toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I understand and sympathise with your commercial concerns, but this still
leaves the problem of people knowing what you mean by "adult" or "X-rated". The
meaning of those terms varies enormously from place to place, which means they
are not very helpful in an international medium like the internet.
Are you thinking, incidentally, only of advertisers based in USA? Advertisers
on French and German TV, for example, take it for granted that bare breasts,
male and female, are generally acceptable, while on UK TV they are common
within programmes but banned in adverts. I don't know the situation in USA or
elsewhere, but it illustrates the problem of needing clear definitions that
will be interpreted the same way wherever you operate.
On 25 Feb 2016 at 14:25, Mark Fletcher wrote:
I've only had a chance to skim the messages about the CoC today (busy
adding features and such...), but felt the need to chime in here with a
couple of things:
- Brenda's got it right about what I wish to accomplish with the CoC and I
very much appreciate her help in drafting this.
- The adult content policy is linked to from the terms of service, see
https://groups.io/static/tos, last sentence of the first part. It's copied
from Ning, and the reasons I've instituted it are exactly the same as
Ning's. It's purely practical. Adult groups are not good business. Ad
networks will not touch us if we have adult groups. Also, in my direct
experience, adult groups require a lot more support than other groups,
which means they cost a lot more to host. There are tons of places that
will host adult content, which is great; we don't need to be one of them.
- A concern has been raised that instituting a CoC will put Groups.io in
the position to have to deal with disagreements and disgruntlements. The
thing is, we _already_ have to deal with that. We already get complaints
from disgruntled members about various things. My sincere hope with the CoC is
that it will reduce the number of issues we have to deal with, by, as clearly as
we can, specifying the type of behavior that is acceptable. Call me naive, but
just maybe, if going into a group, you know that harassment won't be tolerated,
you may be less inclined to harass.
I will have more time to read through things tomorrow.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Feathered Leader <featheredleader@...>
Okay, I have not read everything in here yet, but I feel I have to say
Mark's COC is not a guide to what people can and can't talk about (with
certain restrictions like Adult content and illegal doings).
Mark's COC is a guide to how he would like people to behave. I tried to
explain that before, that it's about CONDUCT, hence the word conduct, not
Instead, everyone is going on about what would and wouldn't be allowed in
here, and the bottom line is that I don't think Mark is going to start reading
every post and checking for compliance with the COC.
What I believe Mark is trying to do, is create basic guidelines that he
would like followed, to ensure that his site is a safe place for people to
come and congregate. I believe that he wants the site to have protective
policies in place, in case there is some serious infraction...and note, I said
I don't believe Mark is planning to boot out every member that makes a
complaint. I also believe it would have to be a series of complaints, or
one really SERIOUS one, such as a threat on one's life, or posting private
information on a public site. Those safeguards do need to be in place to
protect people who are truly being "attacked."
So my opinion is that many of you are blowing this whole thing out of
proportion. I agree the wording can be changed in some cases on the COC
that I helped adjust, and I plan to do that soon as well, but I think you all
are missing the point Mark is trying to make.
But here's it all in a nutshell:
I believe that Mark wants the following:
-- Members to be considerate of one another and stay civil.
-- Members to not bully or attack (threaten bodily harm or life), one
another online or off (using his site as origin contact point).
-- Members not to publically post personal or contact information on
others without permission.
-- Members not to do anything illegal on here, such as exchange pirated
software, sell stuff illegally, etc.
-- Members not to be discrimmatory or use hate speech on here
-- Members not to share porn, use X-rated images or other similar "Adult"
content. -- Members not to use multiple identities to bully other members or
otherwise wreak havoc -- Members to not spam or send junk mail to overwhelm
And I believe he wants:
-- Moderators to "police" or watch their own groups.
-- Moderators to handle whatever they can on their own.
-- Moderators to work with him when there is a serious issue that needs
Management to intervene.
-- Moderators to respect the integrity of his site.
That's what I believe Mark wants.
Let's see what HE says.
Meanwhile, I honestly think this is being blown all out of proportion.
Take a step back and look at the things I just said. Would you want to be in a
group where people could bully or threaten you, post your personal
information, call you racist names, spam your members, etc. etc.?
I applaud Mark for trying to make this a place where people can come and feel
safe. I know many do not feel safe on Facebook or Twitter, along with many
other sites. Yes, we'll all have our differences, but I think we're all adult
enough to respect the integrity of this site. It's the least we can do, for
someone who has been so kind to build it for us in exactly the way we need.