Questions About New TOS? Post Here.

This forum is made up of living, breathing beings.  It is in a constant state of change.  We are running as fast as we can to keep up with those changes and to accomodate the variety of opinions we hear.  We are not perfect.  We are humans.  If I make a mistake in judgement, which, by golly, is not hard to do on this forum, then email Kelly and let her be the final voice.  I have NO problem with Kelly saying "hey, I think you screwed up on that one" and her reversing my decision.  I have no problem with a member emailing me and saying that they don't agree with my stance, so long as they are not rude and beligerent with me.  I won't necessarily reverse my position, but, I will listen, and who knows, being NICE might actually work if I feel that I acted unwisely.
 
This stuff has just got to stop.  We, as a group, seem unable to agree on anything at all these days.  Folks are getting snarky and folks are getting hurt feelings.........
 
We worked hard and long to come up with rules that would be fair to everyone.  The old rules *might* have been fine, but they were all too often ignored.  How about cutting us some slack.  We're trying.

ORIGINAL: glenmar
How about cutting us some slack.  We're trying.

There's no hug emoticon... [&o] Hugs to you...

Am I getting this right?

Q: If a moderator edits a post, does that automatically equal a "formal warning" (strike)?
Does red ink = Formal Warning? 

A: Not necessarily. If a moderator edits a post for what they determine to be a "minor issue" (going off topic or getting a little snippy or whatever), a PM will be sent to alert the member, but it won't be considered a "formal warning" and that will be the end of it. If the same member continues to act in the same manner or if the infraction is more serious, an edit will be made and a formal warning will be sent by PM. The PM will indicate that it is a "Formal Warning".

Formal Warning = Strike -- Three in 3 months and you're out.

Is that right?

We worked hard and long to come up with rules that would be fair to everyone. The old rules *might* have been fine, but they were all too often ignored. How about cutting us some slack. We're trying.

Glenda - I appreciate all you do and always have.  I appreciate the good intentions of you and the other moderators and the admin, but if the previous rules were ignored, why would anyone expect that new rules won't be ignored.  If the old rules were fine, then wouldn't it have been sufficient to just enforce those rules?  Why new ones and why so prescriptive?  I've never been red-inked and I've been around a very long time but if everyone's concerns are well-founded, then I probably will be soon.  I'm pretty darn sure that if you were strictly a participant and not a moderator, you'd be having some heartburn with these changes. The majority of us aren't children, don't act like children and shouldn't be treated like children.  For the ones who do, deal with them separately.  Sorry...done venting now.  And Glenda [sm=peace.gif] - seriously.  I think you do a great job! []

A: Not necessarily. If a moderator edits a post for what they determine to be a "minor issue" (going off topic or getting a little snippy or whatever), a PM will be sent to alert the member, but it won't be considered a "formal warning" and that will be the end of it. If the same member continues to act in the same manner or if the infraction is more serious, an edit will be made and a formal warning will be sent by PM. The PM will indicate that it is a "Formal Warning".

i believe this is what it should be.

it needs to be included in the TOS worded like this because as it now stands, it is not clear whether a post edit automatically results in an automatic strike.

i like the idea of:

a moderator post edit without a PM "warning" does not equal a strike

and

a moderator post edit WITH a corresponding PM warning DOES equal a strike.

When we edit it will be because you have violated the TOS.  Period.  TOS edits will earn a formal warning.  This serves to make members self moderate by paying more attention to the TOS, and also to make us less likely to edit unless absolutely needed since we are all aware of the consequences.

Very clear. Thank you! [sm=happy.gif]

ORIGINAL: glenmar

When we edit it will be because you have violated the TOS.  Period.  TOS edits will earn a formal warning.  This serves to make members self moderate by paying more attention to the TOS, and also to make us less likely to edit unless absolutely needed since we are all aware of the consequences.

So going off topic is not a red ink offence anymore?  Or is it?

I'm really not trying to be a pain, I'm just still confused......[8D]

ORIGINAL: DPU

From the TOS:
Additionally, there are no dog.com appointed in-house experts in any topic areas. No members are permitted to present themselves in a pattern of posting that suggests they hold such a position.
 
Personal Champ, can this be clarified.  Not sure why this is part of the TOS.  I am not seeing a clear crossover line between one's expertise derived from personal experience, professional experience, or self taught experience and how that becomes "claiming to be the in-house expert".  The "claiming"  part seems to be very subjective and possibly characterized as such because of their passion in the topic area. 

I don't see where anyone here has ever done that.  (I don't recall ever getting any of my paychecks from dog.com either, but if that's a mistake.....[]).  I don't understand the point of the rule if no one has ever said that they represent dog.com. 

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I don't see where anyone here has ever done that.  (I don't recall ever getting any of my paychecks from dog.com either, but if that's a mistake.....[]).  I don't understand the point of the rule if no one has ever said that they represent dog.com. 

 
The other day a member referred to another member as the Forum's [insert breed] Expert.  I am not sure who broke the rule, the one that annointed or the one being annointed.

ORIGINAL: glenmar

This stuff has just got to stop.  We, as a group, seem unable to agree on anything at all these days.  Folks are getting snarky and folks are getting hurt feelings.........

Exactly, Glenda! This must be so frustrating for you guys. There has been many complaints, criticism, objections and suggestions expressed by members concerning the moderation on the forum. I applaud your tolerance and generousity in allowing the free and open discussion that occurred on the "Moderation" thread. Everyone had the opportunity to express their concerns and in turn the admin has respectfully listened and has now issued new TOS to address the isses WE brought forward. Thank you!

For the most part, the new TOS are nothing new. No inappropriate language, be respectful, no personal attacks, do not engage in personal one on one conversations within a thread, no double posting, no selling or solicitation, stay on topic or start a new thread.

As for Rule 4: Address forum problems privately, I totally support that. I think it is inappropriate to call the moderators out publicly. They deserve the same respect as the members on the forum. You can not start a thread complaining about another member or accusing them of stalking etc. The same respect should be given the mods. Take it to PM. Same for "back seat moderators". It is not our place to judge if a thread should be closed or an individual edited. As many have stated, we all have different levels of sensibilities. If you have a concern or objection alert the admin and let them make the call or just avoid that particular thread.

In regards to particular concerns:
"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."

If you are uncertain how your words will be received it is best to err on the side of caution. If you have unintentionally crossed the line the fact that you recieve an Offical Warning should clear it up and help you better understand where the 'line' is for future posts.

"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."

One could also say that some long time members tend to receive more leeway in their posting style and newbies can be subjected to unwarrented abuse. The TOS is obviously addressing this. I get the clear impression that the rules will apply equally across the board.

Additionally, there are no dog.com appointed in-house experts....
"I don't see where anyone has ever done that."

If no one has ever done this, then there is no problem. It does not apply to any current members but I feel it is worth putting out there incase it ever does become an issue. Just a matter of covering the bases. IMO

Again, I would like to thank the admin and mods for listening and addressing the membership concerns. Because not everyone agreed on the problems or the solutuions, not everyone will agree with the new TOS. You can't please all the people all of the time. LOL

So going off topic is not a red ink offence anymore? Or is it?

I'm really not trying to be a pain, I'm just still confused......

I don't want to speak out of turn, but the way I understand it now is that if you are red inked/edited, you should expect a formal warning in your PM box b/c you have violated TOS.  My guess is that if you are off-topic or need some gentle reprimand, the mod would PM you and ask you to edit your own post, or ask that the thread remain on topic, but not just go ahead and start red-inking.  Sounds fair, logical, and reasonable to me, but someone correct me if I'm wrong.....

according to what i read as black and white:
 
going off topic will earn you a strike
flaming someone will earn you a strike
 
 
going off topic is akin to a parking violation
flaming someone is akin to armed robbery.
 
 
should a "parking violation" receive the same punishment as "armed robbery?"
 
 
that is why i think applying equal punishment across the rule section is unfair. a minor infraction (going off topic and getting red-inked for it) will give you the same punishment (a strike) as maliciously flaming another person..... at least that is what is laid down on paper here.
 
whether the moderators adhere to the literal is another thing. they could simply red-ink an off topic without giving a PM warning/strike.

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote

according to what i read as black and white:

going off topic will earn you a strike
flaming someone will earn you a strike


going off topic is akin to a parking violation
flaming someone is akin to armed robbery.

See, that's how I read it too.....

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote
according to what i read as black and white:

going off topic will earn you a strike

Can you quote the part of the TOS where you read this? Because I can't find it.

Thanks so much to members who have expressed support and understanding regarding our policy changes and the benefits they will provide to the forum and the membership. Thanks, also, to those of you who have taken the time to carefully read the new policies, and have come here with respectful questions. []

Regarding off-topic posting:

If you continue to "hijack" a thread after a moderator has publicly asked for the thread to get back on topic, you'll receive an edit/warning/strike.

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.

It will not be the policy of the Moderation team to PM members with informal suggestions for post edits.