Update TOS to reflect the current policy

[User13866]

I was recently banned for 72 hours for complaining to a moderator about harassment on the forum and his unwillingness to enforce 2d of the TOS

d. Unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or traditions 

he said he doesn't care about that stuff saying

I'm not interested in whether claims are unsubstantiated

Basically the account was suspended for saying that i didn't want to continue participating if no action was taken.

This led to action suspending my account citing a violation 2.h of the TOS

h. Goodbye Cruel Forum posts

I complained to admin and was informed

I've now looked into the matter. The application of the Terms of Service was consistent with the letter of the ToS. Personally, I'd never thought before about that ToS element specifically with regard to PMs, but PMs are indeed under the same rules as the public forum

I think the TOS ought to be updated to reflect this policy becase most people won't think to apply that particular element of TOS to PM correspondence in those circumstances or in general as it obviously wasn't intended to be used in this way hence surprising the admin.

[Sam Vara]

I was recently banned for 72 hours for complaining to a moderator about harassment on the forum and his unwillingness to enforce 2d of the TOS

d. Unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or traditions 

he said he doesn't care about that stuff saying

I'm not interested in whether claims are unsubstantiated

Basically the account was suspended for saying that i didn't want to continue participating if no action was taken.

This led to action suspending my account citing a violation 2.h of the TOS

h. Goodbye Cruel Forum posts

I complained to admin and was informed

I've now looked into the matter. The application of the Terms of Service was consistent with the letter of the ToS. Personally, I'd never thought before about that ToS element specifically with regard to PMs, but PMs are indeed under the same rules as the public forum

I think the TOS ought to be updated to reflect this policy becase most people won't think to apply that particular element of TOS to PM correspondence in those circumstances or in general as it obviously wasn't intended to be used in this way hence surprising the admin.

For the sake of clarification here, nobody was banned for complaining about harassment on the forum. Nor was any harassment found to have occurred. Nor was any moderator unwilling to enforce ToS 2d.

But yes, I think it's a good idea to maintain the same standards within PMs as one would expect on the open threads.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Since "the application of the Terms of Service was consistent with the letter of the ToS" then doesn't the ToS already "reflect the current policy"?



Metta,
Paul.

[User13866]

Greetings,

Since "the application of the Terms of Service was consistent with the letter of the ToS" then doesn't the ToS already "reflect the current policy"?



Metta,
Paul.

I think you should redefine what means making a Goodbye Cruel Forum post.

As it is now there is no reason to think that expressing intention to leave in a private message would violate that.

A 'Goodbye Cruel Forum' post is defined as this by you;

Acrynym for "Good Bye Cruel World!". Often found on blogs or forums when a member disagrees with a particular subject matter to such a degree that they decide to leave the forum/blog forever. In doing so, they often feel compelled to leave a last message explaining why they feel so wronged/slighted and how they will never post again -- this is the GBCW message.

You should explain that this is not limited to making an actual post on the forum but also applicable to expressing an intention to leave in private messaging.

As you yourself said

I'd never thought before about that ToS element specifically with regard to PMs

Nor did anyone ever apart from Sam Vara

[Sam Vara]

Greetings,

Since "the application of the Terms of Service was consistent with the letter of the ToS" then doesn't the ToS already "reflect the current policy"?



Metta,
Paul.

I think you should redefine what means making a Goodbye Cruel Forum post.

As it is now there is no reason to think that expressing intention to leave in a private message would violate that.

A 'Goodbye Cruel Forum' post is defined as this by you;

Acrynym for "Good Bye Cruel World!". Often found on blogs or forums when a member disagrees with a particular subject matter to such a degree that they decide to leave the forum/blog forever. In doing so, they often feel compelled to leave a last message explaining why they feel so wronged/slighted and how they will never post again -- this is the GBCW message.

You should explain that this is not limited to making an actual post on the forum but also applicable to expressing an intention to leave in private messaging.

Given that this is what you were suspended for, and given Retro's point that "the application of the Terms of Service was consistent with the letter of the ToS", is it not clear yet?

[User13866]

Greetings,

Since "the application of the Terms of Service was consistent with the letter of the ToS" then doesn't the ToS already "reflect the current policy"?



Metta,
Paul.

I think you should redefine what means making a Goodbye Cruel Forum post.

As it is now there is no reason to think that expressing intention to leave in a private message would violate that.

A 'Goodbye Cruel Forum' post is defined as this by you;

Acrynym for "Good Bye Cruel World!". Often found on blogs or forums when a member disagrees with a particular subject matter to such a degree that they decide to leave the forum/blog forever. In doing so, they often feel compelled to leave a last message explaining why they feel so wronged/slighted and how they will never post again -- this is the GBCW message.

You should explain that this is not limited to making an actual post on the forum but also applicable to expressing an intention to leave in private messaging.

Given that this is what you were suspended for, and given Retro's point that "the application of the Terms of Service was consistent with the letter of the ToS", is it not clear yet?

The policy is clear but the wording of TOS does not reflect it.

Usually A Goodbye Cruel Forum post means something else and it was not the spirit of the policy, nobody designed that policy to be thus applied.

We can ask DNS and Retro whether it was the spirit of the policy or not.

I understand tho, it means what you want it to mean right.

Being consistent with the letter and being consistent with the spirit are two different things.

Appealing to the letter where it violates the spirit is generally frowned upon in as far as the law is concerned.

[User13866]

The “spirit of the law” is often contrasted to the “letter of the law.” In that context, the spirit of the law has to do with the deeper meaning or reason for the law, whereas the letter of the law refers to exact wording, literally applied, without regard for any deeper meaning. Children are good at emphasizing the letter of the law to the exclusion of the spirit of it. The following example may help:

A child comes home from school and is told, “Do not watch TV until you finish your homework.” A few minutes later, his mother finds him watching cartoons on his tablet, with his homework untouched. The child protests that his mom only told him not to watch TV—she never said anything about watching cartoons on a tablet. In this example, the child has kept the letter of the law, but he has violated the spirit of the law.
https://www.gotquestions.org/spirit-of-the-law.html

[Coëmgenu]

TOS 2h is obviously inadequately phrased if it is to cover material from private communications. Privately expressing a wish to renounce the forum is not a "Goodbye Cruel Forum" post.

We'd have to see the PM in question to see how egregious it was and what in it warranted banning. Then, if the moderation actually cared about the consistency of the TOS, systematic changes could be made. As it is, however, the moderation invents jurisprudence and interpretation by the seat of their pants in order to deal with various things that they find intolerably personally annoying, in my experience. Certainly, aggressive nastiness gets you banned, but bans like this, sneaky bans on trumped up charges like "Your PM to me was a forum post in violation of TOS 2h" is largely reserved for annoying persons.

It's only human, but it's also not the best moderation behaviors. I've seen instance of literally every single moderator here doing this.

[Sam Vara]

I think you should redefine what means making a Goodbye Cruel Forum post.

As it is now there is no reason to think that expressing intention to leave in a private message would violate that.

A 'Goodbye Cruel Forum' post is defined as this by you;


You should explain that this is not limited to making an actual post on the forum but also applicable to expressing an intention to leave in private messaging.

Given that this is what you were suspended for, and given Retro's point that "the application of the Terms of Service was consistent with the letter of the ToS", is it not clear yet?

The policy is clear but the wording of TOS does not reflect it.

Usually A Goodbye Cruel Forum post means something else and it was not the spirit of the policy, nobody designed that policy to be thus applied.

We can ask DNS and Retro whether it was the spirit of the policy or not.

I understand tho, it means what you want it to mean right.

The meaning seems quite clear. Nowhere does it say something to the effect that a post ceases to be a goodbye cruel forum post if it appears in a PM. If it says goodbye cruel forum, then it means goodbye cruel forum. Exactly the same logic applies to other proscribed posts. If you use unnecessarily explicit language or imagery, or if you pressurise someone to continue an unwanted debate, the consequences will be the same whether it is on the open forum or via PM. I've suspended people for that before.

[Sam Vara]

TOS 2h is obviously inadequately phrased if it is to cover material from private communications. Privately expressing a wish to renounce the forum is not a "Goodbye Cruel Forum" post.

I think it is if it is phrased in terms of a threat that someone will leave the forum unless a moderator does their immediate bidding and takes action against another poster they have taken against.

We'd have to see the PM in question to see how egregious it was and what in it warranted banning.

DNS and Retro's choice, there.

It's only human, but it's also not the best moderation behaviors. I've seen instance of literally every single moderator here doing this.

I honestly can't recall doing this, but I think on earlier occasions I have invited a re-vamp of the ToS being submitted to Retro and DNS for their perusal. If there are human tendencies that intrude into the process, then there might be ways of eliminating them.

[Coëmgenu]

Let's consider why "Goodbye Forum Posts" are bad and why they might be banned. After all, there's nothing wrong with rebuking this place and stating your intentions to leave.

Only three issues come to mind with them:

1) Narcissists would use them to try to punish forum members in a very ineffective laughable manner ("Waaaah! I'm leaving cuz or So-and-so who is a wicked bad guy!)

2) It could be a method to sneakily try to pressure the moderation or administration to make changes they otherwise wouldn't make (If moderation doesn't smarten up, I'm outta here!)

3) Such posts are also deeply personal and rarely address Theravāda or Buddhism, unless to rebuke the forum members and forum for not being appropriately Buddhist (which "may or may not be" entirely accurate!).

There's no actual logic behind banning "Goodbye Cruel Forum" posts in the first place. Reason 1 is covered by other TOS provisions. As for Reason 2, I find it laughable that anyone on the moderation or administration tiers would be ever moved to change the TOS because someone is leaving the forum. As for Reason 3, such posts, so long as they don't "say bye" are allowed in the Personal Experience subforum.

[Sam Vara]

Let's consider why "Goodbye Forum Posts" are bad and why they might be banned. After all, there's nothing wrong with rebuking this place and stating your intentions to leave.

Only three issues come to mind with them:

1) Narcissists would use them to try to punish forum members in a very ineffective laughable manner ("Waaaah! I'm leaving cuz or So-and-so who is a wicked bad guy!)

2) It could be a method to sneakily try to pressure the moderation or administration to make changes they otherwise wouldn't make (If moderation doesn't smarten up, I'm outta here!)

3) Such posts are also deeply personal and rarely address Theravāda or Buddhism, unless to rebuke the forum members and forum for not being appropriately Buddhist (which "may or may not be" entirely accurate!).

There's no actual logic behind banning "Goodbye Cruel Forum" posts in the first place. Reason 1 is covered by other TOS provisions. As for Reason 2, I find it laughable that anyone on the moderation or administration tiers would be ever moved to change the TOS because someone is leaving the forum. As for Reason 3, such posts, so long as they don't "say bye" are allowed in the Personal Experience subforum.

I think it was brought in when I was a moderator; I seem to remember some discussion among mods about its introduction, but I might be wrong. Anyway, you might want to make a formal case to Admin on those grounds. Meanwhile, while there is a ban, I'll do my best to enforce it.

[Radix]

If there are human tendencies that intrude into the process, then there might be ways of eliminating them.

Of course such ways exist, the question is whether there is a will to implement them.

For instance, you recently accused a poster of "fakery". I reported your post, you handled the report yourself and closed it. Then in another thread, I mentioned how you label people and how you clearly don't think that what you say is merely your opinion, but The Truth. Of which you "didn't recall" any instance.

It's beyond irony. We get a thread on, say, "Is morality objective or not?", people in it say it isn't objective, but their verbal behavior makes it clear they believe it is objective.

[Sam Vara]

If there are human tendencies that intrude into the process, then there might be ways of eliminating them.

Of course such ways exist, the question is whether there is a will to implement them.

For instance, you recently accused a poster of "fakery". I reported your post, you handled the report yourself and closed it.

Sure. If I don't think that a report needs keeping open, I'll close it.

Then in another thread, I mentioned how you label people and how you clearly don't think that what you say is merely your opinion, but The Truth. Of which you "didn't recall" any instance

And as I still don't, I'm not sure how I can help with that. Or indeed what it has to do with the ToS.

It's beyond irony. We get a thread on, say, "Is morality objective or not?", people in it say it isn't objective, but their verbal behavior makes it clear they believe it is objective.

Maybe we could just move the irony boundary? Again, you might not like it, but should we specify in the ToS that people's verbal behaviour must be consistent with what they claim?

[SDC]

If disagreement required a reply I would post all day. I’d have to hire a staff to handle that amount of work. Perhaps the issue with forums is that people don’t know how to leave disagreeable posts alone. Say what matters. Don’t say what isn’t going to matter. In fact, it seems the more absurd the post (or poster), the less chance responding would even matter to the other readers. So, why say anything at all?

What we all need to learn how to do better is give the reader more credit. Give the newcomers and beginners more credit. Not every post requires an active opposition. The less we feel the need to fault-find and correct what we don’t like, the less chance we are going to engage to the point of receiving unwanted attention or a suspension.

Fastest way to bolster what you disagree with is to not be here to offer what you find to be more valuable. Be smarter than that. If certain views are not beneficial, sometimes the best way for that to be proven is to leave those views alone for the reader to decide. Remember, the reader is not stupid. Let them make some decisions. Let them make some mistakes. They don’t need saviors, they need the skill of discernment and sometimes that means minimal guidance.

Hopefully my post won’t seem out of left field. The context of this thread is about breach of rules, no? Why do we breach rules? Why do we risk that? Nothing but excessive measures to be rid of what we don’t want to see, and at the expense of reputation and credibility. Not worth it.