Admin note: Thread created from multiple posts split out from original thread - Snap As noted by Snap, this thread started as my response to the thread created by trjam. I had been considering this problem for some time now, and it just so happened that he made a thread wherein he expressed his partiality towards a particular product and encouraged others to use it, which as reiterated below, essentially amounts to an endorsement of that product. That, followed by the post by lucas questioning the purpose of the thread, to which trjam responded 'the same as all of them', provided me the (incidental) spark and opportunity to make the point exhibited throughout this thread. To preface this, let me clarify that this is not directed at the threadstarter, but at everyone. I'm just using this thread as an example. It would seem to be a plug for AVGAS, as in publically and directly endorsing the product. At first glance, it would seem this potentially violates the Terms Of Service because it, on a basic level, amounts to an advertisment or solicitation, though in this case I think such intent was lacking. However, if we expand beyond this thread, an interesting dillemma arises and a valuable lesson can be learned. Namely, that while the original post is obviously a plug for a product, there are many others that are essentially no different, but don't appear that way because they are indirect and dressed up in various ways so as not to be so obvious. Many people here have particular products that they favor, which they often suggest to others, defend against critical comments, conduct informal testing of, etc. The problem is that in and of themselves, these actions are neutral; it is the intent of the person who conducts them that determines their appropriateness. For instance, when does defending a product against critical comments turn from objective discourse based only on the substance of the comments into defending any comments that might jeopardize the product's or the developer's/company's reputation? When does conducting informal testing turn from a genuine attempt to determine the effectiveness of a product into biased testing to demonstrate the effectivness of the product? When does suggesting a product to others turn from genuinely trying to help others secure their computer into a commercially motiviated or fanboy derived plug for a product? The dillemma is that consistently determining the intent of such actions isn't that easy. Assuming the moderators attempt to regulate such endorsements, their task is not an easy one. The lesson is that there is too much fanboyism here. The ideal solution here is self-regulation. People should try to be as objective as possible when evaluating and commenting on products. Realistically, it's going to take a combination of both to alleviate this. I implore everyone to seriously consider this and make concerted efforts to subdue it.