Questions About New TOS? Post Here.

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote



should a "parking violation" receive the same punishment as "armed robbery?"

Off Topic is a particularily tricky one to be sure. 99% of the time it is just a natural flow in conversation or sparks a related but separate topic that is not applicable to the original thread topic/question. In those cases I now expect a general, informal warning to either get back on topic or start a new thread. I would not expect to see a red-ink edit. However where it gets tricky is when thread are intentionally derailed by a flurry of off topic discussion between two or more posters in an attempt to disrupt the opinions being expressed by a particular poster. This was one of the concerns brought up in the "Moderators" thread. In this case, I see it as a flagrant violation of TOS. So to suggest that all "off topic" should only be considered a minor violation is incorrect IMO.

from TOS:

Rule 5: Keep personal conversations private
Posts should be of interest to everyone, not just a select few. Use personal email or private topics if you're only addressing one or two people.

 

Violations of the above TOS will be dealt with using a "3 Strikes” policy.

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. If the need arises for a third warning, a suspension, between 1 and 7 days, depending on severity, will be put in place. Suspensions are cumulative and never disappear from a member's record.

for example, last night, i asked someone what kind of work they were in. it was in violation of rule number 5 being both, a personally directed post as well as an off topic post. i was simply curious - BUT if you go by the black and white rules here, i should be given a strike for having done this.


yes or no?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

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.

OK, so then a off-topic is only a violation of the TOS if said post is made in direct defiance to the mod's request to put the thread back on topic, right?

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote
BUT if you go by the black and white rules here, i should be given a strike for having done this.

Not necessarily. If moderation were easy, if it was always a "black and white" thing, it would all be crystal clear and there would never have to be conversations about judgments made or whether or not something was a violation. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. In my opinion, asking a person's vocation in a thread could very well be on topic when discussing dog behavior and it could be of interest to the discussion and to the others participating in the thread.

It's a judgment call. That's why it's important for the administration to pick people for the moderation positions that they feel can make wise judgment calls.

ORIGINAL: sillysally
OK, so then a off-topic is only a violation of the TOS if said post is made in direct defiance to the mod's request to put the thread back on topic, right?

I don't read it that way. Again, it's a judgment call. I would think if a member willfully tries to take a thread off-topic they could be warned for it without a mod's request. For example, if a poster starts a thread looking for a new dogfood and it's going along and I come in and make a post like, "What do you guys think about the way Cesar Millan feeds his dogs? He makes them wait for their food like he's some kind of king and they are his servants. I hate the way he feeds his dogs. He also puts his hands in their dogfood so it has "his smell" on it, That's sickening. Don't you think"?

I would expect to get a warning. I'm intelligent enough to know that this is OT and I don't need a moderator babysitting me to tell me so.

I think this encourages us to stay on topic, check back with the original post to be sure we're contributing and to remind others to keep the thread on topic ourselves and start new threads for new topics. Nobody wants to see warnings being given.

Well, hopefully a mod will be able to make it clear.  I'm like a dog--I like to know what's expected of me.  I know when I am being rude, but there have been times when I've been truely blind-sided by being declared off-topic.

thanks.
 
i think i got what i wanted to see out of these postings.
 
a lot of times, i will make postings on the fly... which is where many of my off topics come from. an occasional "lol" or an occasional "thumbs up" might be all that a post of mine might contain. althoiugh they could be considered off topics directed at another members post, i was wondering, with the new TOS whether i would be getting strike after strike and then "da'boot... yur outta here buddy"
 
i do think the occasional "thumbs up" or "lol"'s add to a msg boards candor and camaraderie.

Hmm..I see my post was partailly left unanswered.
How does the mod decide what the intent is from someone who is very blunt and there is no namecalling? 
So how can one disagree with someone without offending them?  I really do not think it is possible.
Glenda my post was not intended to blast at you or this particular forum..but how things have been handled on the horse forum.
I hope that there will not be any favoritism shown on here to anyone...no one can slide as before on here or on the other forum.  If your changing the rules then enforce them...no one gets a break if they are in violation.
I do believe that if something is said bluntly that the party that osted should have a chance to say what the intent was before getting blown off here.
So why no hyperlinks to non-comercial sites...such as dogster....you don't have to click it if you do not want to?
What about hyperlinks in posts for more information for people is that against the rules?
The rules are still vague at best...more explanation is needed for some of them....they need to be black and white.  Look at them and see if they can be intepreted in more then one way...if so then you need to fix them.
Another thing why haven't the posters who have been on here not able to have a say as to how things should be handled? 

Hmmm just wondering is there anything wrong with my signature?
 
The TOS seems a bit much...there are terms that I would use but can't because the terms may be considered in violation.  For lack of better words I guess I can say that I think that it will lead us down a path we really don't want to go. 
 
How strict will this TOS be and is there anyway that the person in violation able to appeal  and prove their side or will their side be irrevalant?
 
I have spoken bluntly and people take it the wrong way because they read more into it then intended.  Some people take things for more then what they are worth.
 
I can see possible doom for this forum if no one can express their opinion bluntly...if no name calling or other inflammatory statements are made.
 
These new rules really need to be looked over carefully...I do see too many holes.  What one considers offensive someone else may not.  The forum has already lost its charm it had for many and with the new rules may send people running for another forum.  I used to post regularly practically everday on dog and horse forum...but I do not anymore.
 
Debating and discussing is fun as long as it doesn't become a slamfest.  Having mods who are members on the board could be detrimental....whereas having those who have no connection on here may be more fair.
 
OK now that I have most likely offended people I will go and wait for my TOS....
 
BTW nothing I typed was intended to offend people but just trying to bring up some things which may have been overlooked and not looked at thoroughly.

ORIGINAL: Firestorm
Hmm..I see my post was partailly left unanswered.

I did address a few of your earlier questions. Sorry if I missed a few.

How does the mod decide what the intent is from someone who is very blunt and there is no namecalling?

 
As Glenda stated, if you disagree with an edit you should PM the mod with your concerns/explaination. If you are still not satisfied you have the option of contacting Personal Champ who has the authority to reverse the mods decision.

So how can one disagree with someone without offending them?  I really do not think it is possible.

With all due respect, I have been posting for over 4 years and have often disagreed with other members. I have never been edited or received a PM from someone I have disagreed with. You can certainly be both blunt and passionate without crossing the line.

I do believe that if something is said bluntly that the party that posted should have a chance to say what the intent was before getting blown off here.

If your 'bluntness' is misunderstood and/or not intended to offend you certainly have the chance to post an apology and an explaination. I see (and respect) a lot of members apologsze for being blunt or harsh after the fact. If you want to agru the point or challenge the edit, it should go to PM.

So why no hyperlinks to non-comercial sites...such as dogster....you don't have to click it if you do not want to?
What about hyperlinks in posts for more information for people is that against the rules?

I think it is in bad taste to promote competing websites. I'm sure they would not appreciate our memebers promoting dog.com on their site either. The rule actually says REPEATEDLY referring to competitors' sites is considered Spam. So directing someone to another site for addition information is allowed.

Another thing why haven't the posters who have been on here not able to have a say as to how things should be handled? 

I think everyone got to express their opinions on how things should be handled. There are no special privileges granted due to your post count.

ORIGINAL: Firestorm
These new rules really need to be looked over carefully...I do see too many holes.  What one considers offensive someone else may not. 

I don't see a big difference in these TOS and the old ones. The old ones mentioned being offensive and rude too. What's new with these TOS that is bothering people? They're NOT very different at all. Especially in terms of being offensive. It's ALWAYS been against the rules, hasn't it?

I think everyone got to express their opinions on how things should be handled. There are no special privileges granted due to your post count.

 
LOL never said anything about "special privileges".
 
As far as sigs are concerned...no one has to click them...btw.  Free choice to do that or not.
 
I can follow the new rules but I do find some to be asinine..but that is my opinion.  Like I said before some people cannot take someone else's opinion without offense.
 
I guess I have brought forth pessimism but I see that with more stringent rules that can be interpreted in different ways a fault that may cause more dissention and people leaving.
 
 

But is it in the best interest for the masses to police themselves or for there to be "police" on the board to do it?

Not everyone can be fair and police properly..therefore having the masses doing it can be detrimental.

I don't see anywhere in the rules where it says that the masses will be policing themselves. Of course, self-moderation will make the forum a happier place. We don't want to police anyone!
 
FourIsCompany and Denise M, you have hit the nail on the head in regards to your intrepretations of the new TOS. Thank you for posting so eloquently.

Personal Champ, or mods--

So then a off-topic is only a violation of the TOS if said post is made in direct defiance to the mod's request to put the thread back on topic *or* it is an blatent attempt to derail a thread, right?

I realize that other memebers have voiced their own interpretations concerning this but since it will be the mods and not other members that will be handling any disiplinary actions I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak....[]

Did I get lost in the shuffle?All I asked was if I could change my login name.When I came upon this site ,I assumed you use your email to get in----now I see no one uses their e-mail for a name. IS THIS SUCH A BIG DEAL?One minute I'm communicating and next thing, nothing.What is going on? I find this a very usefull and interesting site, but it doesn't pay for everyone to get worked up