TOS Suggestions anyone?

[D_alex8]

Additionally, the ToS really really really should be on its own page, with a link at the top along with the CP, Gallery, Chat, Arcade, FAQ, Members, New, etc. etc. links. Having the ToS as a sticky, hidden in one of the sub-fora, is not good.

Some internet fora additionally have bold links to important pages within mods' signatures in all their posts [click for example], and a variation on this theme might work well at LPSG too, not least as the site contains posts by one or more mods in practically every thread.

 

[D_alex8]

I've changed my signature, hope I've done it right lol

STOP!! More bold text! More bold text!!

But seriously, ramming it down someone's throat (if you'll excuse the expression) in the clearest way possible is often the only way to get the message across, especially when there are as many 'in-search-of-a-quick-fix', 'just-start-posting-regardless' n00bs continually arriving as there are at LPSG these days.

 

[Onslow]

I've changed my signature, hope I've done it right lol

It only works in as much as a person can actually read the signature line:smile: (how many people read those either--the exception of course being Pecker's Onion quotes), Well, then there's the other problem and one which is much much BIGGER. Back on April 28th I sent a PM to the owner Rob_E. It read as follows (and for crying out loud keep Gillette from editing this one too since it is MY message to someone so no privacy is being violated and I have mentioned this elsewhere as well):

I came across a slight problem today. Seeing as how Lex and I are in a continued feud (reason is of no importance right now) I placed him on my IGNORE list. Now, today I went to look at the T.O.S. and found it is not viewable due to this. Is there a way in which the T.O.S. could be incorporated into an over-ride setting in which the ignore function would not apply to this particular posting (or perhaps for the stickys threads)?

I am aware that this may be an impossibility and I am also aware that I can view the T.O.S. by removing Lex from my ignore list; then however, I would have to place him back there afterwards and remove if I wished to view the T.O.S. again afterwards. (and so on and so forth ad infinitum)

Oddly neither Rob_E nor anybody else has ever answered me about this. I have since taken Lex off ignore (in part to be able to access the TOS and in part because I really do not desire to miss anyone's posts and he does post good solid information, I just have a different viewpoint at times). So, as was said in one of these banning/TOS threads, hows about a separate paage of its own similar to the CP/Gallery/Chat/Links and what not bar that runs across the top of each page? If that does not work then as I had indicated in my PM, then what about an override? Perhaps a sticky thread for a one time poster named King/Queen Moderator, a person who could not be placed on ignore.

 

[D_alex8]

It only works in as much as a person can actually read the signature line:smile: (how many people read those either--the exception of course being Pecker's Onion quotes)

Admittedly, many people may not bother to click on the TOS as a result of it, but at least it's an attempt to grab their attention.

My experience on other multi-mod forums is that signatures can actually be a quick way of disseminating urgent information about site changes, etc. to the membership... the message becomes hard to overlook when repeatedly present as a bold sig in multiple posts.

With regard to LPSG: Jeff Black has two links to his videos in his sigs. The number of hits for those two videos was recently approximately 12,000 (!!) higher than the number of hits for the two threads on which he originally posted those videos. Although it would be ludicrous to suggest that people would click so actively on a TOS sig-link as they have done on a cock-video sig-link, it nevertheless indicates that people do at least read sigs.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I, for what it is worth as a 'veritable n00b' :smile: , like the idea of a separate place for the ToS and the idea of it popping up on registration. I know many forums where they have their FAQ as a sticky thread but the ToS - if it is going to be a document by which the membership must abide or face banning - should be more than a FAQ.

Sure - Let's have a sticky thread FAQ for suggested information and commonly asked questions - but put the ToS somewhere of its own.

And why not change the ToS to read the bare facts [no minors, no trolls (with basic definition), no spam, no nudity in Guest viewable areas and any legal disclaimers that are needed] and leave it at that. Then make everything else suggested behaviour only and have a FAQ. Because honestly, what MmeZora was saying about how the forum used to be sounds good to me. It might be a bit of a shock to the system at first but I think self regulation would find a level pretty quickly. and for those borderline troll cases there is the ignore button. What seems to happen here at the moment is a troll comes on - everybody jumps it (I've done it too) and it turns into a big hoo-haa (ssnead recently springs to mind) - whereas it needn't.

So far, rather disappointingly, there have not been many suggestions - thanks to those that have made them. I'm still contemplating and anyway I am just a blow in after all :biggrin1:

 

[D_alex8]

...it didn't even occur to me, that since it is active board members who post the ToS, they are likely to find themselves unviewable.

Current moderators/admins can not be ignored, though (see the attachment below to show what happens if one tries to do this; I checked this two minutes ago to make sure it was still the case).

Therefore the situation Onslow describes can only come about if the TOS were posted by someone who is no longer a mod.

 

[Lex]

I really like Alex8's suggestion of the mods placing the ToS in their signatures.

I would also suggest posting it as a sticky in EVERY subforum. Not everyone reads all portions of the board. Also, some popular members could also link to the ToS from thier signatures, too.

And also, replacing my ToS posts with that of a current Moderator is a long-overdue fix. I suggest Naughty.

 

[Big Dreamer]

Thanks for that :smile:

I've never put someone on ignore, so have little knowledge of it lol. I knew it WAS possible to ignore mods in chat (At least one member delights in telling me every chance he gets about how he had 2 of them on ignore in there for months) so I assumed it would be the same case here. I've no idea if its possible to ignore mods in chat anymore though, I'd ask, but if they have me on ignore, they aren't going to see me asking, and they're the ones who'd know.

I can't ignore anyone that exceeds a 36C cup size Kotch, so you'll never make my Ignore List, mod or not. :biggrin1:

 

[Onslow]

Current moderators/admins can not be ignored, though (see the attachment below to show what happens if one tries to do this; I checked this two minutes ago to make sure it was still the case).

Therefore the situation Onslow describes can only come about if the TOS were posted by someone who is no longer a mod.

Ah, thank you for that info. It was something I had not been aware of. This may be a major part of the fixing. I had only used the ignore function after the former moderator had resigned and the current crew had been brought in, so maybe the over-ride on mods. has always been in effect (which leads back to where to post the TOS and where the sig line definitely will help).

 

[mindseye]

Now, if you guys want to draft rules that address Mod behavior, please do so (because there really aren't any). Please also keep in mind that those rules won't apply to Me, Zora, Matthew and Dee as we are just members.

Nice try, but it won't work.

If I find that any moderator, current or former, abuses privileged information that they had while a moderator, I'll take action. I can put up with your hostility towards me and towards others, but mishandling of privileged information is a line you will not cross, capisce? You can't excuse yourself from that responsibility.

That said, I agree that Knight/Wonderboy was conspicuous and sloppy about his identities, and that anyone paying attention could draw the connection based on his public actions.

 

[Lex]

Nice try, but it won't work.

If I find that any moderator, current or former, abuses privileged information that they had while a moderator, I'll take action. I can put up with your hostility towards me and towards others, but mishandling of privileged information is a line you will not cross, capisce? You can't excuse yourself from that responsibility.

That said, I agree that Knight/Wonderboy was conspicuous and sloppy about his identities, and that anyone paying attention could draw the connection based on his public actions.

Mindseye, you are right on cue.

You never have to worry about me abusing privileged information. Nothing I posted here was privileged. I would never do something so low or so stupid (despite how much much some might wish otherwise).

And I have not said BOO to you in months, so I don't get the hostility angle either (your post comes off as more than a bit pissed, BTW). We had words, so I keep my distance and basically ignore you when I come across you here or in the chat.

I wish Gillette would do the same (or put me on ignore), cuz I am here for the long haul.

 

[SteveHd]

About putting messages in the sig-line: Be aware of a profile option to suppress signatures. I use it because I find some sigs distracting or pointless.

 

[Freddie53]

Some comments from a mod that was here at the beginning and is still a mod.

1. Multiple accounts - Many people had multiple accounts at one time. They were legal then. There was no ToS. It would be an injustice if we were to have a "list of members with more than one account" dropped into our laps. Why? There are many members who would be banned because they have more than one account. But deleting an account is like hell freezing over. So if a member has an inactive account, but never uses it, there is no trolling.

2. The issue about multiple accounts was suppose to be about trolling. It is the trolling, not the multiple accounts that is the problem.

3. Trolling is the one offense that requires the mods to gather evidence and vote on whether the member is guilty or not. There is no way to write the ToS to guarentee that the mods will always vote correctly. All mods are human, subject to being wrong.

Perhaps a different wording in the ToS is needed. How about this wording:

Members using multiple accounts to troll the board will be given a warning. If the trolling continues, those members will be banned without any further notice.

I know that the first question will be? What is trolling. Trolling is also defined in the ToS. There is no need to restate the definition of trolling over and over.

It has been the policy of the mods to not reveal all the circumstances concerning bans. Members are assuming that all the information concerning Sam's ban is public knowledge. There may be more to the story than you know about. Obviously under our present mod guidelines that information would not be posted on the public boards. But members are assuming that all the circumstances concerning Sam is public knowledge. We all know that the word assume means. Ass out of U and Me.

 

[mindseye]

And I have not said BOO to you in months, so I don't get the hostility angle either (your post comes off as more than a bit pissed, BTW). We had words, so I keep my distance and basically ignore you when I come across you here or in the chat.

The "cold shoulder" is also a form of hostility. I didn't want to be too specific about it, but losing your friendship was a price I paid for standing up for myself.

 

[Lex]

The "cold shoulder" is also a form of hostility. I didn't want to be too specific about it, but losing your friendship was a price I paid for standing up for myself.

I TOTALLY respect you for standing your ground and having the conviction to disagree with me. I do. I want you to know that I have no ongoing hostile feelings towards you. We disagreed on a specific topic and I can live with that. We will never agree on it, so, for me, there is no reason to continually argue those points.

My "cold shoulder" is not intended to make you feel bad or make you feel like I am being hostile. Not interacting with you is not personal; there are currently FEW the I interact with on this baord and I am hardly ever in the chat anymore. The place where I am now just does not allow me to wallow in ongoing negativity. It is easier for me to co-exist with those that I disagree with by NOT provoking them. I have been keeping my distance as a way of keeping peaceful.

If you posted more I am sure we would interact here on the board (I have been posting far less as well, as many have noticed).

I would like you to note that, in this thread, Gillette came in a took a pot-shot at me under false pretenses. Yes, she and I have had our disagreements, and since that time I have not typed ONE keystroke towards her.

All I ask is that she give me the same courtesey. She takes any opportunity to jab at me and others (Zora being the most obvious). It would be nice if she stopped. If she chooses not too, then I guess you guys will be discussing me every time she does as I give as good as I get. You know how I love a good debate.

We've been posting here together for years, Mindseye and I hope we will be here for a long time. You and I have never been afraid to tell each other when we thought the other was wrong. Being right is not the same as having things work. Some things are not working right now. That is what has been illuminated here, nothing more.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Some comments from a mod that was here at the beginning and is still a mod.

1. Multiple accounts - Many people had multiple accounts at one time. They were legal then. There was no ToS. It would be an injustice if we were to have a "list of members with more than one account" dropped into our laps. Why? There are many members who would be banned because they have more than one account. But deleting an account is like hell freezing over. So if a member has an inactive account, but never uses it, there is no trolling.

2. The issue about multiple accounts was suppose to be about trolling. It is the trolling, not the multiple accounts that is the problem.

3. Trolling is the one offense that requires the mods to gather evidence and vote on whether the member is guilty or not. There is no way to write the ToS to guarentee that the mods will always vote correctly. All mods are human, subject to being wrong.

Perhaps a different wording in the ToS is needed. How about this wording:

Members using multiple accounts to troll the board will be given a warning. If the trolling continues, those members will be banned without any further notice.

I know that the first question will be? What is trolling. Trolling is also defined in the ToS. There is no need to restate the definition of trolling over and over.

It has been the policy of the mods to not reveal all the circumstances concerning bans. Members are assuming that all the information concerning Sam's ban is public knowledge. There may be more to the story than you know about. Obviously under our present mod guidelines that information would not be posted on the public boards. But members are assuming that all the circumstances concerning Sam is public knowledge. We all know that the word assume means. Ass out of U and Me.

Thanks freddie - that wording is clearer. And yes, trolling is defined. But that wording still does not appear to reflect Mod practice. If that were to be adopted does that mean that multiple accounts and concurrent posting from those accounts would be acceptable (assuming the member is not trolling). Example: I keep 'ManlyBanisters' on and post in this persona pretty much as I post now - I take a second account primarily for leaving (unabusive) gallery comments without wanting to attract undue attention to ManlyBanisters, I leave the profile as blank as possible, I post occasionally (not in response to Banisters, not even in the same threads) and maybe chat a little (which I don't do as Banisters) - Under your suggested wording do I get a warning / banned?

Also - can I just state for the third, or is it forth, time [between this thread and another I started] I am not arguing one specific case - Sure this was prompted by Sam's banning - of course it was. But I have been most clear at all times that I do not claim to know the full facts about any one case of banning. I heard some rumours, sure - but I'm not kicking this out there because of that. Sam is gone - If I were him I wouldn't come back in any form regardless of what comes of this 'spring cleaning the ToS'. This is not about Sam, not for me anyway. So whoever it is making an ASS out of THEMSELVES and FREDDIE - it ain't me, babe, no, no no :wink: