??? Posting Guidelines - Feedback

jambojambo
Posted:
in Feedback edited January 2014
[7 Aug: Edit: The new guidelines have been posted and are available through the link at the top of the page - please post feedback below]



As you may already know, a review of posting guidelines is in process and should be completed by the end of this week. The new guidelines should make what is acceptable content much clearer to both members and moderators.



I thought it might be interesting to solicit feedback from members on what they think could be changed in the posting guidelines to help make AppleInsider a happier place. If you think any particular area of the current guidelines is clear as mud, let us know by posting here. If you think anything is missing from the guidelines let us know too.



A copy of the current guidelines is quoted below for reference:



Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers



If you agree to abide by our rules below, please press the Agree button, which will enable you to register on this message board. If you do not agree to these terms, press the Cancel button.



Considering the real-time nature of this message board, it is impossible for us to review messages or confirm the validity of information posted. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the contents of posted messages and are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this BB or any entity associated with this BB. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately.



You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyrighted material is owned by you. Members are limited to one account. Although we do not and cannot review the messages posted and are not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we reserve the right to delete any message for any reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s).We reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.



Please try to keep the 'tone' of your posts as mature as possible: it is beneficial to post in an adult manner.



[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]



[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Jonathan ]



[ 08-07-2002: Message edited by: Jamie ]</p>
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 41
    defiantdefiant Posts: 4,876member
    from another Suggestions thread:

    [quote] originaly posted by torifile:



    Spamming needs to be DEFINED in the rules, not left up to someone's discretion. No offense to the current mods/admins because I think as a whole they are doing a great job, but let's remove some of the subjectivity.

    <hr></blockquote>



    and something from me:

    [quote] that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. <hr></blockquote>



    I don't like that part which is bold.

    We had once a thread about Masturbation...
  • Reply 2 of 41
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    [quote]Originally posted by Defiant:

    <strong>from another Suggestions thread:



    Spamming needs to be DEFINED in the rules, not left up to someone's discretion. No offense to the current mods/admins because I think as a whole they are doing a great job, but let's remove some of the subjectivity.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    This will be taken care of



    [quote]Originally posted by Defiant:

    <strong>I don't like that part which is bold.

    We had once a thread about Masturbation...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And a fine thread it was too We'll look at that.
  • Reply 3 of 41
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law."



    I wasn't sure what profane mean't, but looking it up in the dictionary it seems to mean irreverant, blasphemous, godless, irreligious, ungodly, secular, unconsecrated, unholy etc. As an atheist, I guess thats put an end to my postings in fireside chat

    Is this your intended interpretation of profane ? It seems to favour the Fellowships amongst us.

    Also, perhaps sexually oriented should be changed to sexually explicit.



    [ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 41
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Really, the whole thing is problematic. That whole second paragraph is violated on a regular basis. AO, FC and FH all are based on things that would violate the rules in it. So, you've got a quandary: Do you change the rules so that all current active threads meet them OR do you delete all the threads that violate those specific guidelines. If you do the former, you're going to have mass chaos in here and you can't possibly do the latter. So you'll have partial enforcement of the law and cries of favoritism and bias from certain people. Wait, that's what you have now.... Ah, you guys are screwed.



    Seriously, the whole thing needs to be started over. Good luck...
  • Reply 5 of 41
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    I think you have a good start, but maybe just keep it in: You can not post anything unlawful such as threats on another persons life...or something outrageous like that?



    But, yeah, any thing false is a big point of this whole board



    Also, a lot of people make jokes, why can't what currently goes on here be attapted. People make fun of each other, and sometimes people joke. But, to make it so everyone thinks 'bout what they type every time, well, i do not like it.



    Maybe, just say "nothing against the law can be said" And for the Copyrighted pictures thing: Sometimes people post screen shots of web pages and of Apple products, where the copyright is owned by Apple.... How about if we just have to say Copyright: Apple 2002



    is that good?



    But, that is a big list...just say "don't do anything stupid that will make us get mad/ Unlawful or acting like an ass."





    thank you for your time,

    Neb <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 6 of 41
    big macbig mac Posts: 480member
    I appreciate the difficult situation you're in, Jamie. Here's what I think about the situation, for what it's worth. Knowingly false/inaccurate statements will be made here since it's a rumor site; the conduct guidelines need to be adjusted for Fireside, in accordance with the nature of the forum. I think it's wrong to limit speech on Fireside except in severe cases. Perhaps instead of having sweeping limitations on conduct, fireside moderation should focus primarily on the curtailment of spamming. If I read the situation correctly, a large amount of spamming was the major reason why action was taken against Fellowship. In most cases, it makes more sense to limit excessive posts, rather than to discipline individuals for expressing controversial beliefs in the course of discussions.



    I would make the following changes:



    You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is excessively abusive, hateful or harassing, nor any material that is excessively vulgar, obscene or profane. You agree not to post a substantial number of redundant discussion threads. Furthermore, you agree not to post any material that is threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.



    Those are simply my thoughts on the subject.



    [ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: Big Mac ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 41
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Please use this thread for feedback about the newly enacted Posting Guidelines.
  • Reply 8 of 41
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I don't like the Fireside Chat part about not posting just links. Sometimes great discussions start that way. I guess I just don't see what harm it causes. Maybe just putting "are discouraged" rather than "not allowed."



    I also wonder if you've thought out what it means to not allow evangelizing viewpoints. Is anti-Christian "evangelizing" not allowed either? And is that only about religion? What about a political statement criticizing Bush? And do you have to always say "I see the other side here, but..." to prove you're open to discussion? This seems to be more about how open- or closed-minded individual posters are. How can you make people be more open-minded?



    IMO, presenting a strong case for your side IS a good way to foster discussion. Is evangelizing = presenting your side?
  • Reply 9 of 41
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Evangelizing means what Fellowship was doing.



    Posting a sermon on something, and not being open to any discussion on it. You don't have to post that 'you see the other side', you just have to accept discussion on it.
  • Reply 10 of 41
    tooltool Posts: 242member
    I can see emailing an admin/mod does absolutely no good.....the post right below this one is STILL not edited/modified...



    [ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: TOOL ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 41
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Sorry, John, we can't all be 37 and have nothing better to do with our time than browse the internet and play with digital cameras.



    Don't you have a family?





    PS: if you read, you'll note that these guidelines have been requested by users.
  • Reply 12 of 41
    applemasterapplemaster Posts: 144member
    [quote]Originally posted by RodUK:

    <strong>I wasn't sure what profane mean't, but looking it up in the dictionary it seems to mean irreverant, blasphemous, godless, irreligious, ungodly, secular, unconsecrated, unholy etc. As an atheist, I guess thats put an end to my postings in fireside chat

    Is this your intended interpretation of profane ? It seems to favour the Fellowships amongst us.

    [ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think profane is better defined as something extremely vulgar and unpleasing to the ear. I assume that's the definition implied.
  • Reply 13 of 41
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,027member
    I think the guidelines are good, overall. Nice work.



    I think the one thing that could and should be rephrased is the first point:



    Currently: "The right (if you are an American citizen) to free speech as guaranteed by the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not apply when posting at this message board."



    I think that will not go over "too big". It sounds quite harsh. Perhaps like this:



    Proposed: "Although AppleInsider respects the freedom of speech guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution (if you are an American), and works to provide a free public forum for discussion, the membership must understand that there are certain limits. As this Bulletin Board is a service provided by AppleInsider, the membership must understand that AppleInsider has the right and obligation to establish certain guidelines for the good of the boards in general. Posters are allowed a great deal of flexibility in their posts, but also must adhere to the guidelines set forth.
  • Reply 14 of 41
    709709 Posts: 2,016member
    I agree with SDW2001 on the 1st Amendment reference. It came off a bit heavy handed to me when I first read it.



    The only other thing I noticed that might cause some confusion is the definition of 'Current Hardware'. I can remember a few threads being moved from FH to CH on the day of an announcement. The difference between 'current hardware offerings' and 'hardware that is currently shipping' can be quite a bit with Apple.



    Otherwise, nice work!



    -G
  • Reply 15 of 41
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    It's blunt, yeah, but that's why it's worded the way it is. I appreciate SDW's attempt but I find it too wordy and its purpose is difficult to understand.



    #1 is merely meant to inform those that would scream "What about free speech!?" that free speech doesn't apply here. And believe me, there are many who don't get that point.
  • Reply 16 of 41
    running with scissorsrunning with scissors Posts: 1,124member
    my biggest fear is that implementing these "guidelines" are going take some of the unique spirit out of the AI boards. i can see that a lot of potentially great threads being closed down, if thet haven't already, that don't fit in these new parameters. maybe i'm just bitter that my poo thread got closed, but hey, it should have been allowed to die a dignifed natural death of lack of interest. for shame.



    [ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 41
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    [quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:

    <strong>my biggest fear is that implementing these "guidelines" are going take some of the unique spirit out of the AI boards. i can see that a lot of potentially great threads being closed down, if thet haven't already, that don't fit in these new parameters.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The guidelines have been put in place to specifically prevent this from happening. Now that they are there it should be clear to everyone, members and mods, exactly what is and what isn't acceptable.



    J :cool:
  • Reply 18 of 41
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    [quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:

    <strong>my biggest fear is that implementing these "guidelines" are going take some of the unique spirit out of the AI boards. i can see that a lot of potentially great threads being closed down, if thet haven't already, that don't fit in these new parameters. maybe i'm just bitter that my poo thread got closed, but hey, it should have been allowed to die a dignifed natural death of lack of interest. for shame.



    [ 08-08-2002: Message edited by: running with scissors ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree with you. It was a popular thread, grew quickly to three pages and a number of moderators also contributed. As groverat says though, free speech isn't welcome here.
  • Reply 19 of 41
    running with scissorsrunning with scissors Posts: 1,124member
    [quote]Originally posted by Jamie:

    <strong>



    The guidelines have been put in place to specifically prevent this from happening. Now that they are there it should be clear to everyone, members and mods, exactly what is and what isn't acceptable.



    J :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    i guess i just don't see it that way. under the new guidelines, your thread on masturbation, had it been posted by a non mod, would be a no go, what fun is that?
  • Reply 20 of 41
    jambojambo Posts: 3,036member
    [quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:

    <strong>



    i guess i just don't see it that way. under the new guidelines, your thread on masturbation, had it been posted by a non mod, would be a no go, what fun is that?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The thread 'Masturbation' was posted by a "non mod" as you put it. I wasn't a moderator on these boards way back then and, being Scottish, I was probably drunk when I posted it anyway



    Now that the guidelines are in place, such a thread would still be allowed anyway. It wasn't/isn't sexually graphic, offensive or toilet humor.



    J :cool:
Sign In or Register to comment.