Announcement to Content Creators

[Guest]

—————

Anybody posting anything on the Internet on any website must keep in mind any secret shared is no secret at all, and as such is the complete responsibility of those sharing the secret and with whom they share it. As such, any content creators or rights-holders would likely do well to become familiar with the procedures and policies of whatever site you post your (secret) information. If secrecy of content or personal identity is important, then I think that should be continuously kept in mind by the concerned member of such a website.

In general for any person posting content on the Internet, blaming your neighbors (i.e. other websites on the Internet) for what your friend said to your neighbors about your conversation with your friend is misplacing the responsibility shared by you and your friend (or ex-friend, or secured website) in agreeing to keep a secret between the two of you. Asking the world to forget what it has heard or seen from the fallout between you and your (ex-)friend is, well, quite hopeful, to say the least. I think everyone has to choose their friends or secured websites wisely (ha! I know, who's perfect?), keep them in check, and try not to let their neighbors get hit by the fallout from a (ex-)friend's postings.

And may the members of secured websites have patience with their website admins who claim their website is secure, for certainly the admins's intentions are true and they will continuously adapt as needed.

Agreed. I didn't know about this website until this morning when the post came up here. I'll happily take down any links that show up on AVEN for you guys because safety > archives.

Actually, if any person feels unsafe with their content up, please PM myself or another admin. The policy is still being hammered out but I think we can deal with those threads right now.

[Guest]

I would also like to point out.

Just because we don't have to take down legally something doesn't mean we shouldn't. The question we really must ask is what is more important, maintaining an archive of a bunch of blog posts or maintaining a good relationship with other asexual communities? Is an archive really worth it, if it further isolates AVEN from everyone else? To me, the latter is much more valuable and so I think(and I hugely stress this is my own opinion and in no way reflective of the team's stance) it's better to remove whatever content including links the bloggers want removed rather than save it for the sake of history.

[Siggy]

Ok, let's say that you take down AVEN. Is that what you want? AVEN is a part of the asexual community too. Is tearing at the community and shutting down a part of it what you really want?

No it's not. But as I said before, AVEN had been twiddling their thumbs since March, and only started to address the issue when people got angry and made threats.

The anger and threats are good for getting our attention, but now you've got it and now I feel like all they are doing is creating more animosity and furthering distancing the communities from each other. I'm not trying to say that you aren't justified being angry, in my opinion, you totally are, just that it's hard to have an honest and open discussion in public when you feel your head is going to get bitten off if you say something wrong.

I am first and foremost going to look at getting that WW policy changed and then hopefully we can have a civil collaborative discussion on what sort of policy we can have that will be good for all involved.

I have some thoughts that I will post later after I do the million other things on my post-vacation to-do list.

Thank you. I do want the admod team to have time to consider all the details of the new policy.

Edit: We cross-posted, but also thank you for above comment.

[Guest]

Okay so ideas (these are just brainstorming and my own ideas not the team's, you know the deal)

-Stop archiving blog posts and focus on archiving news articles and media appearances. Blog posts can still be posted in WW, we just won't worry about retaining a full copy of them for history.

-Only quote a full news/media article a year after they are posted. Big media corporations are unlikely to make copyright claims on year old articles. This could also potentially be done with blog posts, but only with the creator's permission. The alternative is to archive these things offline/off-AVEN so there is no risk involved.

-Allow blog posts to be posted onto AVEN without prior permission so long as it is just a link and a small exerpt. If the creator wants it removed, remove it.

-Maintain a "do not post" list for blogs that do no wish any of their articles to be posted on AVEN ever. Any posts from these blogs will be immediately removed unless the author gives permission for it to be posted.

Another thing we need is a better, faster and more consistent way to communicate with content creators

[Sennkestra]

Okay so ideas (these are just brainstorming and my own ideas not the team's, you know the deal)

-Stop archiving blog posts and focus on archiving news articles and media appearances. Blog posts can still be posted in WW, we just won't worry about retaining a full copy of them for history.

-Only quote a full news/media article a year after they are posted. Big media corporations are unlikely to make copyright claims on year old articles. This could also potentially be done with blog posts, but only with the creator's permission. The alternative is to archive these things offline/off-AVEN so there is no risk involved.

-Allow blog posts to be posted onto AVEN without prior permission so long as it is just a link and a small exerpt. If the creator wants it removed, remove it.

-Maintain a "do not post" list for blogs that do no wish any of their articles to be posted on AVEN ever. Any posts from these blogs will be immediately removed unless the author gives permission for it to be posted.

Another thing we need is a better, faster and more consistent way to communicate with content creators

These are all pretty good idea!. WRT to archiving news posts and such though, I'd still avoiding have full forum based copies, even after a year. I'd leave the link and excerpt, and keep any full copies privately where they can be shared only upon request and only with that individual.

Also, if you want to be really ideal, you could do what actual archives and libraries do, which is buy a copy of the publication containing the article. You can also write to the publisher and ask if they would be willing to donate copies for free, which many will do, especially if they interviewed AVENites. (you can also request this as a condition when doing interviews).

Another step would be to ask if any bloggers would be willing to have their materials archived, or even help archive themsleves - while not all will be open to this idea, I suspect that many will if a project is properly structured.

Also good would be for archive organizers to make contact with any archivist/librarian associations/local librarians/information science or library studies students/etc. dto see if there are any interested in helping with advice and guidance.

I know there's also another thread that was started recently about making an alternate library/archive project, which is definitely a good idea to look into. ETA: here it is: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/123400-want-to-start-an-asexuality-community-library/#entry1061349784

And yeah, communication is a biggie. Even if you can't respond immediately, or if an issues has been taken care of in the meantime, you should still send a short message to confirm that you got the message, and let them know what the expected wait is if you need to wait on a full reply - like, I messaged admins about taking down a post quite early yesterday and still have had no response; the post only got modified when I mentioned it to the OP directly. And any removal policy is useless if no one bothers to check or respond to messages.

My other advice (though it's a perennial problem) is to actually coordinate information better among mods. I've discussed things with one mod only to find later that other mods don't seem to have heard anything about it, which makes responding to things like this promptly even harder.

Also, consider implementing better policies for fast responses and damage control instead of silence (and alternately, reigning in mods who start to get too defensive in official posts?) Like, I don't know a non-awkward way to say this, but some admods are noticeably better than others when it comes to dealing with criticism and working constructively with non-AVEN communities, so would it be possible to delegate more power to them in dealing with things like this on an official basis? I know these are long-standing structural problems, but they are ones that really need to be addressed, especially as the ace community is rapidly changing and AVEN has not always been keeping up well.

Also, for the AVEN NPO Board (are any of you even following this?), this is the kind of thing where they really need to take leadership over the admods, who often aren't equipped or trained to deal with these kinds of things well. I know they are new and the infrastructure isn't all set up yet, but this is the kind of thing they need be able to do if they want to be respected as an org.

[Siggy]

Okay so ideas (these are just brainstorming and my own ideas not the team's, you know the deal)

-Stop archiving blog posts and focus on archiving news articles and media appearances. Blog posts can still be posted in WW, we just won't worry about retaining a full copy of them for history.

-Only quote a full news/media article a year after they are posted. Big media corporations are unlikely to make copyright claims on year old articles. This could also potentially be done with blog posts, but only with the creator's permission. The alternative is to archive these things offline/off-AVEN so there is no risk involved.

-Allow blog posts to be posted onto AVEN without prior permission so long as it is just a link and a small exerpt. If the creator wants it removed, remove it.

-Maintain a "do not post" list for blogs that do no wish any of their articles to be posted on AVEN ever. Any posts from these blogs will be immediately removed unless the author gives permission for it to be posted.

Another thing we need is a better, faster and more consistent way to communicate with content creators

These are all really good ideas.

Since I only represent the interests of my group blog, I am not lobbying for any particular treatment of mainstream news sources. That said, I have been going through the World Watch forums to find posts that infringe our copyright, and we also found a lot of mainstream news articles. I am resolved not to inform any journalists because someone might actually file a complaint to AVEN's webhost.

I am in favor of AVEN being able to link and excerpt blog posts without permission, and it's also fine to archive them. If creators notice and request it be taken down, I think that should be honored, if the creator is on friendly terms with AVEN. On the other hand, if AVEN links to a blog post which antagonizes asexuality, and they request to have it taken down, that should not be honored. The point is to respect people's boundaries, not to allow bloggers to silence criticism.

The "do not post" list is a good idea too, and I give kudos for thinking of that one.

I'd like admod communication to be faster too, but I mean AVEN bureaucracy has just been really slow for as long as I remember, and I've heard admods+PT complain about it for years too. I guess I'm not crossing my fingers for a solution.

[Prismatangle]

Okay so ideas (these are just brainstorming and my own ideas not the team's, you know the deal)

-Stop archiving blog posts and focus on archiving news articles and media appearances. Blog posts can still be posted in WW, we just won't worry about retaining a full copy of them for history.

-Only quote a full news/media article a year after they are posted. Big media corporations are unlikely to make copyright claims on year old articles. This could also potentially be done with blog posts, but only with the creator's permission. The alternative is to archive these things offline/off-AVEN so there is no risk involved.

-Allow blog posts to be posted onto AVEN without prior permission so long as it is just a link and a small exerpt. If the creator wants it removed, remove it.

-Maintain a "do not post" list for blogs that do no wish any of their articles to be posted on AVEN ever. Any posts from these blogs will be immediately removed unless the author gives permission for it to be posted.

Another thing we need is a better, faster and more consistent way to communicate with content creators

These are good ideas. Thank you for listening and taking the conversation in a more productive direction.

Some further suggestions:

- When posting blog posts, make attempting to notify the blogger mandatory. Doing so is as simple as leaving a comment on the post. The thing is, if you do post it legally (excerpt and link only) without prior permission, content creators generally are not looking at AVEN. It is unreasonable to expect them to constantly scan the forums to find out if it has been posted; mostly likely they just won't know. They cannot express their wishes about whether or not they want the link removed unless they know it has been posted, so to me it seems like an ethical bare minimum to notify them.

- Have further guidelines for linking to blog posts based on the subject matter of the post. When the subject is something like mental health, personal trauma, difficulties with friends, or otherwise contains some sort of sensitive material, it should not be allowed for members to post without proving that they have prior permission.

- Consider curating a private archive for historical purposes. Some bloggers may agree to share their work to such an archive, but would not want their work re-distributed or released publicly until a certain amount of time has passed. Library archives include boxes of archival files with instructions like "do not release until 2060." Think of Mark Twain's autobiography. Because of the extreme amount of time for this, though, such a thing may have to be taken care of by a library, in the long term, since they will have the dedicated staff to do so while a volunteer organization does not. I think in the meantime, it's possible for someone to start a private archive collection like this, and donate it to a library later—but MUCH care would need to be taken, and it would be best to seek the advice of an actual archivist, especially a digital archivist.

[Guest]

Thank you all for your feedback and your ideas. I am far too drained tonight to respond to them, but I definitely like the direction this discussion is going.

[Member54880]

I like the idea of compiling a list of content creators who have given permission for their content to be redistributed on AVEN (including any limitations they may place), or not. Limitations could include restrictions on what type of posts can be posted, if notifying the author beforehand is required, etc.

It could be compiled like this:

Blog name, Author name: Status (Gave permission/Permission with restrictions/Denied)

Is it okay if I link to my blog post to explain more about this? There's an unrelated website (one about archiving old software) that uses this model and it works very well.

[Prismatangle]

I like the idea of compiling a list of content creators who have given permission for their content to be redistributed on AVEN (including any limitations they may place), or not. Limitations could include restrictions on what type of posts can be posted, if notifying the author beforehand is required, etc.

It could be compiled like this:

Blog name, Author name: Status (Gave permission/Permission with restrictions/Denied)

Is it okay if I link to my blog post to explain more about this? There's an unrelated website (one about archiving old software) that uses this model and it works very well.

Just to add to this, since I forgot about it earlier... for blogs with multiple authors, it'd be good to make note of that, and which ones give or don't give permission to submit. Bloggers might help out that process by making it a policy to ask each contributors' preferences and list them somewhere—especially when the roster changes every so often.

Anonymous authors might be another case where special care needs to be taken.

[Redbeard]

Okay so ideas (these are just brainstorming and my own ideas not the team's, you know the deal)

-Stop archiving blog posts and focus on archiving news articles and media appearances. Blog posts can still be posted in WW, we just won't worry about retaining a full copy of them for history.

-Only quote a full news/media article a year after they are posted. Big media corporations are unlikely to make copyright claims on year old articles. This could also potentially be done with blog posts, but only with the creator's permission. The alternative is to archive these things offline/off-AVEN so there is no risk involved.

-Allow blog posts to be posted onto AVEN without prior permission so long as it is just a link and a small exerpt. If the creator wants it removed, remove it.

-Maintain a "do not post" list for blogs that do no wish any of their articles to be posted on AVEN ever. Any posts from these blogs will be immediately removed unless the author gives permission for it to be posted.

Another thing we need is a better, faster and more consistent way to communicate with content creators

Thank you for taking the time to listen to us and understand our concerns. These all seem to be a reasonable approach to the situation.

[michaeld]

Finally the AVEN Project Team are willing to discuss this issue in further by email (info@asexuality.org) or on skype.

That won't do. It's simply unworkable to have a discussion over e-mail, without knowing what other content creators are saying. Furthermore, how are you possibly going to organise a skype conference? The people involved are all over the world - from Europe to the US to Japan. You're never going to find a suitable timeslot.

The best solution is to have a public discussion, where everybody can log on at their own convenience and where people are able to see all the input.

Hi tristifere,

It was my suggestion to hold a meeting. I generally find that skype meetings are more focussed and I think it would be beneficial for me (and other PT) to listen to people's points of view. We will then bring the results to the Admod Team and the Board of Directors so that people's concerns are reflected in the policy as far as reasonably possible.

I am willing to meet with anyone with any concerns on this matter over skype and if timezones mean that more than one meeting is required, so be it. Again if you would like to take part in such a meeting please email info@asexuality.org or PM one of the PT.

That being said, obviously I'm not insisting on this format. People are free to comment here, or by email, or are free to suggest other media for communication.

Either way, we do want to resolve this matter to everyone's satisfaction as far as possible. Even leaving the legal aspects completely aside, we at AVEN want to maintain good relations with the wider ace community. The archiving, as I understand (I haven't been involved in it), was NOT done to detract from other sites in any way, but precisely to highlight their content and preserve it, precisely because we value ace content whether it originates on AVEN or not. That being said, if people's content is appearing on AVEN in ways they do not wish - e.g. due to the reasons Redbeard mentioned or for any other reasons for that matter - then that is not OK and must be addressed and corrected ASAP.

The offer of a skype meeting is still open and I'd encourage anyone who wants to participate to email us. But, like I say, this medium is not set in stone. Indeed I'd say this thread has been pretty productive so far; there have been some great suggestions, which I think we should incorporate.

The idea of having a list of do-not-post list of blogs was already on the table and I'm very much in favour of it. I'm also very much in agreement that we should take down anything that people want taking down - e.g. links - whether or not we have any obligation to. A link with sensitive information on the other end might be meant to be shared with only a small group of people and while that cannot be enforced, I feel we should respect it as far as possible. I think this applies more to blog links than links to the mainstream media as it's hard to argue the latter are in any way restricted. This is just a personal opinion though - I'm not speaking on behalf of any team or policy.

[Guest]

I had a massive post ready to respond to everyone, but I lost it so I am going to write a very short version of it.

On communication issues.

-To improve coordination and response time for removal requests we should have one person in charge of handling takedown requests rather than the whole team. So change "PM the admins" to "PM this admin or this mod" and give them access to the email as well. I find things work much better when there is only one person directly responsible for it.

-Some admods are better at responding to situations than others, but I find it depends on the situation. I might be good at responding to certain situations, but when I get involved in others I just end up making things worse. This is why I don't think having a PR admin or having a PR team would necessarily work. My advice to admods for these types of situations has always been to run their posts by a few people they trust before they post and to walk away the second they start getting flustered. This advice can be very hard to follow in the heat of the moment though.

On the ideas presented

-I like Prismatangle's idea about informing author's that their blogpost in on AVEN. I don't think it can be feasibly be made mandatory, but I definitely think it should be added to the WW guidelines and highly recommended.

-I also like the idea of not allowing certain topics to be posted without prior permission.

-As for allowing some blogposts to be taken down by request, but not allowing others, it's a really interesting idea, but I wouldn't even begin to know how to make guidelines for what can and what cannot be removed.

-I really like the idea of getting into contact with other archivists for advice and trying to get journalists and other bloggers involved in the archiving process if they are willing.

[tristifere]

I really like the discussion here. There are loads of useful suggestions. I second Elizabeth's excellent points. I also really like Pookzar's ideas. I think there's a recipe for a solid and workable new policy for ace content creators in all the suggestions being made so far.

Okay so ideas (these are just brainstorming and my own ideas not the team's, you know the deal)


-Stop archiving blog posts and focus on archiving news articles and media appearances. Blog posts can still be posted in WW, we just won't worry about retaining a full copy of them for history.
-Only quote a full news/media article a year after they are posted. Big media corporations are unlikely to make copyright claims on year old articles. This could also potentially be done with blog posts, but only with the creator's permission. The alternative is to archive these things offline/off-AVEN so there is no risk involved.
[snip]

With regards to archiving news articles and media appearances: main stream media are already archived in various ways. If you decide that the risks of hosting these articles full-text is too great (At this point I trust that you're working on getting good legal advice about this) you can work on others ways of keeping the news paper contents available to the community:

- safeguard the accessibility of these articles through adding links to news paper archives (the Google news archive is freely accessible, though the other archives I'm familiar with require a library card)

- you can add another safeguard by actively adding the articles to the way-back-machine and linking back to the archived article.

in this scenario, World Watch posts have a link to the live article, a link to the Google news archive, and a way-back-machine link. That, to me, sounds like a solid safeguard for keeping the archived content available online. Offline archives might solve the risks, but have the problem that they're not accessible to the wider community.

Also, on a more general note, if you're planning on revising the archiving project, I'm 30000% interested in helping out. Will PM you about this.

With regards to the removing policy and improving communications: I like the idea of having it stated clearly who to contact about this. Can I also suggest adding in the contact information/removal policy information how long you expect it to take for a reaction? I think that would help with people not getting frustrated. Some people do expect a near-immediate response - which I totally understand isn't feasible for a volunteer-run organisation like AVEN.

[Guest]

I have split several posts from here discussing Apositive to the recap post found here. I would like to try and keep this discussion on the topic of what changes could be made and keep discussion of external sites about this issue to the Site Comments thread.

-Pookzar

[michaeld]

-As for allowing some blogposts to be taken down by request, but not allowing others, it's a really interesting idea, but I wouldn't even begin to know how to make guidelines for what can and what cannot be removed.

I assume we're talking about links / snippets rather than full text? Full text should absolutely always be taken down on request (which is not to say it should be there in the first place without permission, given this discussion).

Regarding links or snippets, I think instead of making a distinction on whether they are friendly to AVEN or asexuality, I think I'd prefer to make a distinction between analytic/discursive posts and community/experiential posts. Things that are aimed at a section of the community (e.g. abuse survivors), or at a friend circle, I think it's understandable if they don't want it linked prominently. However articles that analyse or commentate on some aspect of the asexual community or movement and beyond - linking to them feels much more like fair game, as it's relevant to anyone interested in asexuality, and being able to discuss or challenge such seems fair enough to me. (Though I admit my personal inclination would be to try to honour the latter too if possible, but that's just a personal thing. I'm not sure it should be policy.)

An obvious problem is that some posts may not fit neatly into either category, or may contain aspects of both types of postings. So this is just a thought, rather than a finished proposal.

Just my 2p. Thoughts?

[Siggy]

-As for allowing some blogposts to be taken down by request, but not allowing others, it's a really interesting idea, but I wouldn't even begin to know how to make guidelines for what can and what cannot be removed.

I assume we're talking about links / snippets rather than full text? Full text should absolutely always be taken down on request (which is not to say it should be there in the first place without permission, given this discussion).

Regarding links or snippets, I think instead of making a distinction on whether they are friendly to AVEN or asexuality, I think I'd prefer to make a distinction between analytic/discursive posts and community/experiential posts. Things that are aimed at a section of the community (e.g. abuse survivors), or at a friend circle, I think it's understandable if they don't want it linked prominently. However articles that analyse or commentate on some aspect of the asexual community or movement and beyond - linking to them feels much more like fair game, as it's relevant to anyone interested in asexuality, and being able to discuss or challenge such seems fair enough to me. (Though I admit my personal inclination would be to try to honour the latter too if possible, but that's just a personal thing. I'm not sure it should be policy.)

An obvious problem is that some posts may not fit neatly into either category, or may contain aspects of both types of postings. So this is just a thought, rather than a finished proposal.

Just my 2p. Thoughts?

I think that is a better idea than the one I proposed. And at least one coblogger agrees.

I am not sure how often this sort of decision will come up. I hope in most cases the decision is unambiguous, and otherwise the mods can use their discretion.

[Vestal]

Removing copypasta'd material is the job of the person(s) who caused the problem, not the job of the person who was copypasta'd.

I removed a number of texts until ithaca stated, "SpanishDuchess, if anyone has issues with your posts, they should bring them up with the Admod Team, including if they need to be edited. You need not to ask for any of that, nor do any of that work yourself."

I've decided unilaterally to edit ALL my posts ONE BY ONE. Even if the authors didn't complain.

It's a gigantic task, because I put out HUNDREDS of articles. It'll take me about 3 weeks to delete all the texts.

I want to make it clear that the decision to remove all my contents is exclusively mine. Nobody asked me to do so. I feel responsible for what has happened.

I've already removed around 140 texts. Now I publish only a small snippet and a link: http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/121337-asexual-artists-interview/

[michaeld]

SpanishDuchess,

Thank you so much for undertaking this huge task and for actively trying to fix the problem. I just wish we'd caught the issue much earlier; we could have saved you a lot of work. You have my appreciation both for this undertaking and your dedication in general.

[Cicero]

I'm glad this discussion has become friendlier and that both sides seem to be reaching agreement. Copyright is a thorny issue, particularly online, and one that is not limited to AVEN. Sounds like things are moving forward towards a sensible solution.

[Vestal]

I finally edited all my posts. It took be about 25 hours to modify the content I posted in the last 5 months.

I deleted the full texts. I left small excerpts and links (in certain cases, only links).

Let me know via PM if you want me to remove the links too.

[veearrell]

Let me know via PM if you want me to remove the links too.

That would seem a little extreme. If they're concerned about people going to their sites to read stuff, that won't happen if people can't find it or don't even know it's there.

[Vestal]

That would seem a little extreme. If they're concerned about people going to their sites to read stuff, that won't happen if people can't find it or don't even know it's there.

One of the authors wrote this:

Yes, it is perfectly legal to post links. However, sometimes creators may request that the links be taken down simply as a favor. This is particularly an issue when people share very personal stories, or when they're worried about abusers seeing their story if it appears in the wrong place.

Certainly such requests would not be granted in every case, but I think they should be granted to people in the ace community who are on friendly terms with AVEN. If AVEN admods choose only to grant the requests that they are legally required to, what that tells me is we are not on friendly terms. That tells me, AVEN only cares about its own legal protection, and doesn't care one whit for our concerns.

If we are not on friendly terms, I'm going to start advocating that bloggers never give permission to AVEN to post anything.

[CosineTheCat]

That would seem a little extreme. If they're concerned about people going to their sites to read stuff, that won't happen if people can't find it or don't even know it's there.

One of the authors wrote this:

Yes, it is perfectly legal to post links. However, sometimes creators may request that the links be taken down simply as a favor. This is particularly an issue when people share very personal stories, or when they're worried about abusers seeing their story if it appears in the wrong place.

Certainly such requests would not be granted in every case, but I think they should be granted to people in the ace community who are on friendly terms with AVEN. If AVEN admods choose only to grant the requests that they are legally required to, what that tells me is we are not on friendly terms. That tells me, AVEN only cares about its own legal protection, and doesn't care one whit for our concerns.

If we are not on friendly terms, I'm going to start advocating that bloggers never give permission to AVEN to post anything.

I've talked with Siggy since this was posted. We are talking with each other and have come to a conclusion to better AVEN. And about everything else that was talked about.

[Siggy]

I'm just dropping by to confirm what Cosine has said. In addition to the discussion contained in this thread, I and some other bloggers have had opportunity to discuss the issue with representatives of the admods and PT. Many details were addressed, and I'm satisfied that they'll come to a reasonable decision.

[veearrell]

I'm just dropping by to confirm what Cosine has said. In addition to the discussion contained in this thread, I and some other bloggers have had opportunity to discuss the issue with representatives of the admods and PT. Many details were addressed, and I'm satisfied that they'll come to a reasonable decision.

Not to start a fight, but I'm curious: What's your definition of "reasonable"?

[Siggy]

@Veearrell

If you're wondering what sort of things bloggers asked for, you can reread this thread. There are also some other details in the 30 pages of transcript but they're probably not as interesting as you might imagine.

[veearrell]

@Veearrell

If you're wondering what sort of things bloggers asked for, you can reread this thread. There are also some other details in the 30 pages of transcript but they're probably not as interesting as you might imagine.

Again, not to start a fight, but you didn't answer my question. To be blunt, the people demanding things in this thread haven't been very nice about it. Jumping straight to making legal threats against non-admod users who, as far as they knew, weren't doing anything wrong is uncool to say the least. So I'll ask again: Define "reasonable".

[michaeld]

What we're hoping is to come to a policy that makes everyone happy as far as reasonably possible.

SpanishDuchess - thanks again for all your efforts on this. They are appreciated.

[Vestal]

Again, not to start a fight, but you didn't answer my question. To be blunt, the people demanding things in this thread haven't been very nice about it. Jumping straight to making legal threats against non-admod users who, as far as they knew, weren't doing anything wrong is uncool to say the least. So I'll ask again: Define "reasonable".

I fully agree with this statement. Thanks a lot for your COURAGEOUS words, veearrell.

BTW, this thread (that was updated yesterday) contains excellent views on the subject: http://www.apositive.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1301&start=40