_blank>http://www.icra.org/</A> (Internet Content Rating Association). Simply put, if we'd all rate our sites (their ratings are QUITE granular, with separate headings for violence, nudity, language, sexuality, and I think maybe some other stuff) we'd be most of the way there.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No one's going to agree about the ratings. I don't want anyone to accidentally come to my site if they'll be offended by a boobie, but I have yet to see a rating system that doesn't give me heartburn.ICRA has this phrase, which gives me heartburn:
"Material that might be perceived as setting a bad example for young children/
Material that might disturb young children " <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
The second half of the solution requires targeted advertising, which is being built by the Keen Fab Four right now. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This, I suspect, will be the solution. Find some relatively objective way to target advertising, and you're already there. A porn site banner on Disney is obviously not good business sense. A Disney banner on a porn site is just as dumb. A comic strip for kids should have ads for toys, other kids' comics, fast food, and kids' TV shows.Our site shouldn't have those ads ... phone psychics perhaps would be good, and other adult-oriented and action-oriented comics, but not adult sites...ADULT sites should have ads for marital aids and adult magazine subscriptions.Not censorship, not rating, but sensible matching of interests. I'm stoked they're working on this.BTW, the panel discussion has about 5 folks signed on through forum or e-mail. I'll close it down tomorrow and start the process. We'll most likely be drawing from these fora...there amy be an audience Q&A section...------------------
Scott Maddix
<A HREF="http://PDI.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Psychic Dyslexia Institute:</A>
Where we all have special special powers[This message has been edited by PDI (edited 01-20-2001).]

Talbon · Post by **Talbon** » Sat Jan 20, 2001 5:43 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by RHJunior:
 Once again, we see a rather fuzzy concept of what "censorship" is.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are 100% free to say/write/draw as you please. The rest of us are free to view or promote what you produce *---or to choose NOT TO*-- as we please.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*grin* Obviously I wasn't clear enough, I don't have a fuzzy defination of 'censorship' but rather was pointing out that; Protecting children or other impressionables from what you consider wrong can only be done well by supervising. Censorship doesn't work, because even if it does work. I.E. everything I don't agree with disappearing from the public eye. That stuff still exists! And when our impressionables come across it RL, they will have no way to deal with it, because their perceptions have been narrowed to a point that they lack the skills and responses.*grin*Of course I could be wrong, but that sounds right to me. I'm not quoting great thinkers here or claiming to have degrees on the subject. This is just my opinion, based on my viewpoints. Take it or leave as such.------------------
Anthony
http://pdi.keenspace.com
Bleah! Any reason to show off a tongue ring!

Gravity · Post by **Gravity** » Sat Jan 20, 2001 7:43 am

I happened upon some lame documentary on MTV about this subject. It was about the record industry's labels. The fact was made here that artists actually sold MORE records with a Warning on their cover- So since the two industries are so similar, I wonder if this would actually make rated comics more desirable....Either way I think ratings systems are a sham. Perhaps warnings aren't bad at the artists discretion, but no one should be forced to put labels or ratings on their work if they do not wish to. I think this is the fundamental anger that fuels this debate. ------------------
D.J. Coffman
<A HREF="http://gravity.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Cool People Click here!</A>
<A HREF="http://gravity.keenspace.com/crew.htm" TARGET=_blank>Who are these folks?Find out now...</A>

ZOMBIE USER 197 · Post by **ZOMBIE USER 197** » Sat Jan 20, 2001 10:58 am

Ginrai (and others),I'm sorry if I've upset you. That was not my goal. I've just been pointing out aspects of the big picture you may not be seeing. I'm not telling you to sell out, or to cave in. I'm offering some good intel on the enemy, so that you can pick your fights wisely. Trust me, you don't want to be the zealot who stands in front of an advancing tank. There are better ways to dispatch the tank (including finding someone ELSE to play zealot while you play outraged press corps.)Enough metaphor. Like it or not, in the world that is coming you will be rated, you will be filtered, you will be marginalized, and you will be asked to 'sell out' by people who have more power than you do. If you familiarize yourself with their tools and their strategies, and co-opt them to your own use, you stand a much better chance of your voice being heard. --Howard

Ginrai · Post by **Ginrai** » Sun Jan 21, 2001 10:56 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by joshua_w:

Originally posted by ginrai:
Bullshit. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow, that is one damn excessive use of swearing for ONE POST. And that was just the tip of the iceburg. Why the hell can't we all just act like civilized people?

Words are words are words. There's nothing in saying a particular word that makes me "uncivilized". I attacked passivity -- not the person suggesting it. Can we try and keep it from degenerating to namecalling?------------------
-Space Cadet Ginrai
* Super Prolific Cocaine-Laced Late Night Sex-O-Rama *
http://sex-o-rama.keenspace.com

Ginrai · Post by **Ginrai** » Sun Jan 21, 2001 11:03 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Howard:
Ginrai (and others),I'm sorry if I've upset you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm actually not upset in the least by anything you've said. I'm actually enjoying this conversation. I still don't agree with your outlook (in saying that it will come no matter what, but I don't respect you any less and have found this discussion quite interesting. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> That was not my goal. I've just been pointing out aspects of the big picture you may not be seeing. I'm not telling you to sell out, or to cave in. I'm offering some good intel on the enemy, so that you can pick your fights wisely. Trust me, you don't want to be the zealot who stands in front of an advancing tank. There are better ways to dispatch the tank (including finding someone ELSE to play zealot while you play outraged press corps.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><Snickers> The irony here is it almost seems like you've been trying to call myself and my fellows out to get in front of the tank for ya.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Enough metaphor. Like it or not, in the world that is coming you will be rated, you will be filtered, you will be marginalized, and you will be asked to 'sell out' by people who have more power than you do. If you familiarize yourself with their tools and their strategies, and co-opt them to your own use, you stand a much better chance of your voice being heard. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Such as voluntarily rating my comic safe for all ages?

------------------
-Space Cadet Ginrai
* Super Prolific Cocaine-Laced Late Night Sex-O-Rama *
http://sex-o-rama.keenspace.com

Joshua_w · Post by **Joshua_w** » Mon Jan 22, 2001 2:10 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by ginrai:
Can we try and keep it from degenerating to namecalling?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I apologise if my post could be construed as name-calling. That was not my intention. I was just making a suggestion. Sorry if it doesn't sit right.WhooT!!
--josh------------------
Josh Hammerstedt,
Photon Jockey.
<A HREF="http://insidejoke.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Inside Joke</A> (now DAILY).
<A HREF="http://www.keenspace.com/cgi-bin/ubb/fo ... &number=90" TARGET=_blank>Forum</A> (always been DAILY).
Enjoy. DAILY.

PDI · Post by **PDI** » Mon Jan 22, 2001 12:44 pm

I hope you-all are remembering this stuff for the panel!------------------
Scott Maddix
<A HREF="http://PDI.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Psychic Dyslexia Institute:</A>
Where we all have special special powers

Silly Monkey · Post by **Silly Monkey** » Fri Jan 26, 2001 3:43 am

Okay guys guys guys..
Now the PDI gang will attest to me being as porno addicted than most any guy but a major point is being overlooked. YES it's free to be overlooked and while _I_ myself could care less about the banner ads.. we've been trained as net junkies not even to LOOK at that banner area.. But come on.. I've had a few comments about the "She puts the rack in raccoon ad."
My segestion.. small button ads, and anything that's not the *advertisment* put it at the BOTTOM of your screen.. WAY at the bottom. Like out of site at the bottom. it reduces the chances of little tommy or pamela seeing segestive banner adds. I'm NOT pro censorship.. I'm not saying pull the adds but I AM saying that I've had a few people comment and even people I know in RL about my comic pandering to the Sex Furry stuff. I put a disclaimer up. but hey. untill a seperate banner add group that starts up with only clean banners in the rotation start up.. well hey ..Wait a second.. my banner has my main character in chains.. I guess it's always easier to not take the blame for smut..
But just like the old Sexual Harrasment issues in the workplace.. What defines Smut or unacceptible? I find anything christian on my site highly offensive. A Living Bible Ad? NOT FOR ME!
^_^ It's like the Southpark Nutered Christmas Special. Ack. that's it. I'm going to bed. ------------------
-Paige (happygoth)
AIM/ICQ-> pageguthre xyz/14716844
Http://NeonUmbra.com

Reinder · Post by **Reinder** » Fri Jan 26, 2001 4:54 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Silly Monkey:
I find anything christian on my site highly offensive. A Living Bible Ad? NOT FOR ME!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was also concerned when I saw some biblically-inspired charity's ad appear on some of the Keenspot pages (was that Living Bible?). First of all, I have readers of all stripes, ranging from evangelical christians to die-hard pagans, not to mention atheists like myself. I thought that if I had one of those ads on my strips, at least some new readers would be turned off by such an ad. I don't mean to suggest that [fill in a religion here] are especially intolerant, but rather that new readers would judge a page by the first impression it makes, and the Bible ad would be part of that impression. By that same logic, of course, I would have to respond the same way to ads for organisations based on other religions. That situation hasn't come up yet though. Note that I wouldn't have the same problem with a bookseller selling Bibles - after all, those are clearly useful to have read, and you can make of them what you will. Ditto wiccan-oriented books and trinkets.Secondly, as long as I don't know what exactly such an organisation stands for, I don't exactly care to promote it. Some Christian organisations would probably not want to support ROCR either <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/smile.gif">As I'm writing this, I realise that I haven't really thought about these matters as much and as deeply as I should. The above are my thoughts as they stand, and, as such, pretty half-baked.------------------
Reinder Dijkhuis
<A HREF="http://www.rocr.net/" TARGET=_blank>Rogues of Clwyd-Rhan</A>, Humorous fantasy strip, updated Mon-Fri, and really rather good. <A HREF="http://www.rocr.net/d/20000701.html" TARGET=_blank>Read it from the first strip!</A>

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Fri Jan 26, 2001 8:54 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Talbon:
 *grin* Obviously I wasn't clear enough, I don't have a fuzzy defination of 'censorship' but rather was pointing out that; Protecting children or other impressionables from what you consider wrong can only be done well by supervising. Censorship doesn't work, because even if it does work. I.E. everything I don't agree with disappearing from the public eye. That stuff still exists! And when our impressionables come across it RL, they will have no way to deal with it, because their perceptions have been narrowed to a point that they lack the skills and responses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The subject here is not whether those who are protected from questionable materials are more or less able to "deal with it" when they finally do encounter such things. (ONE: that's a sorry, raggedy assed excuse used by people who don't WANT to control their own behavior around others. TWO: I hotly contest the notion that "sheltering" children from skanky people and skanky behavior somehow "weakens" them as adults. The very basic concept of parenthood is that you do NOT expose your children to perilous things, and you bring them up warning them against it.
Spending your childhood wallowing in sewage wouldn't make you stink less-- it'd just eventually leave you unable to notice your own stink. And repeated exposure to harm doesn't make you immune to it-- it just makes you careless about it.)The question at hand is *your own culpability.* Simply because other people engage in behavior I know to be morally and ethically untenable does not excuse me for engaging in that behavior itself.
Others may do as they wish. The question is what am *I* doing, and what am I being *required* to do... and is what I am being required to do transgress against my convictions.
Others may take part in morally questionable things, or promoting such things. *I do not wish to.* But as the present situation stands, It is made quite difficult for me to opt out....
I am in a situation where I am compromising my personal stand--- that my comic strips should not be used, even by advertisement proxy, as a promotional springboard for things that run blatantly contrary to my ethical, moral and religious beliefs--- in order to remain in Keenspace. So I'm stuck with, as matters stand, two choices: either continue compromising so that I can enjoy the benefits of Keenspace (which is selfish of me), or "take my ball and go home"... remove my strips entirely to another server (a task that, as time passes, grows to potentially monstrous dimensions. I couldnt begin to guess how to set up one tenth of the services Keenspace provides for myself-- which is the reason I joined Keenspace in the first place !)I started this thread in the hopes that some simple compromise might be suggested that was fair to all... ("hiding" the banner where noone would see it, down at the bottom of the page, doesn't count)...Primarily so that I wouldnt have to go through the grueling agony of moving my strips *again*, after having just barely settled in, over such an arguably minor and fixable sticking point.Now I would suggest that there are other banner-ad servers who use a different approach.... Namely, targeted ads.
When someone joins their free service (netzero comes to mind) part of the application is a questionnaire about the applicant's interests. They then use this information to determine *what sort* of ads are displayed in the banner, targeted to that user's specific interests.
This idea could be modified slighty, so that instead of targeting the Keenspace/spot artists' interests, the questionnaire is designed to determine *the comic strip's target audience*--- by theme, "maturity" level, scenario, style, etc. This not only allows the artist more control over what things are advertized on his page, it also makes the banner ads *more effective*.... advertising geared towards the actual audience rather than being "scattergunned".
And, if someone insists that all artists have to be advertised, a single ad among all the others for the home page of Keenspace itself-- where a full listing of all the comics (and their content ratings, perhaps?) would be available-- would suffice.