RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines

RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

VideoAdminChi -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 5:49:09 PM)
quote: Ah, so resuscitating an old thread isn't a violation of the ToS -- I always figured that those who cited this rule did so in an over-the-top manner (hence my original smartassery), but I didn't realize that they were actually full of shit. "TOS" is an acceptable catch-all phrase for TOS, Forum Guidelines, and Frequently Asked Questions. Frequently Asked Questions ...Often, your questions can be answered by doing a search of the archives. Please check the date of a thread and avoid commenting on anything more than 3 months old. If you would like to start a discussion based on a thread more than 3 months old, create a new post and include a link to the old thread.

LadyPact -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 5:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez Yes, you did. And as a champion of reading the various agreements and such, can I assume that in the future you will equally (or with even greater vigor) get onto those who lie about what's in the ToS? Because it's even more evident that they have never read it than that I have. For that matter, why have you let this slide in the past? I mean, surely you have read the ToS and so you must have known that when people stated that things were in the ToS that aren't there, that they were lying. Because I see them as included, in a round about way. ToS says that you agree to ALL of the terms of the site. In My interpretation, which may not be the same of that of the site, means you also agree to the stipulations of the forum guidelines, the FAQs for the forums, the Administrative Announcements, and the rules for video chat. I'd probably even go so far as to say that posts from Alpha which implement changes would be included in that. An example of which would be the header in the Politics and Religion category, which can be found here: http://www.collarchat.com/m_3863025/tm.htm quote: I am torn between two responses, so I'll give both and you can pick the one you like more. 1. Your breathless and condescending history lesson, followed by a presentation of a ludicrous explanation of what would happen if what I never advocated was implemented. 2. No answer I give to that question would satisfy you. I might as well retract my question as it will never be answered. 1. I explained to you why it was not practical. I'm a "play the tape to the end" type. The alternative to never having anyone tell a new poster that resurrecting threads isn't frowned upon is to remove the ability and close all old threads. 2. You are incorrect. I'd have gladly accepted any any basis from your proposing the question that you were trying to understand why things were done another way. You didn't have to say "why don't they" verbatim for people to understand your intent. I'll give you another of My thoughts. If I come across as condescending because I am verbose when trying to explain something, it's because I am probably one of the dumbest damn chicks when it comes to this stuff. I am the biggest computer twit that you have ever met and I honestly think that most people have more capability than Me to figure out how the website works.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 5:54:17 PM)
Now that that is resolved, let's take a deep breath and dial back the language.

NuevaVida -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 5:54:21 PM)
Hmm, I don't have a beef with the rule/guideline/whatever we want to call it, or why we're calling it whatever we want to call it. It's a standard common practice around here, that threads 3 months old or more will be closed if posted to. I don't really care about it either way, although I become VERY glad for it when some new poster starts posting to threads that ended years and years ago, filling up the forums with threads nobody cares about anymore, written by people who aren't here anymore. I'm remembering one dude who seemed to start from the very first thread ever written in Off Topic, and was making his way to the present lol. Nobody could find the current threads being discussed, because they were all pushed back several pages. As to why the mods don't close each thread pre-emptively....well as far as I know, we only have 3 mods right now and 2 of them just started. I'd say they have their hands full and that just isn't a priority. They close 'em as they see 'em. No big deal to me.

wannapleez -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 6:05:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi quote: Ah, so resuscitating an old thread isn't a violation of the ToS -- I always figured that those who cited this rule did so in an over-the-top manner (hence my original smartassery), but I didn't realize that they were actually full of shit. "TOS" is an acceptable catch-all phrase for TOS, Forum Guidelines, and Frequently Asked Questions. Well, that explains why over-generalization is regarded so highly around here. It's being given an official pass as "acceptable". ETA: It also strikes me as odd that, in a lifestyle that needs a lot of precision of terminology in many areas, that sloppiness is deemed acceptable.

wannapleez -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 6:09:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact 1. I explained to you why it was not practical. EXACTLY! You explained to me the impracticality of something that I never even implied, let alone suggested. You could have used to paragraphs to explain the mating habits of the South American dung beetle and it would have had no less relevance to my post.

wannapleez -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 6:20:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact You didn't have to say "why don't they" verbatim for people to understand your intent. If I had a dollar for every time I clearly stated something on these fora, and someone else came along and assumed my intent (and was completely wrong), I could buy and sell Bill Gates. And yet you are saying that I don't have to be precise and people will "understand" my intent? I don't care who you are; that's funny right there. [sm=biggrin.gif]

LadyPact -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 6:21:38 PM)
It was implied, at least to the reader. Whether that was your intention or not isn't the issue. I would suggest you keep this thread bookmarked. The next time you need to access the Mods for a question, you have links.

wannapleez -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 6:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact It was implied, at least to the reader. Whether that was your intention or not isn't the issue. This may seem like picking nits but your self-contradiction only serves to prove my point. It was not implied, because "implied" specifically means that I intended to convey a message. If may have been inferred by the reader, but incorrect inference is on the reader, not the writer.

wannapleez -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 6:27:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi "TOS" is an acceptable catch-all phrase for TOS, Forum Guidelines, and Frequently Asked Questions. Someone tell the lawyer who sweated over creating a sound ToS that his work carries no more weight than a FAQ post.

VideoAdminAlpha -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 8:19:02 PM)
Just because a specific occurrence or action is not listed in the Terms of Service or Forum Guidelines, does not mean there is not a specific action that site staff will take every time that occurrence happens. As has been mentioned, there are links to this specific subject(necro threads). What was missed though, is that the same information is at the top of almost every forum area, not just in ONE link. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300928 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3057130 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3301123 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3301056 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300961 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3301039 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300664 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300859 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300835 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300800 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300769 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300740 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300725 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300885 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300907 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3300929 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3301061 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3301101 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3301107 http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3301116 I believe it is hopefully pretty apparent that this is not just an observed informal custom, it is a guideline we follow daily. It is not possible to allow for every single circumstance that may occur on the boards (the lawyer will tell you that also, no matter how long was spent on the TOS). Therefore, 3 key sentences located in the Forum Guidelines: 1)The following is a set of basic guidelines for participation on this message board. They are as they are titled - guidelines - meaning they are presented as a guide for acceptable activity here. Users are expected to abide by all they contain, though they are not hard and fast rules, and are not inclusive of all possibility. The administration of the Collarme.com Forum will be the final arbiters of all situations. 2)Your choice to participate on this forum is an acceptance of its guidelines and the authority of its administration. 3)The administration has the authority to handle situations in whatever manner they feel to be in the best interests of the forum, at that moment, in response to that event. In the case of the necro threads, we found it not uncommon for new members to post to these threads to debate the OP when in fact the Op, and some of the posters, were not even active on site at that time to be able to debate back. I assure you, even though sometimes the actions may look capricious, in fact I operate under the directives of the owners and relay all relevant information, goals desired, and the actions to the moderators that they are supposed to follow in the course of their duties; duties they willingly take on even though more often than not, it appears there is a user or users that are not tickled pink with those decisions, and comes to the board to vent(of course this last statement was not directed at the OP, it was just a general statement. ETA: As an aside, I have talked to the lawyer in the past. As the forum grows and changes, I am made aware of the changes that can be made to make positive enhancements to the forum. Nothing the moderation does countermands the attorney's work on the TOS or guidelines, instead the actions taken are consciously made to conform additionally with the attorneys guidelines.

DaddySatyr -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 8:47:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminRho (snipped for comedic effect) ... The three month rule is an informal guideline ... Kind of like traffic lights in New York City. Peace and comfort, Michael

MasterCaneman -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/13/2013 11:38:39 PM)
I've read this thread with wry amusement as I think back the (mercifully short) time I was suckered into modding a board. It's always the same issues, just different variables within them, no matter what the subject matter. [;)]

SlightlyScared -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/14/2013 5:56:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez Ah, so resuscitating an old thread isn't a violation of the ToS -- I always figured that those who cited this rule did so in an over-the-top manner (hence my original smartassery), but I didn't realize that they were actually full of shit. Yup, not a violation of ToS but the Forum Guidelines which are typically created to fill a need as it arises rather than to protect the site owners from illegal activity, I'm reasonably sure you agree to abide by these when you sign up, too. (I'm sure someone will correct me if that's not the case) quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez You have presented a bit of a false dichotomy there. Not all of the threads are a simple one question and one answer thing. Many threads engender a lot of discussion, some of which may not even be germane to the original topic. So resuscitating a necro-thread may not be an issue of anyone not yet getting a sufficient answer, but rather simply joining in the conversation. I'm not sure that I have. If no one has replied within 3 months then the contributors to the discussion believe it to be either resolved or not going anywhere. 3 months is a long time on the internet, how do you know that you're not joining in a conversation that was taking place between people who are no longer here or interested? quote: ORIGINAL: wannapleez They just bitch at you that you're bad and expect you to bend over and take it. You never know in a place like this, some people might just enjoy that kinda thing [;)]

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/14/2013 6:26:35 AM)
You're very funny. 1) This is a free site, if you don't like it, ask for your money back. 2) You seem to think admin is powerless to do anything to you. Try violating the stated TOS, you will learn about their powers swiftly. 3) Continue violating TOS and get banned from the site. This is an open forum with many long term members. Like all such forums, the users have created a virtual ambiance and code of etiquette that appears to be entirely lost on you. You've shown yourself to be an immature person who turns into a dickwad for no good reason. This will not help you find someone to 'please.' (JUST SAYING)

Rasciallymisty -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/14/2013 8:07:10 AM)
quote: So why aren't the tattlers made admins? They clearly have way too much time on their hands. Seems like it would take the burden off you guys. Hey I am one of them so Mod can I be one of you ??? Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee cause I really do have to much time on my hands. LOL When I have turned someone in I will tell them I have. Though my profile says I have only been here a year I have been here for years ( since the beginning) but changed nicks a few times and have watched as CM has grown. There are just some that you know are just not going to fit in here nor do they really want to. Those are the one that seem to have a problem the most when told something is against TOS. Others you know are only gonna post once or twice because they have so many volitions that you just know they have not taken the time to read the TOS. Then there are some that will push the admin and one would think okay they are gonna be banished and poof they become life time posters. So which are you? Is there someone twisting your arm making you stay here? If the site is not to your liking the last I knew the door you walked in also a good one to walk back out of. Just saying. An sorry but your nick really does make me giggle. Hope you decide to stay and keep posting and accept that people are who they are and the mixture can make for a great bunch of people to converse with. misty

DesFIP -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/14/2013 8:07:41 AM)
I'm still stuck on the schoolyard language. Since when is hitting report turning into a tattler? Nor, despite the op's confusion about it, does it take more than ten seconds to hit report, write TOS Violation, and then necro thread. At least if you can type without looking at the keys. If you're the hunt and peck type of typist, it could be viewed as onerous I suppose.

wannapleez -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/30/2013 4:45:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt You're very funny. 1) This is a free site, if you don't like it, ask for your money back. 2) You seem to think admin is powerless to do anything to you. Try violating the stated TOS, you will learn about their powers swiftly. 3) Continue violating TOS and get banned from the site. This is an open forum with many long term members. Like all such forums, the users have created a virtual ambiance and code of etiquette that appears to be entirely lost on you. You've shown yourself to be an immature person who turns into a dickwad for no good reason. This will not help you find someone to 'please.' (JUST SAYING) If it wasn't for your allusion to my handle, there's no way that I would have figured out that your post was addressed to me because it is so incredibly irrelevant to anything I said. To respond to your non sequiturs, though: 1) I never said I didn't like it. I asked a question. 2) I never said anything positive or negative about the admins' power. Once again, I asked a question about the process. 3) To my knowledge, I have never violated the ToS. I once violated the Forum Guidelines by reviving a necro-thread and was duly chastised and never did it again. However, any time anyone revives a necro-thread, it pops up high on the forum subject list and (if I don't recognize it as necro) I read it. And the "violation of the ToS" mantra gets falsely repeated every time. (Yeah, I'm sorry, VideoAdminChi, but I don't buy your contention that "TOS" is an acceptable catch-all phrase for TOS, Forum Guidelines, and Frequently Asked Questions, and the Little League rules of Watertown, PA.) As there has been an admin request to dial back the language, I won't comment on your reading comprehension skills.

wannapleez -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/30/2013 4:52:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rasciallymisty quote: So why aren't the tattlers made admins? They clearly have way too much time on their hands. Seems like it would take the burden off you guys. Hey I am one of them so Mod can I be one of you ??? Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee cause I really do have to much time on my hands. LOL When I have turned someone in I will tell them I have. That's a great start. And when you tell them, do you give false information as your reason? If not, then (at least in my experience) you are the exception and to be lauded.

wannapleez -> RE: according to the ToS / Forum Guidelines (5/30/2013 4:57:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Since when is hitting report turning into a tattler? Simply hitting "report" is not being a tattler. The use of the word "tattler" was intentional to demean those who act as though they are so well-versed on the way these fora are run and have a "TOS-er than thou" attitude about it when in reality they don't know what they are talking about. I could have used a different word to more accurately reflect my opinion of them, but I figured I'd keep it clean.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625