Questions About New TOS? Post Here.

I thought the topic was the new TOS and we are to ask our questions and the Admin and Mods would respond.

Personal Champ and Mods, are there any plans in the making to compliment the new TOS with a restructuring of the forum categories and is there any plans to create guidelines for yourself and Moderators to apply the TOS consistently to all members?
 
Edited to direct my question to the Mods also, since they are a team and speak with one voice.

Doesn't anyone like VODKA???

 
Vodka Martini girl right here Glenda!!!  [sm=headbang2.gif]

ORIGINAL: MhadDog

OH MY..All this talk about alchohol...This could possibly lead any alchoholics to fall off the wagon,besides being off topic...Oh my

![sm=soap%20box.gif] <========= Carrie Nation

 
Thanks Mark.  From those of us that do not drink.[]

denise, it's never the rules, it's how they are interpreted.  I think that it's fair to say that lots of people go off topic, and lots of people post a snarky comment now and then.  But, if you are high profile (for any reason - opinionated, lots of posts, just havin' a bad day), then you attract more attention than if you aren't.  And, it's also fair to say that moderating is a tough job, especially if you have a history, either positive or negative, with a particular poster or posters.  Most people have a job description.  There's almost always a clause in it that says "and any other tasks deemed necessary..." or words to that effect.  So, most people are unaffected.  But, every once in a while the boss decides that Joe Shmo is a jerk (whether he is or not), so the cr*p tasks fall to Joe Shmo until he decides he's had enough and moves on.  So, the TOS is any forum's "job description" for its members.  It only matters whether the admin operates on Theory X or not.  If you are in a certain quadrant, that doesn't bother you (think accountants and bookkeepers), but if you aren't (think artists and writers) maybe it does.  Just a different personal style.  But, to answer your question directly, the last category seems to be directed only at people who post here who are professionals of one sort or another (we have trainers, behaviorists, vets, groomers, and so forth).  I prefer rules that do not suggest that a particular group is going to run afoul by posting their educated opinions.  My question would be, should professionals have to post a disclaimer on every post stating that our opinions are our own and not those of dog.com?  If so, I can always put it in my sig.  Otherwise, it's up to a mod to determine the intent of freely offered professional advice, which, if they don't agree with the advice, could get to be a problem, human nature being what it is.  JMHO, and waiting for clarification on that one.

I, too, accept the fact that we do not have an "official" dog expert designated by the owners of the forum. But we do have dog experts here. People who's 9 to 5 involves dogs directly, be it grooming, training, or vet care. And I don't mind acknowledging someone as an expert in the field, even if he/she doesn't have a television show.

If this were an electrician's board, I wouldn't be the "official" expert. But I have over 2 decades of experience and over 3 decades of study. And a ton of math and science to back it up and nothing can take that away from me. Just the same, anyone could take my advice or leave it but it wouldn't stop me from offering the best that I can. Just the same, if someone who's primary experience with electricity is plugging their computer into an outlet and they wish to disagree with or posit a theory that is totally opposite to reality or experience, I am likely to point out that error and not accept any debate to the opposite. That is, I can patiently tell someone they are wrong and either they accept or don't and hopefully, we move on.[]  And that maybe due to my paradigm, which includes applicable sciences, as well as theoretical.
 

Anne, does it not say somewhere on dog.com or in the t&c when you join, that "members' opinions are that of the individual, not of dog.com" or something?
 
If not then mods/admin: could this not be implemented?  Is there really any need for this rule?  Unless it IS aimed at a person/group of people who appear to some people to be "getting above themselves" in their posting style, I see this rule as redundant....?
 
denise, I dont see the rules as you have posted them as stifling.  But you haven't mentioned the 3strike rule, which is what I am seeing others have the most problems with.
 
I can see where Anne is coming from but I think that it reflects on how things HAVE BEEN recently and assumes that the same will continue under the new TOS.  If mods are going to continue to be as ink-heavy as they have been of late then I do think it will lead to many more members leaving and a great number just choosing not to post... and I do see this as a suppression of ideas, information and expression.  
 
BUT Glenda in particular has made it clear (to me at least) that mods will NOT step in over trivialities any longer.  Because each inking is accompanied by a warning and we ONLY get 3 of those in a quarter before we get the boot, it therefore makes each inking much more serious and will be "saved" for more serious transgressions.  This does tie the mods hands somewhat.  They really cant ink on a whim anymore, which they could, in theory, from what i understand, do before.  This does give members more freedom and should give us the reassurance that we wont be edited over something slight.
 
I don't see the issue with o/t posts anymore, because it has been stated clearly that a warning in this instance will not be issued until after a general public reminder has been posted.  If you can see, in hindsight, that your post(s) went off on a tangent, you can start a spin off thread, or sit on your hands.  Or if they were a bit borderline you could post and say: I know this might SEEM o/t to some, but I think it could be really helpful to the op because.....
 
I think we should give everyones feathers a chance to settle and actually see the TOS "in action".  The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  They may turn out to be just what the dr ordered, despite some of our misgivings.  Or they may turn out to be problematic, possibly in areas we haven't forseen yet.  In which case, judging by this "episode" the mods and admin will LISTEN to what members have to say and then get their heads together and see what needs tweaking.

I hope you get clarification from a mod, but my take on this is:

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
But, to answer your question directly, the last category seems to be directed only at people who post here who are professionals of one sort or another (we have trainers, behaviorists, vets, groomers, and so forth). 

Do you mean this... 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.

All that says (to me) is that dog.com does not endorse any member as a representative expert of dog.com's opinion. And no members are supposed to present themselves that way. In other words, I couldn't say, "This is how we at dog.com feel about socializing German Shepherds. I am the resident expert on GSDs."

I think seeing any more than that is possibly reading something into it that isn't there.

I prefer rules that do not suggest that a particular group is going to run afoul by posting their educated opinions. 

This rule does not suggest that at all. Only if you claim or imply that your opinions are representative of - or that you have been appointed by - the dog.com entity will you be breaking that rule. You are free to share your educated opinions.

General Warning,

This thread has been offered for you:

ORIGINAL: Personal Champ

Alright. Here is the place to ask any questions regarding the new TOS. The mods and I will check in here several times a day, but if your question is urgent, please feel free to contact us via email or PM.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation!

ETA: This is an open floor for polite requests and discussion, arguements or personal attacks will close it. If you are uncomfortable posting publicly, you can always contact one of our Moderators privately.

Off-topic and sarcastic posting, or using this as a platform for other purposes will result in post edits/warnings/strikes.

Please feel free to ask questions here.

I see the no dog.com appointed or recognized experts as a disclaimer.  A bit like the caution on the Micky D's coffee cups....caution, contents are hot.  It basically means that if you dump the coffee on your lap and get burnt it isn't their fault....and here my thinking is that if you take X's advice and get your faced ripped off, it isn't dog.com's fault either.
 
So, my middle aged, muddled thinking is that this is just an exercize in CYOA.  I could be totally off base, but that's my thinking anyhow.
 
I am the self proclaimed expert on nothing.  Yeah, I'm an old broad with a lot of doggie experience under my belt, but I always want to make very clear that I am not an expert on any specific topic....unless maybe it's housetraining a whole litter at a time. []  And I do this because folks know that I've been around the block a few dozen times and I don't want anyone to think my suggestions come from the mountain top.
 
Yet, we do have experts in certain fields as forum members and their advice and suggestions are invaluable.  Anne with training, Callie with wierd dog illness's, and many others.  I don't believe that it is the INTENT of dog.com to silence those folks, but rather to provide a layer of insulation to protect themselves in the event that ANY advice given on this forum misses the mark.
 
That's my opinion as a mere mortal and I'm sticking to it!

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

ORIGINAL: MhadDog

OH MY..All this talk about alchohol...This could possibly lead any alchoholics to fall off the wagon,besides being off topic...Oh my

![sm=soap%20box.gif] <========= Carrie Nation

Thanks Mark.  From those of us that do not drink.[]

  Thank goodness you do not drink Ed..Drinking leads to...[sm=vomit03.gif]

There are a couple folks who are the verge of backseat moderating.  I know that you are simply trying to help, but I've gotten a complaint so lets leave the modding to the mods please.

ORIGINAL: glenmar

Yet, we do have experts in certain fields as forum members and their advice and suggestions are invaluable.  Anne with training, Callie with wierd dog illness's, and many others.  I don't believe that it is the INTENT of dog.com to silence those folks, but rather to provide a layer of insulation to protect themselves in the event that ANY advice given on this forum misses the mark.

That's my opinion as a mere mortal and I'm sticking to it!

 
Glenda, that makes such perfect sense.  A disclaimer ... sort of a "the management is not responsible" sort of thing. Maybe it's  just the way it was originally worded that's causing confusion.  If it was rewritten to sound more like your explanation, probably everybody would get it. We really don't want anyone to feel hesitant about offering advice or suggestions to someone seeking them.
 
Joyce

 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

I might be breaking a rule right now for quoting this... who knows.... too many rules are hard to follow.  But this statement sums it up in my mind.  There have been a lot of problems on this forum for the past months... many are caused by the same people. I do not think that most of us have caused problem at all,,,I like Cathy have never been warned or red inked or got into any problems here other then some nasty remarks made my sometimes nasty people. 
But I dont' feel that I or many of the posters that have gone out of their way to be nice,,,should be put in the same catagory or risks as the trouble makers. 
I do feel that the administration and moderators are making a great effort to straighten this board after many months of trouble and hurt. I hope we can all appreciate it and try to help them change the negatives to positives.  Perhaps if the "blunt" people will change their tone...the overly sensitive people will no longer feel threatened and that alone will help so much.
 Thumbs up to the moderators that are trying to keep peace.   I truely believe that the informal warnings by some of them are helping to keep our bounderies without making more hurt feelings, and I think it would be a disservice to  the forum to loose them.

Maybe the answer to our woes lies in the old phrase "everything in moderation".................including moderation.

I have a question to the Admin or Mods.  Does the CM section rules override the TOS's 3 strike rule.  Its disciplinary action seems to state only being restricted from posting in that area.  Also, my other question was not addressed.   
 
ORIGINAL: Personal Champ
This area has been created for those who enjoy C.M and wish to discuss his training, the show and his methods. If you practice other methods of training, there are additional areas available where you would most likely enjoy yourself more, please visit there and contribute.

Although this is a specific area for specific members, all members are welcome as long as they follow the rules and show respect for this area's participants. Breaking these rules, constant sidetracking the topic with training method debates, inflammatory posts, or displaying a general pattern of disruption may result in temporary or permanent removal from this area.

If you find yourself wondering if you should post what you're about to write, please reference the forum rules before doing so: [linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=297451]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=297451[/link].