Jump to content

ToS update regarding Staff colours


Qutenkuddly

Recommended Posts

I'm so glad that this absolutely highly pressing issue is finally being addressed. It's going to solve all problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CBC said:

😂

 

Even the definition debates?! Oh no, what will AVEN do then? Will the forums cease to exist?

We can't even make a thing about greenies without it being a debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CBC said:

If AVEN can debate it, AVEN will debate it...

 

I vote we rename it ADVEN. The Asexuality Debate, Visibility and Education Network. 

I almost thought that said the Asexuality Debatable Visiblitiy etc. I did get a bit of a laugh out of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox

Still awaiting clarity and bring forward the comments in both threads are facilitating this at the moment.  I’m curious as to how this can be applied in time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Janus the Fox
4 hours ago, CBC said:

Even the definition debates?! Oh no, what will AVEN do then? Will the forums cease to exist?

Musings been too quiet on this front for weeks :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unleash the Echidnas
5 hours ago, Homer said:

I'm so glad that this absolutely highly pressing issue is finally being addressed. It's going to solve all problems.

As much as I enjoy snark, I wouldn't snark too hard on this. AVEN's ToS leaves some things to be desired---discrimination is fine, for example, so long as you're polite about it---I suspect perhaps because of a pattern of incremental updates with few comprehensive reviews. The current disconnect between the "staff colours are not to be used" clause and interpretations involving amounts of bold is arbitrary and capricious. It's worthwhile to do the thinking needed to resolve that. And also to address details such as the ToS labeling what seems to be a complete list of five staff categories as examples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Unleash the Echidnas said:

discrimination is fine, for example, so long as you're polite about it

That is incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As much as I enjoy snark, I wouldn't snark too hard on this.

Nah, it's warranted in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kimmie. said:

@PanFicto. It seems like it not clear based on this

 

If it's only bold-lettering in posts that isn't allowed, that's all that need be said (and no one really writes whole posts in bold anyway. If they did, a mod would just need to explain to them why it's against ToS).

 

If it's posts in colours similar to mod colours (whether bold or not bold) that's a different matter but again it only needs to be clearly stated.

 

I'm just not sure if it's only bold posts or not, and I'm not sure anyone else is sure either :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The original phrasing has been amended to the following:

 

Quote

4.7 Staff Communications Formatting
All Staff colours are reserved and not to be used by Members in posts in conjunction with bold text. The following are examples of specific Staff colours and the codes used.  Be aware that bold lettering with shades similar to these must be avoided.

 

Moderators: Green (#009933)

Administrators: Red (#cc0033)

Declassification Team: Orange (#ff8000)

Project Team: Pink (#ff66ff)

Webmasters:  Blue (#3498db)

 

Please note that Official Staff postings also contain the staff member's name and title in the post.  This formatting helps ensure the Team Member's message is as visible for as many members as possible.  Any post formatted in these colours and excessive bold is subject to change by Admods.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...