Am I Morally Obliged To Look At Site Adverts?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by dogmeat, Oct 17, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Brought about by the Shouty Ads thread, and not directed at Arrse in particular as other sites do their own enforcement of this practice, I just wondered if I'm in a minority.

    Not that it makes any difference, because I filter ads via a proxy server, but it all gets very chicken and egg regarding the site=members vs the members=site argument.

    I maintain that by participating in a site with my posts - useful or otherwise - I'm fulfilling my obligation to the site owner. They are free to adopt whatever means they choose to generate funds to pay for the site, and I am equally at liberty to view the site however I see fit even if it means not viewing ads.

    If your phone company decided to route 24/7 marketing calls to your phone unless you paid them £50 a year, what would be your reaction?
  2. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    If you want to access the site without ads you can do so for a moderate fee.
    Otherwise accept that like most things in life there is no free lunch, and the bigger the site, the higher the running costs.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    As 'morals' and 'Arrse members' are mutually incompatible and would not normally be seen in the same sentence or forum even, the answer to your question is 'No'.
    • Like Like x 3
  4. a way to beat this is to ask if it's a women what colour their panties are & are the moist!
    most will call you a perv & hang up & these companies will probably not ring back!

    if it's my mobile i just tell them to feck off as it's a duty one and will report them to ofcom etc, that does the trick!
  5. Just as long as you don't cause her any "distress"...
  6. And the site owners are at liberty to take it down if it is costing them money, it is not a charity site and there are costs associated with running it. Don't like it; pay to get add free or do the shitty thing and get an ad blocker.
  7. Since the shouty ads have appeared I've sarted using adblock plus, which is (for those who don't know) a free Firefox add-on.
  8. Not only are you obliged to look at the ads, you're obliged to, errm, entertain one of the ladies from on a regular basis.

    The CO's get extra commission if you trap one of the ugly ones.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. They may be ok for someone your age ancient_mariner.
    But i want one thats at least got a pulse!
  10. Ok, I get an older woman to shag the shite out of, the Big Bad Bosses don't get angry and turn everything in to stars again, where's the downside?
  11. HHH

    HHH LE

    It's your choice to block the ads but don't forget that you can still help the site generate income by using the links on the site to access Amazon, Ebay etc and it doesn't cost you anything.
  12. And the higher the advertising revenue.
  13. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    Good CO's Aston Martin doesn't run on air, you know.
  14. I hope whoever Good CO is, he's got a bit more style than that. Heh. Aston Martin. Made in Gaydon. For chavs.

    Seriously, I'd pay for ad-free ARRSE, but only with a Text or a Voucher. It's all been gone through before. Apparently such means cost too much to run? I reckon that losing a percentage of something and keeping the rest is better than getting diddly, and folk using adblockers.
  15. Until you're my age, you never really understand the true meaning of "Any port in a storm."