Disclaimers

spiritdogs

 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.

 

I am really interested to know if you reviewed the videos before creating that thread.  For the life of me I can not understand why you would not post a simple warning that the videos showed the trainer creating a dog fight to proof her COME command or the video showing the trainer punching the dog, or conducting training session in the street or showing a sexually aroused stallion.  The thread is still open for you to make comments.

DPU

showing a sexually aroused stallion

It also extends to urinate.

DPU

that the videos showed the trainer creating a dog fight to proof her COME command

In an episode of DW, which was getting mentioned all the time and has it own video link sticky, CM was walking a DA white GSD with another one of his dogs amidst his infamous pack. The GSD started a fight with the other dog and CM broke it up, noting that sometimes you have to allow the bad behavior to happen in order to correct it. So his is a sin of omission as opposed to a sin of comission. That is, there is already a precedent of setting up a scene for bad behavior in order to show how to deal with it. Another example is Jean's video with the leash-aggressive dog, not formerly acclimated to the equipment and being exposed to dogs nearby to show how the equipment works and how to use it and in some cases, imo, how to not use it. Either none have thread disclaimers or they all have thread disclaimers.

As for the initiation of the Yin video thread, maybe future threads can be constructed from what we learn here.

 I guess I have been away for a bit as I must have missed this "disclaimer" requirement. I do recall asking the question once that if CM links need a disclaimer then what about others. I sure hope that my question was not the reason for this ludicrous requirement.

 So is the requirement for everyone who posts a suggestion in regards to training? Is it just for professionals?

 Whatever it is silly IMO and it does (as Amstaff states) bring back memories of hot coffee and McDonalds. It should be sufficient to place a disclaimer in the formum rules and require you to type a yes when you join stating that you have read the rules. That should cover you for the idiots who do not know that coffee is hot. To require everyone that posts advice about training to add a disclaimer is insane. How are you going to police that? Also what about the other areas, like health (as Spirit stated) or even the non-dog related ones? Surely if we have to have a discalimer for dog training then we need one for personal advice?

 So to conclude it looks like I can advice you to perfom an at home neuter operation with a pair of scissors, and a curling iron and thus save yourself a couple of hundred dollars without the need to add a disclaimer, but if I suggest that you teach your dog a special word for going pee and poop and that you take him out whenever he wakes or after he eats to potty I need a disclaimer?

Edited to add: Ok I see that it is a link that must have a disclaimer. So I can tell you how to perform that at home operation, but if post a link to it then I need a disclaimer. Sorry it still does not make sense to me. Post the one for all disclaimer in the rules, that should be enough.

Disclaimer: Please think and consider and use the brain that God gave you before using any advice that I or any other person, be they professional or not should happen to give you. And remember Coffee is normally served HOT.

spiritdogs

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. 

I have to agree. Personally I think it would work best if the mods had a very clear, overarching idea of what they wanted from the forum posters and then developed more of a "too bad, deal with it" kind of attitude for their decisions. Sometimes it seems like mods get sucked in to the bickering, which no doubt is less than fun for them and less than helpful for everyone else. In my view, if person A disagrees with person B and wants to be snarky about it, as long as they're not way over the top, bully for them. If it crosses the line, a quick edit with minimal discussion. IMO, the mods shouldn't (and shouldn't feel a need to) defend themselves nearly as much as they do. If someone's upset, tough noogies, they can get the dispute arbitrated if it's a big enough deal.

From the outside, it looks like some people go complain to the mods whenever they're feeling unpleasant, and the mods then get upset and try to change the rules to avoid the need for any future complaints, but then people complain about the changes and complain about people not adhering to the changes and everyone's still unhappy plus the mods are a lot more stressed out. It seems like it would work best just to have some very clear, general rules, and if people complain, well, "too bad, deal with it." It doesn't seem like creating rules for very specific situations (such as posting videos or offering training advice) is serving the board's needs very well.

JMO, expressed in the very unlikely chance that it might help. ;) Overall kudos to the mods, who do a generally super job.

Cita

IMO, the mods shouldn't (and shouldn't feel a need to) defend themselves nearly as much as they do. If someone's upset, tough noogies, they can get

I agree. As long as it does not include personal insults, racial slurs, crude language. It's too easy to say "well, you said this then you must be against that." For example, you say that you use +R and some assumes then, that you never use + or - P which is not what you said but reconstructing your opinion helps to set up a straw boss. We used to have an attorney here that was a master at that style of debate. No doubt, that style of debate helped her in court (a child and family advocate). Eventually, without red ink or near the stress on mods and admin, people just started ignoring that poster and the poster went away. I'm not saying that poster was a troll. But sometimes, when you refuse to play somone's game, they go somewhere else.

Cita

Overall kudos to the mods, who do a generally super job

Most definitely agreed.

spiritdogs

But, I think that difficulty is made even more difficult by trying to pander to all sides.

Yes. There should be no pandering to anyone.  

Cita

Personally I think it would work best if the mods had a very clear, overarching idea of what they wanted from the forum posters and then developed more of a "too bad, deal with it" kind of attitude for their decisions.

That is how the best-run forums on the Internet are run. But first there has to be a CLEAR T&C. Without that standard, to which every post can be measured, everything is just a matter of opinion and dependent on people's moods and friendships. Anytime someone gets edited, there should be a place a mod can point and say, "There. That's the rule you broke." In the few times I've been edited, I have NEVER heard what rule I broke and I've asked many times. And what's worse is someone else committed the same supposed infraction that I did a few pages before, but because no one complained, they didn't get edited.

People have been suspended with NO formal warning. There is nothing written about formal warnings. It can be adjusted as seen fit. Where are the rules we're supposed to follow here? If there are no rules, why do people get edited and warned?

Cita

IMO, the mods shouldn't (and shouldn't feel a need to) defend themselves nearly as much as they do.

And if the rules were clear, they wouldn't have to.

Excellent post, Cita.  

FourIsCompany

And what's worse is someone else committed the same supposed infraction that I did a few pages before, but because no one complained, they didn't get edited.

It was explained to me once. If an abuse report is not generated, the mods may not see it until sometime later.

ron2

In an episode of DW, which was getting mentioned all the time and has it own video link sticky, CM was walking a DA white GSD with another one of his dogs amidst his infamous pack. The GSD started a fight with the other dog and CM broke it up, noting that sometimes you have to allow the bad behavior to happen in order to correct it....

...Another example is Jean's video with the leash-aggressive dog, not formerly acclimated to the equipment and being exposed to dogs nearby to show how the equipment works and how to use it and in some cases, imo, how to not use it.

If that is the CM video I am thinking, then the show producers had the descency to cut away and not show the actual fight.  In the Jean video, if I remember correctly the video showed the dog reacting but not making contact.  In the Dr. Yin video, she purposely set the scene up for a dog fight only to show her method of teaching the COME command works. 

ron2

It was explained to me once. If an abuse report is not generated, the mods may not see it until sometime later.

So what? If a complaint is made, even some time later, shouldn't the offending post still be edited? Isn't it clear that saying, "we didn't get a complaint on that one, so we'll just leave it" or "That post was made yesterday, we can't very well edit it now..."  gives the appearance of "unfairness"? It makes it so that if you "get away with it" it's okay. LOL It actually encourages people to complain to make sure that everyone is held to the same standards.

There.  

 The horse is dead - you guys can stop beating it now.
 

The original icon looked nothing like that.....lol

ron2

Eventually, without red ink or near the stress on mods and admin, people just started ignoring that poster and the poster went away. I'm not saying that poster was a troll.

She was actually driven off the board after a long and nasty campaign.

ron2

But sometimes, when you refuse to play somone's game, they go somewhere else.

Only in theory! It is just way too tempting to go for the bait and there are some very good anglers on this board.

I agree that the mods do a very good job but often it does appear they get caught up in the politics - but lets not forget that they are only human and like all of us they can have sensitivities to personalities, tones or topics.  

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

is this website worried about a potential lawsuit?

if so, then why doesn't just a single disclaimer listed in the TOS which needs to be clicked with an "I agree" upon signup

seems that would cover all bases for the 0.00001% chance somebody walks away from this site, screws up, and sues

and then we don't have to have the page get cluttred up with disclaimers at the bottom of each post containing a video or within a person's signature box - as it now stands, it looks rediculous

the rulebook just keeps on getting thicker and thicker. why not go the other direction?

lostcoyote

if so, then why doesn't just a single disclaimer listed in the TOS which needs to be clicked with an "I agree" upon signup

I like that idea.

lostcoyote

and then we don't have to have the page get cluttred up with disclaimers at the bottom of each post containing a video or within a person's signature box - as it now stands, it looks rediculous

Maybe so but it has become necessary. I know you're referring to Spiritdog's sig. She might even agree that it looks a bit too weighty, though it doesn't take up as much space as your sig. Well, now, she doesn't have to worry about posting a disclaimer if she links a vid. A few complained on her and I don't know what all of that interaction was but it was enough to ask her to post a disclaimer. Now, she has one, lest she forget when linking a vid, or even offering advice. And, as far as I know, it is not against the rules to put a disclaimer in your sig. Should we make another rule for that? When does it end? Will it end? IMHO, continually harping, sometimes on one person, seems to be a raison d'ete, entertaining in and of itself. A reward that exceeds any punishment or correction so far from the mods or admin. Allow me a smug moment as I prove how strong reward motivation is, strong enough to endure through corrections....Thanks, I needed that.