Scrivs launches jihad against 9rules members
All is not well at 9rules today with word coming via BlogNetworkWatch that network owner Paul Scrivens has launched a jihad against 9rules members who don’t meet the following (new) rules:
– 9rules sites will only be allowed to be in 9rules – and not in any other content network. Blogs must make a decision where they want to be.
– All adult oriented or sexually explicit sites will be removed.
– Sites that don’t continue to meet the “quality” that 9rules stands for will be removed
– All sites are currently being reviewed and are subject to being removed.
Now I don’t want to attack 9rules here because they’ve got some great bloggers on board, and have really done a lot in promoting great looking blogs….but stuff it. Taking on more new blogs than a whore in a Kalgoorlie brothel has clients in a week and then basically chucking out older members who have been loyal 9rules members because they are mates with people you no longer like, because they don’t meet your “quality test” despite the fact you’ve already accepted them in on the same “quality” assessment, or because some sites might conflict with the new 9rules spin off porn blog network is as low as Nick Denton’s Gawker Media pay rates.
And yes, I’m feeling snarky today, 2 days lost work due to computer problems does and stacking shelves to midnight last night does that :-)
Paul seems to have fallen and can’t get up.
I have Fine Fools on an RSS feed, and it is so sad to see it every day with the last post (now more than a month old) being (ironically) “Defunct My Ass” . I almost get the feeling of “flew too close to the sun” from his plight. He skyrocketed to the top of the heap and I think it made him a little crazy. He became paranoid and vindictive, unwilling to see any fault of his own.
What a shame.
He is young and obviously talented. There’s still lots of time for him to get his act together. Best wishes to him.
“because they donâ€™t meet your â€œquality testâ€? despite the fact youâ€™ve already accepted them in on the same â€œqualityâ€? assessment”
I think this is wrong… the policy is NEW. These sites weren’t judged against this new set of rules, hence the reason they were accepted.
The only thing that you can accuse Paul of is lack of foresight. No?
Duncan, everyone has a right to their opinion but to make an informed decision, once must have the facts.
Which you didn’t unfortunately.
But you can get them because I addressed this issue on Not Too Geeky. And you’ll see it wasn’t Scrivs this time.
You don’t want to attack and summon the word “jihad” in your title? This entire blog entry made me laugh.
Nice response on your blog, Tyme.
Interesting stuff here. I make my first official response to the Jihad here.
Thank you TDavid. :)
Sorry, maybe Jihad was a bit rough, Im going to come up with a new word in my next post that I’m sure will be more appropriate :-)
I was thinking Crusade was more politically correct.
It’s his network, so he can do whatever he wants. However, it doesn’t make sense to build it up and then change the rules to exclude sites.