ToS Update

[NigelFt]

The Terms of Service (ToS) has recently been updated. The ToS can be found here.

The change made is that the following paragraph:

When a member is warned, there is a brief posting in the thread where the offence occurred, informing everyone that a warning has been issued to the member, and that a private message has been sent to the member with a more detailed explanation of why the warning was given. The private message will include a quote and explanation of what was warnable in the member's post, a thread name or link, as well as any other information that the administrator or moderator wishes to include. The Admods keep a list of current warnings, which include the name of the member, a link to the thread/post for which the member was warned, a copy of the private message, and the date(s) the warning(s) were given.

now reads as follows:

When a member is warned, a private message will be sent to the member with a detailed explanation of why the warning was given. The private message will include a quote and explanation of what was warnable in the member's post, a thread name or link, as well as any other information that the administrator or moderator wishes to include.

Reason: clarification.

It is now no longer our policy to post publicly that a named individual has received a warn, and the reason for the warn, in the thread where the offence which resulted in the warn being issued had occurred.

[zoidberger]

Just out of curiosity... what is okay as far as posting publicly if you are warned? Say I was warned for a certain phrase in particular and I don't agree with it. I know the first step would be to notify a mod/admin regarding the warning and ask that it be possibly re-assessed. How about after that? Is it okay to share with others on the board the nature and exact reasonings for the warning? I just ask because I know it's against board policy to post PMs, but I can see a reason as to why a poster might want to share the warnings.

[Herr Joseph von Löthing]

Personally I wouldn't see a problem with talking about warns. The only problem would be that if somone was gloating about having a certain number of warns, they could be considered a troll.

[kbrd143]

Well, thank Holy Goodness that this madness is finally gone.

I always hated that particular aspect of warnings, and felt that it was driven by schadenfreude rather than an actual need to know.

Zoids, the sharing of PMs thing had several wrinkles to it, one of the biggest was the notion that something that someone had shared in private should remain private. In other words, people should have the right to control where (and when) the things they write are published. So, if you get a PM from someone saying (just for a wild example) "Oh, did you just read what so and so said over in whatsit forum? So stupid!", it would be less than germane to then put it on the open boards, as it might put that person (and you) in line for a warning. Even if the thoughts shared in the PM were completely innocuous, the person who sent the PM should have the say over whether or not their thoughts are shared only with you, or the entire internet.

...That having been said, when it comes to warnings, I have always maintained that if someone wants to discuss a warning that he or she has received on the open boards, they should be allowed to. The warning, after all, is theirs. I would personally recommend that one refrain from posting the actual content of the PM on the open boards, but I couldn't really see why sharing the fact that one was warned could be considered a warnable offense.

(Stated ... wow. Just as a member. What a refreshing first!)

But, hey, admods? Good, good, good show.

[PiF]

Good to see your still around Keith

[PiF]

I value we are allowed to question such decisions

within the last hour I have now recieved another nudge/unofficial warning

the topic was about grey a's and I asked a question

So are grey a's to asexuality...like the pescatarians of the vegetarian world?

clearly a question.... had a question mark and tryin to find a comparable..no one was offended by it in the thread and I even had a mod agreeing with my sentiment

instead I got this

Making judgements about other users, especially about the validity of their asexuality, is strongly discouraged. We are here to figure ourselves out, not to put each other in boxes

The admod team has discussed this, and we want you to understand that posts like this one can be viewed as abrasive by some people, especially those who consider themselves grey-A. Although you are entitled to your own opinions, please be more careful on how you voice them, as it is easy to misunderstand, and misconstrue, the true intentions of a post.

Consider this an unofficial warning, otherwise known as a nudge; a reminder that this is the internet, and people can be offended by a variety of things. If it happens again, you may get an official warning; three official warnings earns you a ban. None of us in Admods want things to go that far, as you have made a positive and constructive member of AVEN in the past, and we look forward to seeing more of that in the future..

now please forgive me but when I am getting warnings issued left right and centre at the momment and clearly in this case was a question..I feel justified in asking just what is going on?

[Olivier]

Off topic: PiF, that nudge of yours is truly ludicrous. I actually think that's a great analogy, I'd like to be able use it myself, if I may. I can't see the offensiveness in it for the life of me.

On topic: I actually think that warnings should be given publicly. Not out of schadenfreude, but simply out of transparency, as well as a public record of what exactly is warnable, and what isn't (which also introduces accountability for the mods to apply the ToS consistently). Public warnings work fine on other forums I'm on, some of which sensibly insist that discussion of warnings are not made in-thread, but taken to the equivalent of Site Comments.

To me, failing to openly disclose what posts have been issued warnings is cowardly, and wrapping it concern for the warned rings hollow.

[Shockwave]

I always hated that particular aspect of warnings, and felt that it was driven by schadenfreude rather than an actual need to know.

Schadenfreude? You really think that's why I wrote that policy? No, the point behind that policy was to prevent people from continuing to respond to a post for which somebody had been warned. No more, no less.

Also, I am curious about what the new policy is to keep that from happening.

[mylittlehazmat]

Off topic: PiF, that nudge of yours is truly ludicrous. I actually think that's a great analogy, I'd like to be able use it myself, if I may. I can't see the offensiveness in it for the life of me.

On topic: I actually think that warnings should be given publicly. Not out of schadenfreude, but simply out of transparency, as well as a public record of what exactly is warnable, and what isn't (which also introduces accountability for the mods to apply the ToS consistently). Public warnings work fine on other forums I'm on, some of which sensibly insist that discussion of warnings are not made in-thread, but taken to the equivalent of Site Comments.

To me, failing to openly disclose what posts have been issued warnings is cowardly, and wrapping it concern for the warned rings hollow.

Whether or not the concern for the warned rings hollow, it is true. The Admods do their damndest to make everyone happy, regardless of if we've warned them or not. However, an alternative to this can be discussed, I will add it to the list.

[Ace Amoeba]

I never read the TOS so I was unaware of the original policy and it's change. That being said Pay it Forward's comment is pretty mild, but it was handled with a mild warning so it evens out. One thing I notice in the ace community is that it is filled with sensitive people, which I'm not saying as an insult. They are also sensitive of others as well so there's no hypocrisy. If warnings are going to be given out for offending those sensitivities, and in PiF'a case it prolly wasn't meant to be insensitive it was a good joke, then it would only be fair to be sensitive to the person being warned by not giving them a "public spanking". Perhaps a folder for "no holds barred" conversations(within reason, not like /b on 4chan) could be considered.

[EGD]

Just out of curiosity... what is okay as far as posting publicly if you are warned?

I too would like to see an official response to zoid's question.

I always hated that particular aspect of warnings, and felt that it was driven by schadenfreude rather than an actual need to know.

Schadenfreude? You really think that's why I wrote that policy? No, the point behind that policy was to prevent people from continuing to respond to a post for which somebody had been warned. No more, no less.

Also, I am curious about what the new policy is to keep that from happening.

I think what Shock said is a very good clarification--in defense of the reason for the policy's origin, and to ask what you guys are planning to put into place by way of communication with the members that a concern or a post has been addressed. In regards to the schadenfreude speculation, I am going to stand up a bit for Shock here. I know Shock in real life. He/Sie is not the person to get off on that sort of thing at all... he knows life is short, and causing pain to other people is not his modus operandi. If somehow the policy didn't hit the mark, or the person following the policy didn't post a succinct statement and was humiliating someone [intentionally or unintentionally], perhaps that could be looked at or reviewed before prematurely chucking policy that was put in place to help put out or prevent fires.

Stating that the policy felt like it was designed with a bad value or negative intent from the start is probably going to put some people on the defense here. Really most of the people responding out here care and value this site as well. Let's remember what we have in common--we value this place and speak up because we care.

How the admods plan on addressing the communication gap left now by removing that policy is very apt (considering a high amount of what looks like a lack of communication going on currently). One (1) example, a thread locked with no communication as to why it was locked--is it being reviewed or is just locked and not being addressed?

*admits I don't see a basic "I am locking this thread temporarily while the admod team review some of the posts made" sort of communication*

Also, I see things being posted over here in the announcements that show admods were apparently taking some requests seriously, but the admods didn't communicate this in the original threads (2)here and (3)here. Can I ask why? When I see members being allowed to be subjected to receiving personally aimed comments from other people (including admods on the team who probably know (or should have known) that policy was being written by them or other teammates) I feel very confused and concerned. Can anyone see how that might be unnecessarily causing drama or painful interactions to the regular members on here? We could have said things were being addressed but instead we let things sort of continue on or escalate instead. :( Can anyone understand my concern a bit here?