Disclaimers

I have no problem putting in what a link is for, if folks would prefer that when it comes to serious material...rescue....training...breeding...etc.

Be happy to do so in future. In fact given our forums ability to link text, I guess I could make the whole post a link...LOL.

Benedict

Which would people prefer....the current guideline on links, or a disclaimer somewhere in the forum documentation, and for mods to delete ANY post that contains a link without an explanation of what said link is for? 

none of the above

Chuffy

Why not just have a general one up on the main board to cover this

I could be wrong but I could have sworn that this forum has a general disclaimer that the contents of the forum are for entertainment purposes. That any treatment of a pet should be under the guidance of a vet or accredited trainer. To do otherwise is at your own risk, not the risk of the forum provider, host server, Dog.com, or anyone posting therein.

Any book or video published always has a disclaimer to limit the liability of the publisher, the creator or author, etc.

So, there is also a rule in this forum that any links to videos offering advice or methods also be accompanied by a disclaimer as well as relevance to the poster.

The question, I believe in the op, is okay, let's have disclaimers. In which case, to be even-handed, a disclaimer should accompany any advice sought here. For example, someone says their light or air conditioner isn't working right. If I offer advice from my experience and knowledge, I should also include a disclaimer. If you have heartburn and I suggest drinking water with baking soda in it (my personal remedy) then I should include a disclaimer. Fair is fair. A person on a sodium restricted diet or other medication might not do well consuming baking soda. A person trying to fix their dishwasher might get shocked or wet or whatever while trying to follow my advice.

Evidently, the general disclaimer for the forum is not enough or specific enough.

And, of course, all the above is just my opinion. My opinion and $1.50 in Texas will get you a soda.

Benedict

I think repeated complaints from people who aren't overly inclined to complain DOES indicate a problem.

I agree that probably indicates a problem.  But that doesn't address what I said at all. But it's off-topic and useless for me to argue, so I won't.

Benedict

And links would be deleted, if they have no valuable accompanying text, because that amounts to nothing much more than SPAM. 

So, if someone asked how to crate train their dog and I had a great site that I wanted to tell them about, if I just posted the link, it would be deleted? I would have to come up with some text and make it valuable as to not be accused of SPAM? Am I getting this right?

I honestly fail to see how saying "this link (insert here) really helped me with crate training my dog...I didn't follow it exactly, but it has some good tips" or something similar is all that difficult.  It makes the link relevant to the thread, it makes it clear what the link is to...

Within the entire video link guideline...ONE sentence refers to disclaimers.  The rest deals with all of this.  Don't repeatedly post links instead of sharing what you yourself know.  That's it.   If you have experience with the technique used in the video, or on the site, then obviously that is something you can contribute to a thread.  If you don't have experience with the technique used, then the person seeking help should know that, too.  "I haven't tried this, but it looks interesting and like it might work".

I truly don't see what is so difficult to grasp about this.   

DPU

denise m

I seem to remember a discussion a while back about 'someone' posting CM video links and there was some concern expressed about people possibly "trying this at home".  

Here is the thread http://community.dog.com/forums/t/28598.aspx?PageIndex=4

Denise m, IMO the disclaimer is helpful.  In the Dr. Yin thread, the OP endorsed the videos and in one of the videos the trainer created a dog fight as a Proof of the COME command.  Common sense says don't do that at home but that example is an extreme case and people like me who are always trying to solve foster dog problems may not know any better when it is not obviously apparent.  That is how my dog got injured.

You may want to re-read the definition of baiting.  It is baiting to accuse someone publicly of something that they did not do to get a negative reaction.  Well, here it is...

I most certainly did NOT endorse the entire body of work on those videos, and in fact, much to one poster's surprise, agreed with espencer's assessment of some of the things that both of us found incorrect on one video in particular.  What I did do was find it nice to have a grouping of videos by a behaviorist, all on one page, that we could view and comment upon, pro or con.  In fact, I actually posted that I did not agree with everything Dr. Yin does. Now, you are insinuating that I agree with methods that I have not personally endorsed.  Rather than asking me, or accepting that I simply posted the videos for discussion, you now choose to post your own version of my intent, which, incidentally I find to be an appalling lie.  I would suggest that if you are going to post, you post your own opinion of a topic, but refrain from posting what you think is my opinion.  I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself. 

I didn't say anything was difficult. I'm just trying to see if I understand and whether or not this applies to all parts of the board or what. There are many ambiguities being stated here and I'm sure it's all very simple and straightforward in your mind, but it's CLEARLY not wholly understood by the people who are posting on this board or there wouldn't be so many questions about it and issues around it.

Benedict

I truly don't see what is so difficult to grasp about this.

You know... Sometimes, when I ask questions, I just want to say, "Never mind"! It's so hard to get a simple answer without being made to feel like I'm an idiot for asking!

So, have a good thread. I'm done asking questions, I'll just take my chances at having my links deleted. It's not really that important anyway.

Nothing about my post was aimed at you specifically, Carla.  It was aimed at the fact that there ARE so many questions about this.  If I am *ever* unclear in my intentions I apologise, but it's never malicious...clearly members believe that it is, and I would like THAT issue to be resolved once and for all. 

Benedict

Nothing about my post was aimed at you specifically, Carla.  It was aimed at the fact that there ARE so many questions about this.  If I am *ever* unclear in my intentions I apologise, but it's never malicious...clearly members believe that it is, and I would like THAT issue to be resolved once and for all. 

For the record, Kate, even when you are unclear, or I disagree with a policy here, I do not consider your intentions to be malicious.  I think that the current mods all try to be fair, and have a difficult job.  But, I think that difficulty is made even more difficult by trying to pander to all sides.  Truly, I think most forums get along quite well without such specificity in the rules, or over-moderation, when the cardinal rule is "no personal attacks".  Attack a method, attack Cesar Millan, or attack Karen Pryor, just don't attack each other should be the standard for decorum.

spiritdogs

Yet, we have no such requirement for the posting of health advice!!!  We can post links to quack sites if we want to, or make suggestions about how to treat ear infections, but no one bats an eyelash. 

Amen.  There is all kinds of "quack" advice offered in the health section.

Back on topic though, is there some kind of requirement for disclaimers or was that tongue in cheek?  This place is so confusing anymore, I just did a quick looksy and I can't even find the rules.

spiritdogs

For the record, Kate, even when you are unclear, or I disagree with a policy here, I do not consider your intentions to be malicious.  I think that the current mods all try to be fair, and have a difficult job.  But, I think that difficulty is made even more difficult by trying to pander to all sides.  Truly, I think most forums get along quite well without such specificity in the rules, or over-moderation, when the cardinal rule is "no personal attacks".  Attack a method, attack Cesar Millan, or attack Karen Pryor, just don't attack each other should be the standard for decorum.

And that, to me, would be the ideal.  That's ALL I want members on this forum to do.  If every single member could follow that one guideline, I'd never edit anyone again. 

spiritdogs

I most certainly did NOT endorse the entire body of work on those videos, and in fact, much to one poster's surprise, agreed with espencer's assessment of some of the things that both of us found incorrect on one video in particular.  What I did do was find it nice to have a grouping of videos by a behaviorist, all on one page, that we could view and comment upon, pro or con.  In fact, I actually posted that I did not agree with everything Dr. Yin does. Now, you are insinuating that I agree with methods that I have not personally endorsed.  Rather than asking me, or accepting that I simply posted the videos for discussion, you now choose to post your own version of my intent, which, incidentally I find to be an appalling lie.  I would suggest that if you are going to post, you post your own opinion of a topic, but refrain from posting what you think is my opinion.  I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself. 

Well I am so glad to read that you do not endorse that trainer and the situations she sets up.  You did bring the videos to this forum.  You did state you felt you were in a candy shop.  You posted no disclaimer in the thread.  And there is no comment by you in the thread.  I feel all that to me is an endorsement.  I am glad you cleared this up. 

Gesh...lets go back in time when a Mc Donalds drive through employee handed a cup of coffee to a patron and they drove away spilling the coffee on their lap...they sued Mc Donalds and all drive through windows now have a sticker that reminds you that Coffee and Tea are hot....

In this day and age we've forgotten things that can sometime be explained as "common sense". When someone finds something they've found to be enjoyable they share it...especially here! Of course not everyone should "Try this at home"  on all subjects and I know we've covered this in the past in a very detailed manner...move on and stop fighting against each other

 The "candy shop" comment was in relation to finding all those videos gathered on one page.  Sorry if anyone misunderstood that.  I didn't think the videos required a disclaimer, since they were only up for a discussion (the same way we might discuss a book).  And, I admit that I was less than happy at that moment to think that the thread got so derailed, and that I should even need to go back and post disclaimers on material that I did not endorse, just wanted to freely discuss.  For the record, I think you all lost quite an opportunity to have me join in taking a few critical jabs at a well known behaviorist.

spiritdogs

For the record, I think you all lost quite an opportunity to have me join in taking a few critical jabs at a well known behaviorist.

I am reminded of the thread on Jean's video and it was refreshing, even for myself, to point out what I thought was wrong with what she did, as well as statements made by Ian Dunbar, even if I accept their advice in other things. No one is perfect. Alas, we shall never know.