Booker wrote:>>[your words] cannot be edited or deleted
The edit function is to be disabled? I disagree with that decision, if so. At the least, I want a window of time after I post to correct typos, add thoughts that occured after I hit post, tone down inflammatory language, etc.
Please see my response to Enthropic when he asked the same question earlier in this thread.
>>- Personal attacks are unwelcome.
Needs more detail. Differences in what feels like a personal attack are to be expected, and this doc is intended primarily to reduce that sort of uncertainty. I suggest something along the lines of this.
"Opinions about what constitutes a personal attack may vary. Users of the e-playa are expected to avoid posting language or images critical of another user's identity or characterizing that person in a negative way. Posts will sometimes challenge the opinions or information in other posts; even strongly worded opinions are not personal attacks, as long as they focus on post content rather than on critically characterizing users themselves."
I'd like to hear more from other folks on this before changing it. I think that by leaving it as it, folks have to consider what a personal attack is and anything that requires people to think a bit more before they hit send is ok by me. But I'm interested to hear how others feel.
Booker wrote:>- Illegal activities are unwelcome.
Needs clarification? E.g., the e-playa may be used to discuss experiences with illegal substances, but not to arrange buys--right?
Wrong. This is a public space, and anyone can read what's here. "Anyone" includes law enforcement, the media, and your mother. We have to have a zero-tolerance policy, just like on the real playa.
Booker wrote:>Advertising items or services for sale will not be tolerated.
Well, except for event tickets? (Also coffee? *ducks*)
Again, please see the reply to Entrophic's question re: commerce.
Booker wrote:>Contributions should be intelligible and add value to the discussion.
How will this standard be interpretted? According to the preference of the admins? According to how many complaints are received? Needs to be more explicit. Should say explicitly that quips & wisecracks are understood to add value? (Some would disagree, and senses of humor vary.) Or just add a disclaimer that this is a recommendation to be enforced on the honor system (which I suspect will be the case in practice)?
There can be no "enforcement" on this point - we are not going to take any action against something that is unintelligible. Merely a reminder that you should try to make sense.
Booker wrote:>>Multiple identities are discouraged.
I'd say "multiple logins" to be more specific.
There is a one-to-one relationship between identities and logins. how is "logins" more specific?[/quote]
Booker wrote:>>exercise the powers set forth here in a fair and egalitarian manner.
"fair and even-handed manner"? Egalitarian is tending a bit toward frou-frou political theory, imo.
Is this a joke or are you serious? I'm not trying to be facetious, I really can't tell.
Booker wrote:Need to add something about cross-posting under Expected Behavior. There's a consequence laid out, but not definition of what the word is understood to mean.
Booker wrote:>>Cross-posting may result in freezing repeated threads
"freezing redundant threads"
hmmm...redundant to me is broader than repeated. I would not want to freeze 2 threads that were just similar. But 2 threads that were created by the same person for the same purposes...that sound more like repeated to me. But I'm not married to it.
Booker wrote:>>- Multiple violations will result in the revocation of thread creation and/or posting privileges.
Why no elaboration of a process or standards a la the 3-strikes discussion? Or is it to be at the discretion of the admins? Again, the point here it to say specfically what's over the line, or so I thought.
The 3-strike paradigm is too difficult to realky track - like if a person crosspost in 2 threads, it's clearly a first strike. But if they do it on 30 threads, it's damaging enough to need to be dealt with more severly.
If you read all the bullet points in this one together, you'll see a clear chain of events. Consequences for initial offenses are spelled out for each case. "Multiple offenses" covers anything that happens in quantity. Contonued or repeated cover anything after they've been approached or had action taken against them.
>>- Burning Man will not honor requests to delete Content nor deactivate user accounts upon complaint by other users, but will investigate such accusations and determine whether the ePlaya Terms of Service and Guidelines have been violated.
Booker wrote:"will not immediately honor"? You say the requests won't be honored, then you say under what terms you will honor them (after investigation). Instead: "In response to requests for enforcement action by e-playa users, the admins will investigate and determine . . . "
The full phrase here is "will not honor...upon complaint by other users..." os it means the same thing, but I agree that your phrasing is clearer.
Booker wrote:OK, that's picky enough for one afternoon, I think. *Smooch.*