Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
DU Community Help
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Chan790
(20,176 posts)88. My expectation would be the inverse actually...
that if members want to amend the TOS to clarify something he seems to believe is already covered, that Skinner's going to expect in return that someone draft model language and community-validate it. It's in line with Admin course of action thus far on DU3 to shift to increasingly community-guided forms of moderation.
If he writes it, then he has to field concerns or complaints that it is insufficient whereas if it's model-language which has been community-sourced before it came to him...all concerned parties have had a chance to speak to its satisfactory content. He just has to approve it and add it to the TOS.
TopBack to the top of the page
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
ShareGet links to this post
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
202 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
thank you. i too support the proposal of adding more clarity to this issue in TOS. nt
seabeyond
Dec 2012
#6
As would I. Because even as a rape survivor I think a lot of the complaints here have been over the
peacebird
Dec 2012
#10
it really would have nothing to do with us. skinner would decide and word it. i trust him
seabeyond
Dec 2012
#43
no. go find it. dont. i dont care. i am so fuckin tired of these fuckin games. nt
seabeyond
Dec 2012
#85
Pretend you have been given the chance to word it. Write it into the Tos just like you are Skinner -
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2012
#72
refresh my memory - when did we get to vote on the ToS first go round? --
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2012
#103
ok. understood and agreed the discussion should take place in Meta. There is a thread over there.
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2012
#121
I agree with you. It really never was about the words HH used. It was his attitude -
Tuesday Afternoon
Dec 2012
#136
skinner would decide on the phrasin and doubt he would be asking us, if he chose to adjust TOS.
seabeyond
Dec 2012
#39
oh gosh, well, i do not know. i think we all have an idea that we would have influence in the
seabeyond
Dec 2012
#54
This is good. We need to have those two words "sexism and misogyny" in the text.
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#167
No member will decide the language. If the admins agree with proposal they will decide the language.
Little Star
Dec 2012
#36
Personally, just adding the two words would be fine by me. Then like with all TOS..
Little Star
Dec 2012
#135
But I am wondering if we set such a high standards when it comes to race? Isn't the use of
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#170
but why is it so difficult to do this for sexist speech when it isn't for racist speech?
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#172
Two things: I am not familiar with what transpired with SalmonEnchantedEvening, so I don't
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#176
Is this any different from the evaluation process we already do here, with regard to racist and
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#180
Well, as to your first point: is it any harder to discern sexism than it is racism or homophobia?
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#182
As we speak (type?) the discussion is on about Salmon's decision to leave and about HH's wife's
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#184
I love that you are an artist, but we do disagree about whether there will be a change to the TOS.
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#186
can i record please, lol. i guess what i see is that for so many of us it is progression
seabeyond
Dec 2012
#38
Well, unfortunately a lot of people here see some kind of slight in just about anything
Gman
Dec 2012
#89
adminstration decide the tos. that simple. regardless of how they clarify the tos, they are the
seabeyond
Dec 2012
#92
absolutely. and they do not rush. they take the time. and a person gets plenty of rope
seabeyond
Dec 2012
#102
I find it disgusting that many people apparently need to have this spelled out for them.
NYC Liberal
Dec 2012
#109
I am in favor of addressing these issues with specificity in the TOS. Juries will fine tune
WheelWalker
Dec 2012
#100
it is depressing that, on what is supposed to be a progressive, democratic board, we actually have
niyad
Dec 2012
#117
I support an amendment to the TOS to make a prohibition against misogyny clear.
yardwork
Dec 2012
#128
Absolutely not. Words, alone, devoid of meaning should not be banned. Messages of hatred may be.
leveymg
Dec 2012
#134
You know, I hate the word wars, and am often on the side of those who post silly and juvenile
msanthrope
Dec 2012
#137
I understand the functionality of preventing people from using the absence of that specific language
patrice
Dec 2012
#150
I can't speak to the instance you reference about this poster who is leaving since I have not
CTyankee
Dec 2012
#177
I think clarifying that sexism and misogny are unacceptable can only benefit discussion.
misschicken
Dec 2012
#187
Yes. I think it's time our terms of service included a prohibition on denigrating 51% of the
Squinch
Mar 2013
#193
if nothing else, i would like to hear if this has been the administrations expectation and they
seabeyond
Mar 2013
#198