(![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
brownstudy Aug. 8th, 2007 04:51 pm)
brownstudy Aug. 8th, 2007 04:51 pm)Hey, guys.
I'm a beta tester over at Scribblit, which is looking like it's going to be a really fun, fandom-friendly, regular person-friendly, Canada-based, eighteen plus service using LJ's coding. We're trying to hash out the Terms of Service, and I want to directly ask you guys what you want in an ideal TOS/user agreement. I know this has been asked in a lot of places, but I wanted to give you guys a chance to say what you think on a post made by someone who is currently discussing what will soon be a very real TOS. I love my flist and I respect all of you a lot. You can refer your flists to this post, too; the more responses, the better. Even if you're not moving off of LJ, I still want to know what your ideal TOS would say.
PLEASE REPLY HERE, NOT ON SCRIBBLIT.
Quoth test86:
"1. What should be the benefits of paid membership? Should permanent and/or early adopter accounts be created?
"2. I think most of us would probably prefer to see no restrictions at all on content, but there will have to be some basic, very narrow and clearly understandable rules. What content must be restricted? In other words, what kind of content genuinely is illegal child pornography, for example, as opposed to drawings or stories depicting fictional characters engaging in sexual activity? What about copyrighted materials being posted here (like the copy of the Harry Potter book that was leaked to the 'net recently, or copyrighted songs, TV episodes, bootlegged movies, etc.)? "I know it when I see it" is not an acceptable guideline here - we need to be specific about what is not allowed.
"3. When site management receives a complaint about unacceptable content, what should the procedure be?
"4. What should be the procedure for resolving disputed issues
(a) between users?
(b) between users and site management?"
You can also address anything else you think falls under TOS, but please don't tell me features you want the site to provide. I'm not the right person for that.
Thanks, guys, for all your help. ♥
I'm a beta tester over at Scribblit, which is looking like it's going to be a really fun, fandom-friendly, regular person-friendly, Canada-based, eighteen plus service using LJ's coding. We're trying to hash out the Terms of Service, and I want to directly ask you guys what you want in an ideal TOS/user agreement. I know this has been asked in a lot of places, but I wanted to give you guys a chance to say what you think on a post made by someone who is currently discussing what will soon be a very real TOS. I love my flist and I respect all of you a lot. You can refer your flists to this post, too; the more responses, the better. Even if you're not moving off of LJ, I still want to know what your ideal TOS would say.
PLEASE REPLY HERE, NOT ON SCRIBBLIT.
Quoth test86:
"1. What should be the benefits of paid membership? Should permanent and/or early adopter accounts be created?
"2. I think most of us would probably prefer to see no restrictions at all on content, but there will have to be some basic, very narrow and clearly understandable rules. What content must be restricted? In other words, what kind of content genuinely is illegal child pornography, for example, as opposed to drawings or stories depicting fictional characters engaging in sexual activity? What about copyrighted materials being posted here (like the copy of the Harry Potter book that was leaked to the 'net recently, or copyrighted songs, TV episodes, bootlegged movies, etc.)? "I know it when I see it" is not an acceptable guideline here - we need to be specific about what is not allowed.
"3. When site management receives a complaint about unacceptable content, what should the procedure be?
"4. What should be the procedure for resolving disputed issues
(a) between users?
(b) between users and site management?"
You can also address anything else you think falls under TOS, but please don't tell me features you want the site to provide. I'm not the right person for that.
Thanks, guys, for all your help. ♥
tags
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I tend to think that all admin posts should have a disclaimer saying something like, "We reserve the right to delete cat macros etc. if we hit maximum comments and discussion is still going," and that if a situation where that's necessary ever happens, an archive of the entry with original comments should be saved first, or a new entry should be posted so discussion can be continued.
I also think that any time someone other than you deletes one of your posts, you should receive an e-mail notification.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
"1. What should be the benefits of paid membership? Should permanent and/or early adopter accounts be created?
I like perm/early adopters, especially for people like you who are helping with the creation and "essence" if you will, of the site. Also people who help in the beta stages... I think it's a really nice gesture. Paid "upgrades" could be applied to this for more icons or something, if money is an issue. That being said, paid membership should be able to get rid of ads [if ads are even an issue}, more access to customizing options for a journal, more icons, more... I don't know, mood themes? Maybe a special comm.?
"2. I think most of us would probably prefer to see no restrictions at all on content, but there will have to be some basic, very narrow and clearly understandable rules. What content must be restricted? In other words, what kind of content genuinely is illegal child pornography, for example, as opposed to drawings or stories depicting fictional characters engaging in sexual activity? What about copyrighted materials being posted here (like the copy of the Harry Potter book that was leaked to the 'net recently, or copyrighted songs, TV episodes, bootlegged movies, etc.)? "I know it when I see it" is not an acceptable guideline here - we need to be specific about what is not allowed.
This is a rough one. I think possibly a good way to say "no child porn" is to say something to the effect of not allowing anything that would put a child [read: MINOR] in a situation which would compromise them? physically or emotionally endanger them? I know that's kind of awkwardly worded... It's late. :/
Bootlegging is tougher because you don't want the site to have to take a hit for anything... Possibly stating that while the site can host your information and journals and such, the individual must take full responsibility for what he, she, or their community is posting. If an inquiry were to be made to the parent site, the full legal responsibility and ramifications would fall to the poster, not the site. The site does however need to maintain the ability to take down a journal if they are legally bound to do so and have no other choice, but they would first give the poster warning, and a period in which to rectify the situation on a lower level before deletion became necessary.
"3. When site management receives a complaint about unacceptable content, what should the procedure be?
I guess I answered that already sort of... The site would contact the poster and tell them that a complaint was lodged and allow them to attempt to defend them selves and/or rectify the situation without further incident. However if the host deemed the content to have been in clear violation of the TOS and the host refuses to remove it, the account should be deleted and the ISP flagged, if not banned completely.
"4. What should be the procedure for resolving disputed issues
(a) between users?
(b) between users and site management?"
Hrrrmmm... I'm not sure how problems between users would really be unable to be solved on their own... Just block someone? Sorry I'm nto more help with this.
Users and Management? Well, as much as it sucks to say, management has the final say. Everything should attempt to be reasonably conducted... the host/user contacting the other about any problem, a prompt response [possibly a time set for "promptness?] before any action being taken by the management?
That's all I got Fan, let me know how it all works out and if I was any help at all. <3
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I completely agree. I'll run this by everybody else and try to make sure it goes in there.
This is the definition of unnacceptable sexy art I'm pulling for over at SI:
"1) Anything that is actually a photograph of a kid. Duh. 2) Anything noncon with someone underage, including in fanart -- I realise noncon is a kink thing, but it seems like a pretty good place to draw the line. If it's obvious that the sex is consensual, there will be less confusion all round, and many fewer problems if anything does come up. 3) Any explicit sex act involving someone obviously prepubescent, including in fanart."
Number two applies to pubescent people too, obviously. I just don't see how looking at a drawing of a fictional seventeen-y-o having consensual sex endangers a minor, and I'd like to see that allowed for.
The site would contact the poster and tell them that a complaint was lodged and allow them to attempt to defend them selves and/or rectify the situation without further incident.
Something like this is definitely in the works, with a guarantee that it will actually happen, unlike on LJ where this is the stated procedure but admin does not follow it.
I'm not sure how problems between users would really be unable to be solved on their own
The issue is that in the past people who've received personal threats have reported them to LJ and nothing has been done. We want to work out some kind of moderated something in order to help with extreme situations.
Users and Management? Well, as much as it sucks to say, management has the final say. Everything should attempt to be reasonably conducted... the host/user contacting the other about any problem, a prompt response [possibly a time set for "promptness?] before any action being taken by the management?
I'll mention that we need to figure out what promptness is; that's a good point.
What should we do in a situation where someone who works for or on SI crosses a line or gets involved in a conflict? If it goes to mediation, who gets to mediate?
From:
no subject
Conflicts, well, emotions tend to get the best of even the most mild mannered person on occasion, but moderators should still be able to control themselves. If it is a civily [by the mod] dealt with conflict, other mods should simply step in and diffuse the situation and then talk to the one originally involved in the conflict about what happened, etc, a better way to handle things.. And I suppose there could be a "line" for mods.. if one is involved in x amount of serious conflicts, their mod status could be in jeapordy? If it escalates to the point of shouting and vulgar nastiness, well, someone who can be prompted to that shouldn't necessarily have administrative powers, right?
As far as mediation, a council of some sort should probably be established at the onset. Owner, original users/mods, maybe some other trusted people?