Category: Zone BBS Suggestions and Feedback
Attention all users. Over the years, our Terms of Service have evolved to address a variety of situations and behaviors which can often be detrimental to the site. We're always looking for that balance between freedom and order, and feel it's time to update the TOS to better reflect the site's goals and promote a fun environment. This is where you come in. Please take a moment to send us any recommendations for the Terms of Service. Changes could include major updates or changes in wording to better clarify the TOS. You can post in this forum thread or send a note to the staff directly if you don't wish to post comments publicly.
Please respect the opinions of others as we discuss any changes to the TOS and refrain from personal attacks.
After a week, the staff will create a new draft Terms of Service based on your input and we will give you a chance to comment on this as well.
We hope you'll work with us to improve the site and help us write a clearer and more functional Terms of Service.
The terms are good.
On 8. You state must report a bug or loophole. Maybe that should be changed to appreciate you reporting.
My reason for this is someone might know about it, but not report it due to the language. As long as they don’t exploit it they have not violated the terms.
On 13, I understand the joke at the end about the face, but if you are posting terms of service these should remain completely serious and void of teasing.
I agree with the comments expressed above. Also, maybe a policy surrounding what is and is not bullying should be created (good luck).
I don't see much of an issue with the Terms of Service as they are. However, it seems as though the problems is that they are not being enforced strongly enough.
We have seven community leaders on staff for the site. Now, how offten have you seen these seven logged in? Most of them are not logged in more than once a week, which can be understandable. However, two of them hardly ever log in. One has been on staff for a long time. The other one was braught on recently. There isn't an excuse for this.
If we want things bette with this site, the first thing we need is productive people on staff who will be there when needed, and who will keep the site up to date and enforce the rules. That is more of a problem now than anything.
We can change the wording of the terms all we want, but it's one of those things that will always be tested by those who like testing the limits.
Well I'm a rogue man, so I say only have what is strictly necessary in there, and enforce those.
I'd avoid loose terms like harassment and bullying in favor of more categorized descriptions, which of course have to be interpreted by the staff at the time. But more laws is less effective than is more enforcement of existing laws.
I really don't think change is necessary. This nonsense of bullying from what I understand has been going on for years. What is the point of getting upset over things other people say? Aren't most of these zoners adults? I really just feel we as zoners just need to follow the two's as they are set.
It is great that finally, admin have come to the terms of looking in to the TOS. The TOS does cover quite well, however, i think, it is the matter of folloing up with the TOS with appoperet punishment, and bringing that thru from the top management to the bottom management.
I do think however, the zone should have its age limit from 13 to 16.
I know this site is free, but there have been long-standing broken issues that I know have been reported on this site before which never have gotten fixed. I understand people have lives, but even when we do report things, does anybody actually read this stuff?
Maybe its too dificult to fix or people dont have the time to do so.
um.... "Breaking these rules may be
hazardous to your face." say what? that doesn't even belong in there IMO.
Other then that, i also dont have a problem with the TOS, but one thing that does stidck out to me. Punishment can vary depending on who does the punishing.
So one of the CL's handles it different than another? or do you guys talk it out first.
Going along with what poster 6 said: There are people who bully, but what about those who troll people and then play the victim when they themselves get trolled? It's like Clairre said on another topic. Even though it happens on the Internet doesn't make it right, and we shouldn't blow it off like its not a big deal. And, at the same time, there is no reason to react and throw a big dramatic fit if you end up getting bullied. It's obviously what they want, why feed in to it? There are plenty of ways to evade bullying on here. So utilize those ways, and the site team will take care of the issues that they can.
I'd like to know specifically why Joanne thinks it would be good to change the age floor to 16.
I agree with Ryan about the trolling thing. Do I like seeing the amount of trolling going on? No I do not, it's immature and the fact that it's happening as much as it is is the main complaint I have here, but they are, alas, not doing anything against the tos, but I do feel that the TOS should really be enforced more strongly. I feel that some around here do not take the tos seriously, because, sometimes, offenders do not get punished, or the other way around. I'm just sighting scenarios here, not saying that this usually happens, I'm just saying it may happen from time to time. I would just like consistency. I do agree with JoeAnne about the age thing, however, how could oyou tell if someone wasn't lying? It could happen, and unfortunately, there's no real way to tell that.
I can see 16 being better then setting up at 13. This would be a better way to keep maturity levels maybe at a bit of the same distance. Now I agree with Ryan, but not everyone trolls then plays victims. Trolling and bullying, please explain the difference.
Why should we change the age floor when there are some adults on here who don't act as mature as some 15 year olds?
Trolling and bullying, I haven't thought about them individually as much. And your right I've used them interchangeably. They have their similarities and differences, the biggest similarity being that they can be used to negatively impact someone, Which seems to be the main reason to do it, correct?
I can see what you mean by maturity levels. I don't think everyone trolls to make the other feel negative about themselves. But rather to make a laugh and to have the crowd laugh along with them. So when friends pick on each other, is this bullying or trolling?
when friends pick on each other , is it done as a joke? do both parties know its a joke? If so, what harm is done?
I would suggest three things: taking out the joke at the end of term 13, a clause which states the governing law, For example:
I would interpret that as trolling. Hmmm but see it might not be to be negative in that instance like you say, so I guess it depends on how the person themselves interpret it. That's where the problem is.
To poster 15, I don't think they want to try and get technical with any laws.
first at all, the age thing, 16 will hopefully raise up the maturity members of this side. Yes, indeed, 15 year old kid can be sometime more mmature than 45 year old kid, but, do we want a 13 year old kid to expose to all the trolls and bullying at this side because of some irresponsive adult? I guess not. It is not about protecting the youngsters, is about safe internet. at least, for those who's 16 years old or above, they can defend themselves better, and they can have better judgement as to if this is their real thing or not.
In the pass, there're older zoners that goes to the younger zoners, e.g. someone in their early 50s, attempt to date someone who's 14. Yes, there's illegal, but, who can tell it is illegal unless that 14 year old girl report?
Secondly, i'm not sure where TylerK has an idea with the state law... It works for perticular state, or for the whole states of america perhaps, but we do have international members as well. So, no, it does not make sense.
The state law thing is more to protect the interests of the site and its sponsoring company. Just imagine what could happen if someone tried to claim damages, and sued the site in their home country or state? That could prove even more of a problem for the admins than if everything was handled in the state where the site was founded/where A T Guys, LLC, was incorporated.
I'd agree with raising the age floor to 16. Sure there are those whould get around it,but the subject matter may not be appropriate for some younger viewers.
Now I do have an addition actually.
We tolerate hate speech against the blind on here which would make the skinheads of my youth pale. For some reason, which makes absolutely no sense, we are incensed over the so-called n word, while talking about so many blind do this or that over-the-top, highly-improbable social goof which is designed and implemented by none other than a punk attitude. If we are to be intolerant of such slurs against race, religion and sexual orientation, the same boot heel should be applied to those who would make these overreaching comments against the blind. These usually do like the skinheads of my youth did: use government agencies, correctional facilities and institutions, all of which house troubled people to begin with, to establish a so-called norm. I don't have the exact words for how to write it, just as I had no words for when I first saw the level of hate on here.
We would at least then be consistent. Doing otherwise is pretty glaring, in my opinion.
Tyler can you explain that much much simpler please?
further more writing it exactly as you quoted sound very confusing. At least with the TOS we have now, they are understandable to read.
run that by me again leo ?
There are very few instances where the site could be sued, however, if we have people that will enforce the Terms of Service around more regularly this can be less likely.
As far as trying to elliminate nasty things being said about the blind, it seems like one of those things that isn't as harsh as saying racial slurs, though it can be interpreted by some as such. Why, I don't understand but..j
If the TOS is writing in a language that an average person can't understand, the TOS is consider uneffective and serve no purpose. That is legal001 for ya.
and my point is if you put what Tyler posted in his quote in the TOS, i'd go huh.
now it is written in such a way that I believe all zoners can understand, not filled with leagle jargon that you'd havfe to study law or know a loyer to get.
I think that if it is written in a way with big words that people dont understand, then it becomes very inefective.
wel ok i just repeated what joanne said. can't edit the post and delete or i would.
I do not post the following with any intent to offend, stir up anger, or create controversy. But now that this issue is finally tabled before us, i'd like to take the time to communicate my thoughts, opinions and insights, as well as those gathered from other users in a concise, honest and practical way.
While I feel there are a few changes that could be made to the TOS, I do not believe any changes will do the community any good unless the TOS is taken seriously again. Most in our humble community of users do not have faith in the system. Weather this be the rules themselves, or the way they are enforced, nothing can change with out the trust, support and frank honesty of everyone in our community. Many users, including myself will admit that we do not have all the answers, or know all the facts about how things operate behind the curtain. though, this is why many of us have made the effort to attempt to educate ourselves about the way things work, and what we're seeing before blindly lashing out. As such, I present a compendium of thoughts, opinions and observations tabled by many users, over many conversations.
firstly, many of us feel there is a lack of clear consistency as to what is and isn't tolerated. Depending on the day, and the results in question, we've noticed that several different outcomes could potentially arise, depending on who is and who is not apart of the judgement, their opinions, beliefs, pet peeves etc. Over my time as a user on this web sight, i've seen a cornucopia of racially insensitive material posted. While i'd consider it all to be equally against the TOS, the only one that seems to draw any outcry is the N word. Same goes for religion bashing. while this isn't strictly against the letter of the TOS, it is against the spirit… Just like with racially insensitive material, we users have seen it all posted around the sight before. However the only material that seems to start world war three is the christian bashing. some users of Muslim and jewish faiths for example are worried that a double standard exists when people are dragged out on the carpet for christian bashing, but threats of bombing a Muslims house go ignored. What are we to do? Extend protection to all religious faiths?
If we then take this step, where do we draw the line between debate and insensitive material? Many religious users detest their own religion being up for debate, but will quite happily throw others under the buss for their amusement. Again, we face a double standard, and the same question. How do we promote open and effective discourse wile preserving peoples comfort? Is this even possible? and how do we decide? We recognize as a community that in some situations it could be difficult for the staff to be neutral about some subjects they hold dear to them, but we also believe that no religion, opinion, or way of life should be protected at the expense of others.
On the subject of protecting some at the expense of others. Some users are uncomfortable with the idea that some CL's havefavorites. One particular CL has recently admitted to doing so in a public venue, and the over all trust, faith and reasonable expectation that this community leader is able to effectively and impartially do their job has been greatly reduced. From what i've observed, this has just created more tension and distrust in the community and the systems we have in place, and the way they'll be applied to the users at large. while we know that the staff are faced with difficult choices regarding friends, allies, opinions, and ideals they hold dear, the questions raised on the Community Leader application lead us to believe that impartiality is to be striven for at all cost.
While we believe that impartiality is usually in effect, many of us have noticed that some acts of bullying, harassment, or what is known online as trolling seem to evoke completely different reactions from the staff, users and trolls themselves.
for the sake of brevity, I'd like to provide a link explaining what exactly a troll is, what trolls usually do, and how. the following article is written better than I could have written it, and presents this info in a useful format.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don't_feed_the_Troll
A lot of your common bullies or trolls take a lot of heat on the sight, and rightly so. how ever, the class of user that deliberately makes comments or takes actions that usually result in heaps worth of drama usually isn't. In many cases, this is because the user which started the drama is playing the victim. Rather than put people on ignore they don't like, and go about their day, these people seem to take great comfort in constantly becoming the center of attention so that they may do damage to other users reputations, or gain popularity at their expense. Many users believe that in the majority of these cases, the one crying wolf gets away more or less cleanly. there are some notable examples that contradict this, but even so, these would appear to be more of an exception, not the rule. while many things are not as they seem, I don't think we're going to get anywhere as a community with the apparent problem of bullying, unless the one crying wolf when they started the mess is discouraged just as much from starting drama as those who take up the often misguided sword of vigilante justice.
while many CL's tell us as users that we don't need to know how things are usually taken care of, this attitude particularly as it applies to situations like those found above seems to just cause more confusion and mistrust. While in a technical sense, its true, we shouldn't have any expectation of acting as staff, when we're users, its clear that many users feel an extreme disconnect between what they see, and what actually takes place. considering all the things people go to CL's about, its clear that a majority of users don't know what a CL can and can't do, or what realistic actions can be taken against those whom they think broke the rules. At this point, the typical conversation circles back to what the users know of the community, its leaders and how they've acted in the past. Questions of favoritism, how people have dealt with these issues in the past, and everything but how the process actually works seem to take center stage in the panicked mass which is the users. while its not my place to say what a CL can and can't do, because i'm not a cl. I feel confident in quoting a piece of text directly off the zones main page that may give users an idea…
"Disclaimer
Please note that we prefer not to censor our members thoughts, and believe in freedom of speech. There are options to ignore most forms of communication if you choose not to participate, and we encourage you to make your own decisions as to what you view as acceptable content. We are not your parents."
In short. the CL's are not here to babysit the users. It is not their job to break up he said she said arguments… We have ignore for a reason.
You may think to yourself that this contradicts term 4 of the TOS a little, and maybe, it does… But, that's one thing I and many other users find charming about the zone. Most of the responsibility is on the users, not the staff. Do the users wish to change this? Is ignore not enough? Do we need a nanny state?
It is the belief of many here that we do not. Many users just want a little consistency, between CL's, rule enforcement, and the way choices are made.
It may be a good idea for the staff to tell users what a CL can and can't do, as well as what they should and shouldn't be doing. sure, this may give the trolls more room to wiggle around the law, but it would do a great deal in making users feel comfortable with the system in place.
now, on to the actual changes that I believe should be made.
For the most part, I think the TOS are fine as is. they could use a little clean up, and TLC, but I like the core of what we have. It gives us all a good deal of flexibility, while allowing the community to take action when necessary. Lets face it. the bullying has occurred for years, and its really no worse than it ever was, except on team talk… A lot of users avoid team talk because of some of the prolific trolls. Aside from the cleanup however, I propose we ad a section for the boards. I know several users who do not deal with the boards unless they must, or unless topics are pointed out to them. this is because they refuse to sort threw the chaff, and deal with all the duplicate topics, spam some users post all at once, and finally the content itself. while we can't do much about the content except for maybe stressing that people avoid sending one and 2 word replies to topics like "I agree," Same here," etc I think we can fix some other issues.
firstly, lets consider making it against the TOS to repeatedly post duplicate topics. We don't need 10 topics about the iPhone and 15 general topics talking about general iPhone games, for example.
Lets also apply this to users who tend to post 5 to 20 topics in one go, and then avoid the boards for a while, until they've got a mountain of topics to post again. Spam isn't good, end of story. there is no reason to post 10 philosophy topics in less than twenty four hours, for example.
Lastly on the subject of the boards. I'd like to put forward the idea of making thread jacking with ill intent against the TOS.
In other words, derailing topics for the sake of injecting negative comments that will start mass fights about subjects unrelated to the thread itself. I am not trying to kill debate. I just believe it belongs on the boards created for it.
Lastly, we could choose to define bullying and harassment if we wanted in the TOS, as well as figuring out exactly how the ignore feature and term 4 exist, but those are big issues that will probably take community agreement.
I know this has been a long post, and I apologize for the wordiness, but I truly believe that all the above content was necessary and Germain to figuring out what if anything should be done to the TOS. For the rules are only as good as those enforcing them. And no one is human.
Lastly I'd also like to say that I know part of the duties lie with the zone users. Staff are not around all the time, and can't have eyes on everything. Its unrealistic. this is why a contact link exists at the bottom of most pages. If you have a problem, get in touch with those who can help.
super human... I apologize for that error in the last paragraph.
Thank you, Stormwing, for your well-worded post. I'm extremely new here, and haven't read the ToS yet, but this rings true for many of my experiences in other online communities. It's refreshing to have access to a site for the blind with relatively little censorship. Your post inspires me to check out the ToS sooner rather than sometime. :) As for the typo, I was starting to wonder which planet I was on. :)
Well said Storming aka James. I truely support and agree on what James posted. Can't said it better myself, even if i try.
First off, James could not be more right, what is the purpose of the ignore feature if people refuse to use it?
I think the Terms are as straight forward as they can be,
anyway. I disagree with the age limit, first off, what do we do with the 13-15 year olds that are currently on the page? Do we grandfather them in, or do we tell them they have to wait until their 16th birthday to come back? If we do something along these lines, we might as well raise the age limit to 18, perhaps segregate the 13- 17 year olds?
Once again, if you are not mature enough to use the ignore feature, there is no reason for you to complain about the way things are ran.
Oh, and as for the point about the blindness bigotry. I would have to agree with that for the most part ;however, I see more hatred towards blindness groups, than blind people themselves. I always hear b.s like, "You are probably an NFBer, a hateful andmilitant radical" or, "You are an ACBer, need someone to hold your hand to walk 5 feet and need to be in a blind-train 40 people long to get around "
Those kinds of hatred seems a lot less important than straight, "You are blind, so you can't do anything for yourself" or, "I have some vision, while you have none, so I know better"
I agree with what TheAnonymous and a couple others have said. Sure, perhaps changing the wording of some of the TOS might help a little, but what will help the most is if the staff actually enforce the TOS. And perhaps the CL's and admins should talk more often and set up some rules about punishment for breaking the TOS. I know in the past when I used to have publics on more often and paid more attention to the drama than I do now, some CL's would ban a user for something that another CL would perhaps do nothing about. So there need to be standards of punishment that all the CL's agree to uphold and more of a visible presence of CL's so the rest of us users know they are here and care about what is happening.
The problem with raising the age limit is that in the US, where the Zone is based, 13 is the legal age limit for any person to use and join any public website.
The Zone, being public has done the correct legal thing, and could not raise this limit without becoming totally private.
Some attempt has been made to allow adult conversation in serene areas of the Zone, where a minor can not join, and this is on the voice chat server.
I believe legally, this is all the Zone can, and should do.
The Zone should not take on this responsibility, it is just too much of an issue.
The higher the age limit, the more of a hassle it's going to be for the community leaders.
I'd like to know what people think about this. I believe that most of the people who who decide to take on being a community leader don't seem to understand what's expected beyond the written responsibilities that are written in the application. Then, once they get the position, it seems like it hits them and it makes them avoid the site all together. Not all, but some at least. What do you think.
Sorry I didn't want to hit the button because I wasn't finished. But my reason for asking this is because I see it as being the main issue with the terms of service not being enforced. I don't think it's favoritism as much, but rather they don't want to have to put up with the crap that would come along with enforcing them.
In that case resign.
I have personally talked to two former community leaders, and they both admitted that they left the position because they found out the admins were not supportive or very helpful and also because of things that users expected them to do that were not part of their duties. This is why I said what I did in my post #38. If CL's and admins do not stay in more frequent contact and some expectations of duties are not set down and strictly upheld by the admins, then the CL's aren't going to always know how to handle certain situations, and the TOS aren't going to always be enforced.
The legal age is 13, but that doesn't mean a site has to accept 13-year-olds. MySpace wouldn't let my daughter sign up till she was 14 or one of us did it for her.
I know, I know, Myspace is old now, but that is how they did that. I forget what Facebook is but I think it's also 14.
So anyway it is technically possible, and I do see cause for restricting some younger viewers from some parts of the site, just like I can't take my 18-year-old daughter to an over-21 event even though she has moved out and lives on her own now. There is always the age carry-over whether the young end or the old end of the spectrum. It's tough but it's how it works.
Now as to existing users? Only makes sense to grandfather them in. If the site were to restrict areas like Quicknotes to certain age range or some other things, that could make sense. It's also incumbent on those of us of age to modify the conversation that's going on when the kids are around. Nobody's saying restrict all material of a sexual nature and certainly not that where somebody young is seeking either guidance, education or something similar. But raising the floor is a fair point, though I understand if you're 15 you might have a problem with it. We all did at that age, and at least some of us, albeit decades later, can understand and appreciate that frustration. I don't believe it's an on/ off switch but more of a situation where areas on the site, some boards, and maybe some graffiti topics, would be inaccessible to the underagers.
So if Sex Addicts was off limits, but they could post anonymously to Help Me, they could still get whatever they want help on for sexual or other type things if they want it, but the rather free reign of discussion on the other board would be off limits. That's not to say nobody is grown up enough to handle it, it's to say that while people are deemed somebody else's responsibility there are a few steps a site could, in theory, take. Admittedly you have sites like this one, or Myspace, on the one extreme. And you have nanny state services like AOL was, on the other. Any of us old enough to know remember how that worked out for AOL.
I have no experience with other blind sites, this being my first to have found. But blind or not, nobody wants a nanny state, old or young or somewhere in between. Truth be told, most of life's challenges get solved somewhere in the middle, with some form of compromise.
Just a few more of my thoughts on this after taken awhile to think about it.
it doesn't matter what the terms of service say, if the powers that be aren't consistent with regards to how things are handled on this, or any website.
All this brings up a fair point. What can the admins do? What can the CL's do? and if one CL is gonna do one thing for a user for doing XYZ, then shouldn't another CL handle it the same way? Isn't that the fair way to be?
Most of the responsibilities that the community leader is required to fulfill are put in the application. However, it does say that is not limited to those responsibilities. Because there are situations that come up, and the admins are not always around, it is up to the community leader to make what they feel is the best decision. They are human too, and they might make mistakes or bad judgmental calls. So to say that what one does, the others must follow suit isn't a good idea. On top of that everyone responds to situations differently.
At the end of the day you can't expect everyone to be happy. You've just got to decide what you think is best and go with it especially if it is a situation that needs immediate attention. Serious or not, whatever mistakes you made can be fixed later.
Last, the admins know what they have to do. They run this house and keep it going when specific issues with the website come up. Becky is right, hopefully there is a way where communication can become better. It will help.
I dont expect everybody to be happy, but I think something that is clearer wil help. Comunication is key, definetly agree on that point.
consistency is key, period. not just here, but anywhere in life. if the top people don't ensure that the rules are enforced, more than likely, the bottom people won't, either.
speaking as a former leader, so I am speaking from experience, and what I did worked so well that my group was extremely home like, and no one wanted me to go when I had to pass my position along because of time restraints on my life, which I regret. This however, is not the point, but what I am trying to say is I know what I am talking about because the things I will state below works well. I am also a great fan of politics.
to create a more just and better site, we need a code that supports, justice, friendliness, and peace. A code that revolves around a code of honor, respect, courtesy, and love for liberties.
first, what we need to do is consistent admin pressure, and consistency on enforcing the rules, and letting cls know extremely clearly that they are no exception and must follow the rules first. They are also not better or above anyone else. as I said to my staff, you are just another member too, yes you have power to moderate, but you are still in this family just lie me, as a member. thirdly, favoritism does not belong in moderation. no one should be favored, at all. if they are unjust and/or wrong, they go. no exceptions. Also cls should follow rules that is set out visibly I called it staff rules, but you can call it cl tos if you would so desire. The most important is this code is also visible, and on this code, need to state clearly what is and is not proper to do. So, the inconsistency people discuss here do not exist.
each professional document is to written in professional language, and please do not make jokes in it. site legislation is absolutely no place for joking, or very soon members will not understand where you mean to be serious and when you mean to joke.
lets address our cl rules first, as I think that's most essential, and what is causing most of the sites problem.
1. mandate staff to be present often, sorry, I know we all have lifes, but you did sign up to moderate a site like this. a big job. this is now part of life to to be a site politician. and to work with members. I say if not more, at least once a day and very minimally once every wo days, but I think that a cl should be online at all times, or an admin, I made a point to do that when I moderated as an administrator. and it worked very well.
2. no favoritism, site rules are to be followed to the last t. no exception.
3. the rule about pr or hr policy. which is clearly to be friendly, approachable, concerned, a quick response , and always to be polite. all leaders, should be kind regardless of the member especially those in the community who are mentally challenged. work with these people to understand what the rules mean, and to set standards as to what is appropriate and what is not.
4.
4. mandate cl meetings discussions, and colobrrations and to have words with the admins at least once a week. if not more. in a community like this staff must stick together and learn to enforce what is fair and just by the whole staff.
5. demand humility, you can't let power carry you away. you have to use power moderately and justly. we do not need thrasymachus's around here.
6. still on the pr note, get to all the members that you can try to communicate with them if they want it.
7. the staff needs to be professional. I know this is all volunteer work but don't you think inappropriate audio profiles, tags, statuses or messages, is inappropriate for staff regardless?
8. I would note at the top that this set of rules are to be followed by all administration even fellow admins. and, all these rules must be followed, and that there will be no exceptions.
now lets look at the terms of service shall we?
I actually think this site should be limited to age 18 or over, adults only. this site's content a large part of the content on hear are not suitable to minors. and I agree, there should be rules against cyberbullying, and trolling. also, rules on no flaming. some people randomly attack others just for the fun of a flame war. this shall never in any circumstance be permitted. also, strict enforcement of spam, such as luthrK's unwelcome message to all the female variety on here. that is crass, no doubt, but it is also spam. you can not punish him on the crassness perhaps, but his spam like behavior should be a punishable wrong or anyone elses, as well. The intellectual property law bit should be it's own rules and much more obvious and given more prominence and importance.
While I think the above user has valid ideas, I don't think that expecting 0 flaming, trolling, or bullying on this sight will ever happen, with out a hugely radical shift in the sights policies, politics, culture and users. To a degree, I think this is an unrealistic expectation. We move in to nanny state moderation so to speak. I don't think it should be the job to protect little Malfoy because he said something to little harry, resulting in Fred, George, and Ron coming to his defense.
If this is the kind of change the community wants, then for starters, we'd need to strip the disclaimer from the front page, and completely do a 180 on the culture of the place. thus far, the majority seems to imply they don't want stronger moderation or TOS, just a bit more consistency.
and the fact that you can ignore people if you so choose works out well, to...
there's so many ways to not hear from people you dont wanna hear from.
Okay, I will likely create contraversy with my upcoming comment, but whatever..
We keep hearing about fair this fair that, favoriteism exists everywhere. I have a friend who owns a club, I get to the front of the line simply because I am cool with him. Some may think that's unfair, but that is just how it is. If Chris/ J.J want someone to get the f out of their club, so be it.
Another thing, I will repeat the, "Ignore feature" if someone is bothering you in the club, call security, that's your ignore feature, if you don't get the right authorities to get rid if your problem for you, you have nothing to complain about..
J.J/ Chris are making money from the Ads/ Premiums that are bought, if you are not helping their wallets, just move on...
Yeah, I highly oppose a lot of what poster 47 said. This should be a relaxed place. This does not need to be some place where the staff acts like Social Security. Nor do we need to try and persue any kind of political game on here. Scott wouldn't be Scott if he was forced to be serious and I have a lot of respect for him. Imagine Anthony with out his sense of humor, too. It would be..., different to say the least. So now why don't we just focus on the Terms, and enforcement of them.
In response to post 20:
I must say I agree with you 100%. Hate speech against the blind should not be tolerated on this site. If a sighted person went up to a blind person and called them a "blink" or a "blindy" they're going to get pretty mad, just like an African American would get upset if he was called the N word by a white boy. Yet both...shall we call them factions, in this example? would not get mad if it was one of their own using the above-mentioned terms. In that regard therefore, the words are virtually the same and should not be allowed. This then should be enforced under the TOS.
In general response to the topic:
I haven't been a community leader on the site for a few years now, and after glancing at the TOS when I haven't really read them in such a long time I have to say that the rest of them are pretty alright and self-explanatory, except perhaps the age range. Even when we decided to make the site for people thirteen years or older, I was actually very against it at the time, arguing that they are too young for the website. I've got a niece who's almost thirteen years old, and I have to say, I would not even allow her to look at the offline content of this web site let alone any of the stuff one sees after logging in. There is way too much on the site, including on the graffiti boards that I would not want to expose anyone at that age range to, and there's not really a parental control-like method to block them from the account of someone who is perhaps, under the age of 18. Now, were you to create a method that would block people under 18 from certain content on the site, I think it would be a fair compromise, but well, that's really reaching.
Bullying is something that unfortunately cannot be prevented whether you're on the zone, or something like facebook/twitter. As I understand it new laws are in the works to prevent cyber bullying, but well, the hands of most site administrators is tied until those laws can be implemented. Poster 47's thoughts and guidelines would work in a fantasy world, but definitely not on the zone with so many people of such diverse personalities and backgrounds.
Just learn about something new, I think the, "anonymous" feature on the Graffiti boards should be erased. People are clearly abusing it, I see nothing but slandering going on on it. If this is what people are going to do to attack someone, the ignore feature will be rendered useless..
Why? They have a choice not to read what is posted there.
While I think some miner abuse has happened on the gossip board as of late, in the past you can't deny that some really dark and brutal information was posted about people. things that were not technically against the TOS, but were so slanderous and so vilifying it ruined relationships, friendships, and peoples standing in the community for a great while. As it stands, those posting on gossip don't remember that while they're joking, some of their slanderous comments will impact users for ever. I do think anon should remain on sex addicts, addictions, and help me, though.
I've taken my time in thinking about what to do about the 13 threw 18 crowd. On one hand, allowing people of 13 years of age on this sight follows the law, on the other much of the content simply is way over the line of what most parents would allow their children to see at that age. I don't think that the community should be restricted to make things more age friendly, but at the same time, I don't really see an easy way of obtaining parental consent, either. In addition, many 13, 14, 15, and even 16 year olds i've known in the past have to one degree or another been sexually exploited on here. While some of them didn't know better, and some of them just wanted to experiment, what do we do about the fact that in many cases what has happened is seriously illegal? and considering that people under the age of 18 in the US can not sign legally binding agreements, what's to stop the parents of the children from taking the zone to court, ETC?
First off, agreed with James... Gossip can and has gotten out of hand..
But to respond to your comment Ryan..
You have absolutely 0 freedom in skipping over these posts. Especially when it becomes so slanderous people will confront you directly to your face about these topics. the two rules are clearly stated, "No threats or slander", the slander portion has been clearly abused, these people have obviously shown they are not mature enough to handle the feature, so why keep it around?
and you could not be more wrong, all the features on the website is made for all to enjoy, how can you tell someone, "No, you can't go on there if you feel harassed"
Why should the person not trying to create drama be the one who is punished?
Shouldn't it it be the loser who is purposely saying idiotic things to create a rise out of people the one who should be hit?
and lastly, what is the purpose of the ignore feature if I can continue to slander you even if I have you ignored? and I am sure most people would love to ignore the ones trolling them, but how can you ignore someone if you have no idea who they are?
if someone posts to the gossip board something they perceive as just gossip and rumour would that stand as slander? half the crap on there is jibberish surely anyone with a few brain cells can understand that? if you're relationships are being effected by a bunch of shit talk on the internet take a long hard look at yourself.
On a more interesting note, re post 46 I think this sight currently couldn't facilitate anything like your suggestions. also with something like that you're basicly trying to hide people from reality surely. O don't go to that club because the reputation is bad, life is a learning curve being hid from society doesn't have a good outcome.
I also think the cultures thing will never go away, this is a site with people from around the world logging in daily. Like Shane, Ryan, James and others have suggested use the ignore feature. I bet if you did a survey of all the members you'd find different definitions of cyber bullying and trolling. because if we are frankly honest and realistic what happens here isn't actually a flee of what happens on much larger communities and social media.
I am not condoning all the actions, but the basics here is just a bit of name calling and verbal abuse. go and research actual cases of trolling and bullying and you'll see what kind of scale it occurs on.
I like others just think consistancy and realism should be a factor of the way the sight is ran.
The relationships that are being negatively impacted by the online slander are online relationships, so of course online drama can lead to drama within relationships, and I will reiterate what I said. I am not pushing against the shit talking in fact I am responsible for much of it that goes on on a daily, I am against this shield mechanism that weak-minded people are using.
I am sure a huge portion of the bans on this website have been on account of continuous harassment from a user who got ignored by another.
and how much trolling that goes on on other websites is irrelevant to my point, 99 percent of websites such as these allow you to block someone, the anonymous feature has made it impossible for people to be ignored.
All I am suggesting is that it be removed from the gossip board, if you have anything to post, then post it publically. Like you said, it's just the internet, so why be afraid of showing your virtual face?
i say just use the ignore feature. that's what its there for.
as far as letting people below 18 on here goes,if its leagle, why not let the parent make the choice? and as a parent if you really feel that uncomfortable, dont let your kid on here. shouldn't you, as a parent be responsible for what your kid sees and doesn't see?
The other way to look at it is well, they're gonna see it anyway...
i'd be pretty pissed as a 15 year old to be told no you can't go on this or that... but just sayin.
"the anonymous
feature has made it impossible for people to be ignored."
Really? How so? you can still ignore people. people can still ignore you. As far as having things out there in public with names etc etc, that can happen anyware. what makes the zone so different?
still if your online relationship is shakey from idiotic postings again evaluate it. I can't see how or why it'd effect you. if harassment is going on then yes ban or disaplin said person with correct punishment. I would guess a warning would be significant enough to head the person off.
if you hid the anon feature on the gossip board, who isn't to say they'd continue on the anonimous board? you could end up with a circle and losing a helpful feature on boards such as help me and addicts etc. if you are easily offended don't read that board? maybe a warning of such material should be put on then.
You still have the choice to look at the board. You still have the choice to take it seriously. You still have the choice to get angry about it, even though you know it isn't true. Get what I'm saying? Whether the anonymous feature is taken away or not, people will still talk shit about people. And you know what? They'll still do it even if the person has them on ignore, and by one way or another they'll probably find out they've been talked about.
So if you are being harassed on quick-notes you should turn that off? and what about the people who are not even going onto these boards, is it fair that they are still being talked about by some person who fears getting roasted in public?
Give me 1 reason how the anonymous feature is benefitial on this gossip board? If something is true enough or worth being said you should be able to say it without hiding yourself..
There is clearly much more negative that comes out of this feature on the gossip board than actual good. I see this as the internet equivalent to idiots who write stuff about people in public restrooms..
With all this, maybe there aren't enough cl's?
Actually, now that I think about it, Ryan has a point. If someone doesn't like what they read, being talked about or other people, why log on in the first place? I find it rediculous to get mad especially over the gossop bord, and I think the anonymus feature is a big mistake. As I meantioned earlior in that bord, if one shall make accusations that are serious and have proof, why post as an anon, and why the hell postin the gossop bord? Isn't why the contact staff is for? Also, the ignore feature isn't as effective as expected, because if one post anonimusly then it's still possible to read what you don't want to read, if you choose to go that path. And, I think we all should grow up a bit, and act like mature adults, maybe a lot of bullshit would be avoided. CL's are not there to watch us 24-7, and if for whatever reason a matter isn't solved then, how unfortunate. Yet it is our responsibilitty to maintain a decent conduct, and avoid what we don't like.
I forgot to add, the age limit is way too much of an issue, especially because since it's a websiget and there needs no proof, many people can go around lying about their age, not saying anyone does, however limiting what miners view MAYBE BE possible
Yeah. I guess if the anonymous feature is taken away, then we should do away with quicknotes because people get harrassed on them. And maybe we should also do away with the boards, because people get in heated debates and get offended. There are many sorts on here, most adults but it doesn't mean everyone will act like adults. It's not that hard. If you can't stand what's said on there by the anonymous or whoever, then just don't go on there. Note: remember the community leaders can see what is posted even by the anonymous. So if something is really that bad, they will get rid of the person and the posts.
Actually Ryan, the sight is the bords, quicknotes, mainly besides the games. so, might as well control the whole sight or take it off completely? I don't think so, I still stand by us behaving ourselves, and, maybe a bit of taking, editing or restricting the content in some features, maybe, but people break rules, regardless.
How bout getting rid of the christmasy shit first before updating the TOS? Seriously, it's almost May.
Wow I am impressed. lot of good thoughts have gone into some of your answers. The biggest thing if people would just show a bit of respect and feeling for others the site would be a lot better place to chat.
remember the site is made of three parts administration staff and users and if all don't work together with consistency the sight wont work.
that's all thanks
So its not just me that thought the Christmas stuff was a b bit late in comeing off....
You are not getting the point at all..
Unlike the boards, you can control what you see on Quick-notes, you can ignore people, turn your quick-notes on and off as you choose, and relatively control what is being read by you.
You are not a stupid guy, so I don't understand how you are not understanding.
Let me break it down a tad-bit more for you.
1.) Anonymous renders the ignore feature useless, thus making the most powerful tool on the site unreliable.
2.) The Graffiti posts are practically permanent, if someone puts something as a joke, but has it read by someone else multiple times, it becomes more believable. It is just human nature, if you read something over and over again, you are more inclined to believe outlandish things A.K.A the media
and
3.) There is more bad that comes from it than good, I asked you to name me one positive, you have yet to do that.
Oh, and one more thing
4.) It makes people who are afraid of confrontation feel they are tough guys/ girls. These people are not doing these things simply for laughs, they are doing it because they have a lack of self-esteem, they feel empowered to pick on people without feeling the reprocussions that could come from things they say.
If you want to troll, troll away, but make sure you are prepared to get smacked around yourself. What is the point of allowing someone to throw verbal javs at someone who can clearly not defend themselves?
I completely agree with the above post. this reminds me a lot of people who put others on ignore, only to go around insulting them, knowing they can't fight back.
To each their own. I see how it could benefit people do to away with it, but it doesn't seem to be that much of a benefit other than the fact that we would know who the shit talkers would be.
We would? if i were doing that and they told me i couldnt post Anonymously, i would stop posting. i mean if they wouldnt' wanna get found out, all they'd have to do is not post if the Anonymous feature got taken away. right?
so this discussion on the change of the tos has turned into, please dont' abuse friends and people anonimously?
Imp is correct get rid of the christmas stuff it's a joke that shit is still cycling around.
I don't know because I haven't frequened here as much as you guys in the past, but sure James said this stuff has come up and gone away? surely that will happen again? I am not sure why you suddenly feel the need to change the whole aspect of grafiti. as I stated in my last post I know peopel benefit from the anon side of things on other parts of that board, the help me, sex addicts, addicts anonimous. Why punish them people for a minority who can't cope with a bit of text abuse?
how about a suggestion then. the ignore feature can ignore even posts on such thing as Grafiti whether anonimous or not? surely it's not impossible through coding?
another feature that is floored you can check how long someone has been logged in, if they are invisible (another way of hiding from abuse) it shows you them too. surely that shouldn't happen?
I think that there was a compromise mentioned in one of the above posts which suggested keeping the anonymous feature on a board like sex addicts. If someone tries to post gossip there or something else that shouldn't be on that particular board, then at least that can be taken down.
I think this topic has gotten way too far from its original purpose. As far as the wording of the TOS themselves goes, if you don't want to add the legal bit mentioned in post 16, then don't. Its essential purpose is to cover the admins' asses, is all. Sites like Facebook have it, even if the rest of their terms of use are easy to read and understand.
Have a requirement of someone needing to log in once a year to keep the account. So many accounts are so old and not used.
since they never get deleted anyway (account nunber 1000 is 1000) there would be no point to that.
Hi everyone,
Due to the large number of posts on this topic, I haven't read everything that's been said, so forgive me if I repeat something that's already been posted. Firstly, I would like to echo the prevailing sentiment that the terms are useless if not enforced. Secondly, for awhile I thought that the Zone should become an 18-and-over site, mostly due to the amount of bullying that takes place here and the overwhelming amount of content that, as someone else said, I wouldn't let my younger family members anywhere near. But now I'm not so sure. I mean, for one thing, kids are going to find ways to access content that they shouldn't. I sure did. lol. There's no way to fully prevent this. However, as another poster pointed out, there are ways to limit minors' access to such things, and I strongly believe that they should be implemented here. Finally, I have a few comments about bullying that also relate to age restrictions and to cognative disabilities. As I said above and as everyone on this site knows, bullying has been a huge problem in our community for years. Now, I'm an adult, I do not have a cognative disability, and I have a mature personality. As such, I can not only handle the vulgar things said by bullies but also discount them as having no significance whatsoever to my life. But kids and people with cognative disabilities may not have fully developed this ability, and I've seen them targeted on this site more times than I care to count. Verbal abuse of minors and people with cognative disabilities is not generally accepted in society, so why should it be tolerated here? And as for the difficulty of defining the act of cyberbullying, I'm not so sure that it couldn't be something as simple as "any statement that damages an individual mentally, emotionally, or psychologically. People, I'm not suggesting taking away freedom of speech; I'm just promoting good old common sense.
So, that's my two cents' worth.
Becky
I think what needs to be done is the terms of service needs to be enforced a bit more, because it seems to me that people with mental disabilities and people who are friens with the cls need to also abide by the rules as well.The reason I say that is because everytime I say what I feel, I get in trouble just for saying what I think.
On the whole, I agree with much of what has already been said, so I'll be succinct.
First and foremost, the terms of service need to be taken more seriously. Community leaders and administrators should at least attempt to appear more visible, or like they really know the dirt going on around here at times, enough so that people cut it out once in a while. I know they all are fully aware of what goes on, but it seems like they turn a blind eye to it, especially when it's someone they consider a friend or good person or "harmless." This touches on the favoritism people have mentioned several times. That crap definitely needs to go, or at least be better hidden, because I totally understand that it's human nature to have friends and favorites and so forth.
In terms of developing a policy on cyberbullying and harassment, I think that might be really beneficial and comforting to many members, but extremely hard to enforce. Rules are already difficult to enforce on the zone, so this would probably add a lot to that difficulty, and I'm not entirely convinced it would be effective. I would love for it to be though, since I know sometimes the bullying goes quite too far.
I also am slightly inclined to have age restrictions, or at least age restricted areas. Some of the content on here makes my stomach turn, and I cringe at the thought of an under eighteen reading it, but I know I did not too long ago, and I think I turned out ok? Haha. Irregardless, sure, it's easy to put the blame on the parents for not knowing what their kids are reading on the internet, but let's be real. My parents had no idea I was on here all the time in high school, and I can tell you that's the story for many, many others. So perhaps implementing some age restrictions would be a good thing, even if it's sometimes difficult to prove real age.
I agree with Shayne that the anonymity of gossip is kinda pointless. If you're willing to put someone's crap out there, then be willing to put at least your username out there with it. If anything, it makes you more of a credible source. Maybe? But the anonymity for other topics, like the ones mentioned, are beneficial. Even if some abuse it for jokes and crap talk, there are major advantages to a hidden identity on help-seeking forrums.
Well, that's about it for now. Hope that was helpful. On the whole. the terms of service are alright, but they definitely need more strict enforcement.
ok, as far as enforcing the bullying I agree with it but how can it be done on here?
The thing I would say is if a person has more than 100 or 90 people ignoring them they should be warned or watched or banned for a short wile then banned forever
as far as having favorites and turning a blind eye, I want to point out something that happened recently. Someone put this girl on ignore. This girl isn't all that popular and doesn't seem to be someone that the popular public chatters like all that well. When the girl realized that a person put her on ignore, she selected the ignorer and sent them points. several people complained about it, too, and I did warn her. However, just a few days before that, a different girl put one of the dominent public chatter guys on ignore. The first thing he did was select the girl and send her some points. The same exact thing, but in this case, the reaction was totally different. Other people on the site at the time cheered him on, "Way to go!" No one complained or said anything about him breaking the terms of service. Some of the people who really want the rules enforced don't seem to realize that if they got their wish, they, as well as some of their good friends, would no longer be on the site.
And this Anthony is where the CL kindness and decision making is so important.
I notice you do this well.
Sure, but users should be warned, and if they continue to ignore the warning a tempary banning is in order.
I don’t agree with permanently banning unless the user has blatantly refused to abide by the terms, but for simple things as you posted, warnings are enough.
Also, I feel it is a CL’s job to think about the person they are warning, in what level that person is at.
If you warned a person say 6 months ago about something and you notice they did it again 6 months later, simply give them a reminder, not a banning.
so what you're saying is the rules shouldn't be enforced? I'm just trying to understand.
The rules are enforced with sense not the book. This is a community and in a community you have all levels of people. You also have people that don't mean harm and make mistakes.
In regular society, that rule applies.
Example, you are speeding, and a cop pulls you over. She or he at that time decides to ticket you, or warn you. Most warn, unless they notice you are on a long list of repeat offenders.
It is just human kindness.
No. I'm just saying that it depends on the crowd who is logged in and the offender as to which rules are important enough that they actually make a fuss. See my example above. It's a total contradiction. as for me personally, yes, I think the rules could definitely be better enforced. I really don't like to bann people, and when I do, I try to get the other staff members' input on the matter first. I'd much rather try to reason with the person and get them not to do the offensive action anymore. sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
it seems to me that some of these people don't get warned or nothing gets done about it.
Another question I have is why is it that people who have mental challenges get away with some things but somebody like myself who is only blind can't get away with it.
For example, if I say I don't agree with something, I get in trouble.
Show me an example of a time you have gotten in actual trouble for saying what you thought, so we can figure out what's up. Has a cl or admin warned or banned you because you stated an opinion?
You need to understand that you have a right to express your opinion, but when you do, people also have the right to state their own opinion, even if it challenges your own. Having several people disagree with you isn't exactly the same thing as actually getting in trouble.
I offended somebody who has a mental illness I can't remember who it was, but I told him how I felt and I got warned, I can't remember who it was who warned me.
Would you expect a blind man to cross a busy street with out his cane, or read a printed book? No.
If you ask a mentally challenged person to understand your explanation about something, who is mental?
I don't believe you got warned for saying your opinion about a mentally challenged person. It was probably a suggestion that you stop picking on someone lesser by a CL. That is a suggestion, not a warning.
Is there not an official format to giving warnings?
If not, maybe that should be created.
I know the week to give input has already past, but I think this is important.
Recently in public quick notes, there has been a lot of confusion about what exactly constitutes personal information. I've been lead to believe based on the actions of CL's in the past that personal information is defined as any personally identifiable information that could lead to unwanted contact off the zone, such as full name, email address, physical address, phone number, and any other online screen names held by the user on other web sights or services. I have been lead to believe that personal information is not defined as gossip, slanderous rumor, or information spread about a user. Never the less, some seem to think these apply, while others do not.
But the terms state you should not give it out if you don't wish to it given out. I have not noticed any CL giving anyones personal information, so I'm lost on this one?
Your information belongs to you, so if you want to give it out, that should be your choice. Now if you do, you can't complain because it caused you negative outcome, because you are warned not to unless you really want someone to know.
It is right there when you fill out your profile.
yes, but isn't there then a contradiction between the two terms?
Ah, see what you mean. Have one not both. Okay, good suggestion.
there's a contradiction in what two termbs
I think James is saying that gossip/slander is the same thing as personal information.
nope, that's not what i'm saying. I'm saying that a lot of people think it is. And thus, we actually should have a list of what kinds of things are considered personal.
my mistake.
I agree. I have crossed the line before not knowing what I was saying was slander, and though I all ready know what it is now, it would be helpful if there was a deffinition put somewhere. I think someone might have farther up the line here.
gossop is talking about people or spreading people's business around, i think.
personal info is your address, phone number etc.
i dont think you're gonna stop people from gossoping about others, butg personal info? people should be careful with that sorta thing.
but what if you're doing it privately to another user, is that doing the same thing?
I have never seen anyone be slandered on here. Slander is not just insulting someone.It is insulting them to a point that it negatively effects their life. The fact that some people on a computer don't like you does not negatively effect your life. No one has ever lost a job because of something someone said on the zone. We're not that important.
The only addition I would like to see to the terms of service is the following: "Rule number one. Grow up. Realize that not everyone is going to like you, agree with you or coddle your feelings to the degree that you would wish. People on this site are going to argue with you, and at times they are going to do it harshly. There are jerks on this site who will call you names for sneezing. Get over it."
That's it, that's all we need.
well said, Cody.
I think people who are bullys need to be kicked off of chat sites like this or be put on ignore and it should send a message to the staff when somebody has more than 100 people on ignore.
A better term for what James is talking about would be "personally identifiable information."
And as to what Anthony said, yes I have seen it in Quicknotes.
In this case, I don't know enough to know if a CL could change that or not, it's more of a Lord of the Flies incident among a few high school wannabe gang-bangers who, before the Internet, would have been waving around switchblades and lighters pretending they were tough. Only in an offline existence, you could be confronted by a real older guy who was far more experienced in the real world, and could teach you a lesson it takes a week to absorb and a lifetime to forget. This is impossible to do online.
wha'ts that. talkin about people? people do talk about people its the nature of life.
But giving somebody's name and address out if you have it isn't cool at all.
maybe they dont want the entire world to know.
b
and when you're talked about the people who do it should be put on ignore
the reality is, bullies exist, whether offline or online, and no matter how much some of you may wanna attempt to completely stop them, that'll never happen.
well Raylo you have the ignore feature so if they talk about you, you can feel free to use it b
has there been any update on a draft TOS?
its been roughly a month since this topic has been posted.
No. You've been put on ignore. Get use to it.
lol wayne, so has everybody i think.
Nope, just you. Lol
thanks a lot man. lol
So I'm sorry if whatever I say here repeats too much of what others have said. It's been so long since I read through the topic that I don't remember all of it. I'm also sorry if I say anything to offend. It is definitely not my intent.
Cody, if slander is negatively impacting someone's life, then I think that has been done on this site. Wasn't there at least one case of suicide on this site as a result of bullying? I know there may have been pre-existing issues with the person, so perhaps "gossip" wasn't the sole cause, but I would just suggest that perhaps words do have a larger impact than some of you are prepared to consider. Teenagers are especially affected by gossip and rumors. I remember when I was younger, some of the things people said about me on here made me so depressed that I did things I'm not proud of. And that's just me throwing myself out there, as someone who lived through it and is stronger now for it, and perhaps some of you would say I'm weak, but that's your perogative.
I know it's impossible to cut gossip out, but I think it would be beneficial to limit it. And aside from the argument that it wouldn't change a whole lot, tell me what would be so bad about making it impossible to post anonymously on the gossip board, and restricting topics about addiction and help-seeking to just that, so that gossip couldn't be posted anonymously there. I know that would create more work for the site administration, to filter topics, so I highly doubt that's going to happen, but, in a perfect world...
Just my thoughts as a psychology major. I do see value in at least attempting to protect teenagers from cyberbullying. I have seen the impact it can have. You all have, even if you don't give a damn about victims like Phoebe Prince. Just awful. And there are things that can be done about it.
And ok, just saying, why are there no consequences for users who have a ridiculous amount of ignorers? People like lutherk who obviously benefit no one by accessing this site. I know there are an awful lot of "cool" people who have a lot of ignorers too, so I understand that the number of people ignoring you doesn't necessarily reflect someone's personality accurately, but come on. Why is lutherk still on here? Haha
I have to agree with you on that one, because cyber bullying is getting worse and worse, I'm stunned and shocked that there are people who will take their own lives because of somebody saying something about them.
I understand the feeling, because I was teezed a lot when I was 6 years old. As for that one member being taken off the website, I agree with that one as well.
I have asked this before and I am going to ask again. Is there a way to spend our points on things such as restaurant gift cards.e. Red Lobster (1650 points for a $25 gift card). This is an example, there may be other restaurants and gift cards.
yes, its called the raffel system, but like everything else , that has gone the wayside
I am going to ask a question.
May standard users have the feature to login invisible?
I doubt you'll get the invisibility capability for all users because ... it's called premium for a reason.
As far as the bullying situation goes the TOS are pretty clear. But, as long as anthony is the only CL coming to the sight, t here's no one to take care of problems. It's like the old west when the marshal is on permanent vacation.
Bob
My way of thinking is, there are going to be people who you won't like, whether it be on or off of this site. It's no different. And why even bother to take it personal when you more than likely will not meet them in real life? As for ciber bullying, I'm going to have to agree with Sarah on what she said, because I've seen this happen before, and it's a very serious thing. Now, as far as the terms of service, I would change the minimum age up to 15 or 16, due to the relatively mature nature of this site. My argument is that parents (at least the parents who care about the children) would not want their 13-year-old son or daughter on a site filled with mature content. It's not really about age and maturity level in this case, it's just about how susceptible these young kids are to being influenced by people and their sense of humor that the parents might otherwise not approve of. That's my take on it.
I'm not sure I buy the "Reality is, bullies exist ..." argument.
I think what needs to happen is that bullying needs to have a real definition applied to it online, and then enforce that. We can't just go calling every feelings hurt bullying, but just as bad are the people that say "bullies exist, get over it."
Racists exist, blacks get over it. Homophobes exist, gays get over it, and so on. Not a whole lot of precedent there.
I do understand the slippery slope arguments. I do understand that the term is just a catch-all name-calling word in a lot of circles, like "being offended."
But what happens is people say everyone else needs to just get over it, while their own pet issue gets special consideration, whatever that may be.
I'm interested to see how Facebook is going to manage this, I have heard there are rumblings afoot to that end.
And this, ladies and gentelment, is why I don't think I really want to ever be a CL on this site or moderator anywhere else. A lot of these terms thrown around have too much variables in meaning, and we have nonsense people on both sides not contributing but either crying or dogmatically saying everyone else has to just agree with it.
I would say posts that come off as harsh can't be seen as bullying. But harassing and following someone around on the site, posting personal information and defaming someone could be. Again, giants like Facebook and even Twitter are working this one out.
To the blunt I say, in so-called real life, people don't just get over it. It costs people things in jobs and relationships.
astares leading to heaven If, you- are under 18, please hang up now!
There is a new chat line for you and its name is STARES LEADING TO HEAVENN, and hears the phone number (712)432-4808
for every room that you come in to, then you have climed onemore step on the latter.Do you have what it takes to run a room on this chat line?well callCountryGirl. at her filmore box (773)572-6288 or you can call Errick on his filmore box (773)597-4210
What was the point of that last post? it was spam.
Leo, I agree with parts of your last post. this is all really hard to codify.
the community has a lot of vigilante justice, that deals with some of this.
But to a point, that's half the problem. That's how the wars get started.
But considering a CL can't be here every waking hour of every day. People feel a lot less restricted.
I disagree. CLs can't be here every hour of every day because 80% of them are almost never here, if at all. If admins had interest in running this site, they would boot the CLs who aren't here (they can see when they log in invisibly) and appoint admins who are here frequently, are primarily respected by others on the site... perhaps having a geographic/time zone requirement? It's not that CLs can't be online, it's just that they aren't.
Kate
When applying for the position, it asks how many hours per week the applicant can donate to the site. from what I was told, if someone said only a couple of hours a week, they weren't even considered for the position. I don't actually know this for fact though, since we've not tried to bring in any new CL's since I've been a part of the staff.
I could probably show up once a year. Does that make me eligible?
None of this matters because no one in authority reads it anyway.
Bob
Well, it's funny. I loved how, when the last time the zone was in search of CL's, the two girls who were barely around at that point, suddenly popped up and started campaigning for votes. Never mind that they hadn't been on regularly forever and had no idea about the current goings-on of the zone as it stood at the time. They were on here all day every day while the voting was going on. Then, once they won the CL positions, which they no doubt would have since they worked so hard on their votes, they disappeared again, and appeared on the site less and less frequently till they faded out. lol. Meanwhile, those of us who are regularly on here and applied weren't voted in--because of less campaigning? Maybe the admins should actually look at the log-in history of those applying for CL positions--if any new positions are ever open again that is--and then they'll see if these people are likely to stick around or not.
Good thing anthony was allways a regular. Without him around, there wouldn't be any maintenance around here at all. Good thing at least one great cl was chosen. lol.
I second the last poster's comments.
Hats off to Anthony.
Bob
I agree about Anthony being a great CL and being very visible. I know that Scott is also around as much as he can be given his busy schedule, and he does work invisibly at times so might not be as visible, but he is here. I also agree about those two girls who campaigned strenuously and then disappeared. But as others have pointed out in the past, there are certain things the CL's simply are not capable of doing. They can pass along user requests to the two administrators, but if those admins choose to do nothing, there is nothing the CL's can do.
This board is proof of that. Look at when it was created. We were supposed to start work on the new terms of service two weeks from that date. It's true that a couple of us CL's could get together and rewrite it and show it to JJ, but who's going to enforce the new rules anyway?
Jage said on another topic recently that he wished he gave this site more time. I'm personally only convinced that that was just an attempt at shutting people up who have been complaining. It's going to take more than that to change direction with things on here.
Yeah, we all wish he and Chris would devote more time to this site. Let's see how far just wishing gets us.
one point to keep in mind though, is that if the owner doesn't care, why should the staff? I think Chris N would do a whole lot more if there was some actual direction. I might be wrong, but I don't think so. JJ does a lot of good stuff when he's here, but that's just not very often or for very long.
Well, it looks like the TOS aren't getting updated in a hurry, but there has been some seriously interesting discussion here.
Firstly, I've been on this site since I was 13. If I had gone to it and been told there was an 18 and under restriction, I'd probably have lied about my age. It doesn't mean I'm dishonest now, it means that I was always curious and so are many people at that age. The fact is that the internet is absolutely full of content that most people would say is not suitable for 13 year old people. The solution is parental controls and/or restricted internet access, not restricted access to specific sites. While I think maybe there should be certain areas of the site that are age restricted, telling people they shouldn't be here until they're 18 is going to cause many people to lie about their age. There are not a huge number of people under 13 who want to get on here, but there will definitely be an unbelievably high number of 13-17 year olds wanting to get on. Also, if part of the site is restricted, what stops people from logging out and reading it? Should we restrict access for logged out users as well? Lastly, I hate to say it, but the number of people who are over 18 and still causing drama on here is amazingly high. That problem won't go away either. People (both staff and users) just need to learn to deal with it more effectively depending on the situation.
My opinion on the anonymous feature is that it should be completely removed from all boards, replaced by the ability to create an individual screen name on each one. This can't be changed often, and cannot be linked back to your original user account either, but it would make it possible to create an anonymous specific ignore system and also keep better track of conversations. So I could be Simon on here, but troll321 on graffiti and something else entirely on the other boards. It sounds confusing, but if you think about it, it really isn't. Having said this, that would require work on the part of the site administrators, and it doesn't seem like they're putting a lot of time into this site.
I don't think I have much else to say that hasn't already been said here. To those who are being harassed, use the ignore button. Only after the ignore feature is used should there ever be a problem, in my opinion. That doesn't mean there can't be one, it means that not enough people remember they can just completely cut someone's existence out of their zone experience, and only after they do is it necessary for staff to take action against the offender for continued harassment.
For the record, Graffiti = gossip. I've been up for 24 hours almost straight. Ignore me.
I think the admin looked at this board and decided wisely to save work changing the TOS. There sufficient. They can't cover everything, it's just not possible.
The community leader setup covers the rest reasonably well.
Wayne, I agree in principle, but in theory, I have only seen two CLs on this site in the past month: Anthony and Scott. It isn't reasonable to just take off and leave the day-to-day running of this site to two volunteers and then not even bother to indicate to the rest of us that TOS are not going to be updated.
I enjoy the boards and chatting with some of the people on the site, but I like to stay away from the drama, which is why, ultimately, I don't care as much about the ToS or lack of enforcement s many here seem to.
Kate
Over policing adults or people of age seems silly to me anyway.
People under 18 are allowed on the enternet, and as I've said before, it is there parents jobs to do the policing, not the site admin's the visit.
Don't want your kid to see, or do whatever on the enternet, unplull him or her.
How much policing goes on on Facebook and Twitter?
And if you think the drama is anything amongst the blind, you should see what the older Fox News-watching RepubliChristian types can do on Facebook, if they dare see a humanist or atheistic / nontheistic perspective.
In narrow little worlds, they have an opinion and nobody else should challenge it, and nobody else should post anything convincing if it isn't the narrow little opinion.
Seriously people, you are absolutely kidding yourselves if you think for a nanosecond that the blind have an excess of drama. What I just spoke of tears up families and strains relationships all the time. And there's nothing Facebook or Twitter can do about it: those are just public places where we see what has been going on for a long time anyhow.
Any drama you see on here, is no doubt representative anyway. Ideology tends to create drama. Nothing any site administrator can do about it.
If you can't hack it that day, do as I and a lot of other peple do: shrug your shoulders, think "Dance, monkeys!" and move on: nothing new to see here.
On the other hand, we're all caught up in it sometime.
Yep. And the other thing is that drama to one person might not be drama to another. I find most online debates, or whatever entertaining.
When it turns mean, that will have to be covered by the person the meanness is directed at. How thick there skin is.
On here sometimes I'll give them a hand.
I even get attacked sometimes, and especially on a Friday night when I've got nothing happing at the end of the week, it is fun to rebut it. Lol
Just bringing this board back to the top, since there's new talk of people wanting something better for the zone. I recommended this board, so I want to make it as easy as possible to find. I never can remember how to make a link clickable, or I would have just posted a clickable link to this on the other board in question.
This is a great idea. I've heard many users complain that the site has gradually reduced its potential because of social hysteria, lack of understanding on the other party, and more. I think what would be extremely useful would be to have people become a facilitator-driven community, sort of like FaceBook and Twitter, and avoid being too stringent or impose anything which might discourage users from joining.
Also, people seem to only focus on the obvious and hardly delve into the grassroots of most situations, which can actually be useful and would actually decrees the likelihood of any future arguments from taking place.
I don't feel like reading this entire thread, because it's borring. Going back to the part at the top about defining trolling, there seems to only be a sharp incline in trolls whenever a certain group mutually finds it funny. On the other hand you've got people who merely tease their friends, if someone is upset about what is said the mature course would be to approach them directly and ask nicely to stop rather than bashing in return. Just my two sence thrown in there. Use the ignore button folks.
Post 13:
Either way, if you look at it from our perspective: we could lie to get in. Anyone could. I could tell you I'm 86 years old, and you'd be none the wiser. Come on, we do it in real life all the time. But back to your point: what's the point in changing it? Sure, there are some 15's that are... typical... and there are some people about 16 that act like 3-year-olds.
Post 2:
They're terms of service, and teasing just conveys the message that they're meant to be tested, which, the way this site is, they really really are. It's like what poster 4 said: it's just one of those things that is meant to be tested. We have 7 leaders, and, although I don't qualify, I believe that I could help out as one. If I qualified, which I don't. Speaking of CL'S: I believe that a contributing factor in deciding which people should be community leaders should be how much they log in before they become a CL.
Yes, I'm bored, lonely, desperate, creepy, stalkerish... whatever you might want to call it today. Hahaha, there's no one around, so I got to lookin' at old boards. There's something I'd like to address, and if I've done it in the past 2.5 years and just didn't happen to see it today, I apologize. My memory is pretty good, but it does have its limits.
People has said that the action taken depends on the currently loged in CL. For example, if a Christian CL is loged in and people begin bashing Christians, there will probably be more consequences than if the currenly loged in cL is not a Christian. To give you a small inside glimpse, each cl can do one of two things. We can deal with it as best we can, trying to be as fair as possible and not letting our own emotional baggage cloud our judgment, or we can send a message to the staff and get input from the rest of the panel. I've done both at times.
The problem with outlining or even copying and pasting qN history to the staff list is that it takes a while for the rest of the staff to respond... (if they respond at all.) Meanwhile, I'm catching hell because I'm just sitting there with my thumb up my ass and not doing my job.
If I take immediate action, then I am deemed unfair, playing favorites and abusing my power.
what needs to happen is that the admins need to give the rest of the staf a clear cut template. There are both written and unwritten rules, and whether they should be enforced or not largely depends on the current crowd at the time. Rather than defend my position here, I'll leave it, and allow Y'all to make of it what you will.
I can see your point.
My thinking is, when you are on the site as CL, you drop your emotions and deal with the community as you know them.
You know who’s being vicious and who is having a discussion.
Even discussions make people mad, and that is how it goes.
Guide the conversation away from the subject, or suggest the people that are sending you private messages start a side conversation, log off for a while, or ignore the user that is making them mad.
Conversations will get heated. You can’t make the correct judgment calls every time.
This is why I think CL staff needs some respecting as to the ones that are not attending.
If the working CL staff comes up with a plan and one that has no idea what that plan is logs on, they make choices the other staff would not have made.
Like the banning process. You know if a member just needs something light, because you know your community.
You won’t please everyone all the time, it just isn’t possible.
I think the terms make a clear. No racial slurs and such.
You know when the community is fooling and when the slur is racial.
I’m not saying it isn’t difficult, but it is possible to make a call, or redirect a conversation.
You might want to wash your thumb.
JK.
I think the terms are good. I understand spamming of other users is against
the tos, but I think the staff should include examples of spamming, like what
is considered spam, as spam is more than just unwanted links to websites.
This way users understand what is considered spam.
In your case you received a warning, so it was explained to you exactly.
Are current CL team understands the community, so does not ban people just because they have the power.
If a user is doing something, he or she is warned and it is explained, so the terms are just fine.