Questions About New TOS? Post Here.

I think you can post publicly to say you're taking a break but leave it at that.  That is still within the rules I think.  Surely anything more can be done privately, via email?

  Target, as in stalk, harass, etc

I think this is in part down to personal perception.  Say I ask someone a question on a thread, hoping to draw them out on their experience, in part because a different perspective is great on any thread and in part becuase it relates directly to the OP and could assist with their problem.  Now, say that poster mis-reads my post and replies but due to a communication error they do not actually answer the question posed so I repost to clarify.  Is that against the rules?  Would that consistute "stalking"?  I have fallen into this trap myself and seen at least one member do so as well.  The same goes for "attacking".  Other people may not read what I write as I intended it, despite my best efforts.  I may post in innocnece and still get inked and warned. 

IMO, if a person FEELS targeted/attacked, they should politely PM the culprit and ask them to back off.  IF that doesn't work, they should ticket them and THEN a mod should step in.  I do feel that, not only would this mean I wouldn't have to scratch my head and wonder why I was edited, but it would also possibly mean less work for moderators?  And encourage more "self-modding"?

Again, "arguing" with a moderator.... what I may see as defending my point of view because I genuinely do not believe my self to be in the wrong COULD be seen as antagonising/being argumentative.  As it is so heard to misinterpret the written word, I think we should be cut a teensy bit of slack in this area.

I'm not sure about the 3 warnings thingy.... I shall go and look again and see if I can get it straight in my head then come back if I still don't get it.....
 
Edit:  Is an "informal" warning the same as "Warning #1"?  Or is the informal warning what you get BEFORE your "official" ones?  The equivalent of, "hey, tone it down or you'll get a warning" styleofthing....  Are "informal warnings" no longer going to be used?  Will it just be "1st warning, second warning, you've cooked your goose"?  Or, informal warning, formal warning, you've cooked your goose?  I only wonder because I want to know which Warning # I am on.  I'm not making ANY sense am I....

Chuffy...."but I didn't MEAN it that way" is a whole lot different than "you are abusing your power"  "you are stalking me to make me look bad"  "you have NEVER liked me", "I'm forwarding everything you sent me to Kelly and let HER decide who's right", etc..........
 
Dang it, if I feel the need to edit a post, I don't do it lightly, and I sure don't need the edited member SCREAMING in my inbox.  I believe that is what Kelly is trying to get across.

one time, within a topic that was going on for quite awhile, i sorta felt like i was "beating on a dead horse" cuz the topic was just going in circles....

so i left a comment sort of like this:


"feel like i'm beating a dead horse here [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]"

that line was edited out by the moderator.


now i am ok with that but what i would like to know is if this constitutes one of the three strikes?

it seems like a really minor infraction to me and not worthy of a strike.
in comparison, when someone comes out and intentionally flames another member in public, then that would be worthy of a strike in comparison to minor infractions.


so that's my question: are ALL red ink's considered a strike?

if not, then where is the line drawn?

lostcoyote, I think you have made a very good point.  I know a few people have had edits on their posts for minor "offences" and if it only takes three of those people are either going to be banned/suspended left right and centre or they are just going to be downright scared to post and everywhere is going to get very bland.... 

i went back and read the fine print about the warnings & "da'boot"...

Members will be warned a maximum of three times for any and all offences in a three month period. Warnings consist of post edits, PMs or emails from administrators or moderators.

it says nothing about the degree of the warning.... so in the case of my example above (a snippet joke about beating a topic to death, aka, beating a dead horse), that would constitute a strike equivalent to a strike made against somebofy for flaming another member.

doesn't make sense to me but i don't own this website either.

i do know that after i received the post edit cited above, i'm always a little skittish to post (sometimes) on sensitive issues and when i do, i am sorta looking over my shoulder so-to-speak.

for some, the level of moderation is a big turn off. for others, it's not. we're all different. and then, there are a lot of message board forums out there to pick and choose from.

so far, i'm ok with the structure here.... yet...
if i slip up in the slightest (by being human) and make 3 off topic posts, then i shall get da'boot outta here per forum rules. not very fair in my opinion. 

what i see most often is peoples emotions getting them into trouble.

i took the pledge []

I have a concern about differentiating between being edited for rude, attacking behaviour and off topic posts. If they both consitute a stike, I don't think that is fair. How about using a different colour ink for edits that will not result in a strike?

Regarding post edits, warnings and strikes.

Post edits will occur for TOS violations. All post edits will be followed up by a PM, notifying a Formal Warning. A Formal Warning announces a strike.

If a Moderator issues a general warning in a thread, that does not constitute a Formal Warning.

In the past, sometimes, informal warnings were sent, and post edits were not accompanied by a PM. That practice will not continue. If you haven't recieved a PM with the words "Formal Warning" in the subject heading, you have none on your record.

The dog.com team of Administrators and Moderators, who drafted the new TOS, is aware of the severity of strikes, and their consequences for members. We will act with that in mind. But, again:

ORIGINAL: Personal Champ
If a member feels they have been unfairly inked, contact me. We have copies of all original posts, so I can make a judgement on it.

If you ever have a concern that your post may be in violation, feel free to run it by a moderator before posting it. We're here to help. []

edited for grammar

so then if i see a really outstanding post and reply with something like this:

"Great post [sm=bravo.gif]"

that would be in violation of Rule 5 since it was personal directed towards the one who made the outstanding post intended to show "approval"


i dunno but i am reminded of a tao te ching verse which sums up what i feel and wish to convey:

A human is born soft and flexible.
By his death he is hard and stiff.
Young plants are supple and filled with juice.
By their death they are withered and dried up.
Therefore the stiffness and lack of flexibility is the forerunner of death.
The softness and suppleness is a token of life.
Therefore an army will never win through its strength.
A tree, which can not bend in the wind, will easily break.
The hardness and strength will fall, the soft and supple will prevail.

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

Regarding post edits, warnings and strikes.

Post edits will occur for TOS violations. All post edits will be followed up by a PM, notifying a Formal Warning. A Formal Warning announces a strike.

If a Moderator issues a general warning in a thread, that does not constitute a Formal Warning.

In the past, sometimes, informal warnings were sent, and post edits were not accompanied by a PM. That practice will not continue. If you haven't recieved a PM with the words "Formal Warning" in the subject heading, you have none on your record.

The dog.com team of Administrators and Moderators, who drafted the new TOS, is aware of the severity of strikes, and their consequences for members. We will act with that in mind. But, again:

ORIGINAL: Personal Champ
If a member feels they have been unfairly inked, contact me. We have copies of all original posts, so I can make a judgement on it.

If you ever have a concern that your post may be in violation, feel free to run it by a moderator before posting it. We're here to help. []

edited for grammar

That still doesn't answer the question of off topic posts.  If someone goes off topic innocently three times in three months (that's once a month, and if someone posts several times a day that's three posts out of MANY), will they be suspended?   

It seems to me that this can be a bit subjective.  There has been stuff that I would have sworn up and down was on topic that was edited.  I don't think it's very realistic to expect people to repeatedly run posts by moderators--some of us only have limited time on here.

ss - I don't see anything in the TOS that says a warning will be given for off-topic posts, so I don't think that's a concern. From the TOS:

Also, while we realize that conversation naturally ebbs and flows, if a thread gets to be so off topic as that it no longer relates to or assists the OP with their question or problem, administrators and moderators reserve the right to redirect the thread. Keep in mind that members do come here looking for assistance, and straying completely off topic is not in their dog's best interest. A new thread is a perfectly appropriate way to further investigate points inspired by another thread.

I would imagine if a moderator came in and redirected the thread back to original topic and you continued to purposely take it off topic, you might get a warning for simply defying the moderator, but I think we've got to give the staff here more credit than to think they're going to ban someone for a few off-topic posts. That's pretty extreme. I don't think the Nazis have moved in and taken over the moderation of dog,com. []

I'm sure it is a bit subjective, but I think we have to trust that if something is that extreme, we could discuss it reasonably and privately with either the mod or other staff... That's the idea I'm getting anyway.

Yeah, but up until now they have been red inking people for going off topic.  If any red ink now means a warning, then it would stand to reason that you could be banned for being red inked for going off topic.  Unlees of course they are not going to red ink people for going off topic--but that has not been made clear.

The major problem I see in this whole thing is that someone may not take someone's post as intended.  Some of us are more blunt then others...it does not mean that there was negative intent.
Who decides what the tone of the post is?
Personally as long as no one is getting downright nasty what is wrong with expressing one's opinion.  Seems like everything now will have to be stated politically correct[:'(].
 

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

Regarding post edits, warnings and strikes.

Post edits will occur for TOS violations. All post edits will be followed up by a PM, notifying a Formal Warning. A Formal Warning announces a strike.

If you haven't recieved a PM with the words "Formal Warning" in the subject heading, you have none on your record.

I think that if you are edited for Off Topic you will see that in red ink. If you do not receive a PM stating the edit was a Formal Warning there is not strike against you. My understanding is that not edits are Formal Warnings only those accompanied by a PM.

Is that right Ixas_girl?

if that's the case, then what should have been written is this:
 
before:

Post edits will occur for TOS violations. All post edits will be followed up by a PM, notifying a Formal Warning. A Formal Warning announces a strike.

after: Post edits will occur for TOS violations. All post edits MAY be followed up by a PM, notifying a Formal Warning. A Formal Warning announces a strike.


would that be correct?

The new rules are at best vague.  What one person considers offensive another may not. 
Many have been acused of being attacking in posts when they were actually blunt.
There is too much grey area.
Discussions and disagreements will occur but I think the rules are getting to be too much. The rules that were here before were fine.
Many times the rules were not enforced.
Why can't anyone post a link to Dogster or their website if they have been members for a designated period of time.  Not everyone in here is soliciting for business.  Just because a link is in the signature that doesn't mean you have to click it.
Does that also mean that if someone is looking for information that you cannot post hyperlinks in a post?
I think the forum itself has gone downhill and has been for quite sometime.
So many have been chased off.
A little off topic but on the horse forum I do not see the mods coming down on those posting personal posts to hey _____ (member name).
This all may be a little to late for many of our core members....I have found myself spending less and less time posting on both forums.  I have seen many attacks that were obvious attacks on individuals where the mods did not step in properly and a few times they actually kept the fire going themselves.  I have seen long time members leave, treated horribly and downright abused and nothing done.  I think that some of the mods have favoritism with some members of the forum.
If these are the new rules then I can abide by them but don't be suprised on how many members you may lose.