Changes to TOS?

[^_^ 5,021]

Ok, I have a request for clarification. This occurred to me after a PM conversation with another member (I won't say who) and I think it's something that needs to be cleared up.

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another

member

that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other

users

.

The sentence isn't clear on whether the offending statement has to be directed at a single member (singular) or a group of members. My reading of it is that the offending statement has to be directed at a single user and must have the effect on multiple users.

In other words, "goddamn libs make me sick" would not be a TOS violation and neither would "That \ poster pisses me off" but "That \ poster pisses me off, he's like all libs, braindead and moranic" would be a violation.

Is that correct?

[JohnR! 5,495]

why??????

Indeed, why! Why!?!?! Why?!!?!?!?!

[SMOKE 1,426]

Ok, I have a request for clarification. This occurred to me after a PM conversation with another member (I won't say who) and I think it's something that needs to be cleared up.

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another

member

that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other

users

.

The sentence isn't clear on whether the offending statement has to be directed at a single member (singular) or a group of members. My reading of it is that the offending statement has to be directed at a single user and must have the effect on multiple users.

In other words, "goddamn libs make me sick" would not be a TOS violation and neither would "That \ poster pisses me off" but "That \ poster pisses me off, he's like all libs, braindead and moranic" would be a violation.

Is that correct?

i think this post has been labeled

[X Factor 1,112]

why??????

When

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What?

It appears the TOS has been updated again. I was curious what changed.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Ok, I have a request for clarification. This occurred to me after a PM conversation with another member (I won't say who) and I think it's something that needs to be cleared up.

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another

member

that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other

users

.

The sentence isn't clear on whether the offending statement has to be directed at a single member (singular) or a group of members. My reading of it is that the offending statement has to be directed at a single user and must have the effect on multiple users.

In other words, "goddamn libs make me sick" would not be a TOS violation and neither would "That \ poster pisses me off" but "That \ poster pisses me off, he's like all libs, braindead and moranic" would be a violation.

Is that correct?

I think it means that if, say for instance, you call Steven a stinkin' liberal hippie pinkie commie, and I claim that takes away from my personal enjoyment of the Service, then u r in trouble.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

How's this?

[^_^ 5,021]

I think it means that if, say for instance, you call Steven a stinkin' liberal hippie pinkie commie, and I claim that takes away from my personal enjoyment of the Service, then u r in trouble.

How do you overcome the "purposely designed to" requirement?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

How do you overcome the "purposely designed to" requirement?

You purposely designed to call Steven a stinkin' liberal hippie pinkie commie. You know, you can just tell by the way you wrote it.

This isn't a court of law here, you know.

[^_^ 5,021]

This isn't a court of law here, you know.

then why all the convoluted legal-style language in TOS when a simple "don't be a dikc" will suffice?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

then why all the convoluted legal-style language in TOS when a simple "don't be a dikc" will suffice?

You know, I think I saw something like that once in a TOS somewhere......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Make comments in a Post either direct or implied toward another member that are purposely designed to upset, antagonize, make fun of, belittle, harass, insult, or otherwise instigate an argument that takes away from the personal enjoyment of the Service by other users.

words in bold added. As stated these were already enforced; we just add for clarity.

I think it's a well intended clarification, but as with any set of guidelines or rules, the actual application of those rules is much more difficult to enforce fairly. What I think Bill is questioning, is whether this means that there will be no more bantering, acerbic or sardonic posts. I don't think anything will change because it comes down to reporting and for most members who participate in the political or religious debates/discussions, don't bother to report when they feel a post is in violation of any TOS, unless it is obviously offensive to themselves. And that's where the problem lies - P&R discussions are so polarized, like the rest of the political discourse in this country, so members tend to turn a blind eye to TOS violations when they are done by someone from their 'own team.' The report button then becomes a tool to go after those whose views you disagree with.

For the most part, I don't think it is done deliberately by most, but without any emphasis by this site to encourage members to report ALL TOS violations, it inevitably gets mutated into the selective partison tool that it has become.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think it's a well intended clarification, but as with any set of guidelines or rules, the actual application of those rules is much more difficult to enforce fairly. What I think Bill is questioning, is whether this means that there will be no more bantering, acerbic or sardonic posts. I don't think anything will change because it comes down to reporting and for most members who participate in the political or religious debates/discussions, don't bother to report when they feel a post is in violation of any TOS, unless it is obviously offensive to themselves. And that's where the problem lies - P&R discussions are so polarized, like the rest of the political discourse in this country, so members tend to turn a blind eye to TOS violations when they are done by someone from their 'own team.' The report button then becomes a tool to go after those whose views you disagree with.

For the most part, I don't think it is done deliberately by most, but without any emphasis by this site to encourage members to report ALL TOS violations, it inevitably gets mutated into the selective partison tool that it has become.

No one is on my team

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No one is on my team

lol... Nathan, I do want to say - right now, you are probably the most level-headed, civil posters in P&R. You inspire me even though I often fail.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What I think Bill is questioning, is whether this means that there will be no more bantering, acerbic or sardonic posts.

Not my question. My question was simple. After seeing that the TOS was updated yesterday, I wanted to know what changed, just as I did when I started the thread last time the TOS changed. Simple question, and it only requests the entity that edited the TOS this time, to respond in the same manner that Captain Ewok and his minions responded last time. For the rest of you suffering from irritating hairs in uncomfortable places, you are not contributing to the topic at hand, which doesn't bother me, or even surprise me. However, my question has, as yet, gone unanswered.