moderated Dealing with Terms of Service violations/other complaints
|
Hi All, Thankfully, I can count on one hand the number of ToS violations/complaints that I've had to deal with in the last 3 years. I've dealt with them on an ad hoc basis. That said, I want to start to formalize a procedure for how to deal with them, and I'd like your input. Let me say first off that I have no desire to get involved with specific group issues. But if I am notified of some ToS violations, I may be required to act/ensure that they are addressed. For example, if I'm notified that there is copyright infringement within a group (and it's true), I am required by law to act upon that/ensure that it is addressed. Other things, like harassment, may not reach that level, but at the same time, I do not want them to be happening. Here's what I'm thinking for the start of the process: - A complaint is sent to support; a member is alleging a ToS violation in a group. - I forward that complaint to all the owners/moderators of that group, with a request to reply back to support within 48 hours. - Hopefully the owner addresses the problem, and that's the end of it. I forward the owner's response to the complaintant, and close the issue. Does that make sense? Do you think I should include a disclaimer in the help section saying that messages to support may be forwarded to group owners? Where things get tricky is when I believe there is an issue, and the owner doesn't address it. How do you think I should proceed? I understand that I will not be able to codify responses to everything, because I'm not sure I/we can predict all issues that will come up. But I'd like to have a "playbook," that I can point to and use. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:23 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Do you think I should include a disclaimer in the help section saying that messages to support may be forwarded to group owners?Yes, I think so. And I think you should decide a priori that either all such messages will be forwarded or not, and say that it "will" be forwarded, not that it may. Because otherwise, how will you decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to forward it to the owners? And how will you LATER notify the member that you've forwarded it if you do (because otherwise, the member is in a position of sitting around wondering whether or not the complaint has been forwarded?) It seems like a can of worms. If you do determine that it IS a TOU, then I'd do what Paypal does after xyz merchant has screwed up and you've filed a complaint and Paypal has determined, based on the information you've provided, that the merchant is at fault: they tell you that you will be made whole (refunded) and that you should not contact the merchant again because Paypal is taking it over. So I'd drop the "you should work it out with the group owners" if you can see right away, or at any point, that the group is at fault. -- J
Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
Mark,
I want to start to formalize a procedure for how to deal with them,Don't forget the "Report this message" and "Report this Photo" mechanism, with it's option to send the complaint to the group management or to Groups.io. That should have equal, or maybe sole, standing as a submission process. - I forward that complaint to all the owners/moderators of thatIf you're going to do that by all means say so. Generally I'm not a fan of web forms as the only way to contact support, but I think the need for such a disclaimer is strong enough in this case (TOS violation complaints) that a web page form for filing such complaints may be needed rather than allowing them by email. The existing "Report this..." functions may only need to be supplemented by having the function available in more generic and visible locations, such as the group home page ("Report this group"). A concern is that this forwarding policy may have a substantial chilling effect on members' willingness to make reports; especially when the group management itself is alleged to be involved in the violation. But far better that the member be informed than possibly not have seen some help page until it was too late. Also, by using a form you could provide a means for members to make a report that will not be forwarded, where circumstances merit such protection. - I forward that complaint to all the owners/moderators of thatThat's probably an ok request, but some group managers may only look at their groups on weekends, or at similar intervals. Or in groups which take on management as a collaborative effort it may take time for them to communicate with each other and formulate a response. You may need some ad-hoc tolerance for delayed or incomplete response under such circumstances. Where things get tricky is when I believe there is an issue, and theIndeed. Some cases will be a matter of inattention, others may be due to involvement with the violation. I'm not sure what to suggest in terms of a measured escalation of the incident. ... because I'm not sure I/we can predict all issues that will comeAward nominee, in the "Understatement of the year" category. Shal -- https://groups.io/g/Group_Help https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum
|
|
|
|
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:46 am, Shal Farley wrote:
Although this is not, of course, a democracy, I think informing the group owner is in keeping with the principle of the right to know your accuser. You could phrase the fact you're informing them of it in that light to the complainant.Do you think I should include a disclaimer in the help section sayingIf you're going to do that by all means say so. -- J
Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
Jeremy H
Some thoughts...
I think, generally, if something has been reported as being against ToS, information as to the reporter, or their report as such, should NOT be passed to a group owner/moderator - they should just get a message saying there has been an alleged violation, and what it is, and what they should do (and in what time scale). If there is a perceived need to pass reporter details to group owner, this should only be done after consultation with reporter - and this should clarify that if there is no consent to them being passed, it will not be possible to progress the complaint. Generally, a ToS violation is against groups.io, not just (or even) against the complainant. There is a need to distinguish between moderators who are assistant group managers, and have most moderating privileges, and those who are just 'super users' Apart from Shal's suggestion of 'Report this ... ' button, I think maybe there should be a separate e-mail address (abuse@...?) for such reports, rather than just the general support one. If that's what you're going to do, yes. But I don't think you should be doing that. It should be clear that, if you determine that action should be taken by a group owner, and this not being done expeditiously (within defined time scale), then (specified) warning will be given, and direct action (by groups.io) taken. Yes, there should be a policy("playbook") for you (Groups.io / Mark) to follow in dealing with issues, and at least to some extent, this should be public. (Aside: there is sometimes a need for Mark to distinguish between when he's acting as Mark, and when as Groups.io) There is a need to distinguish between issues (violations) by 'Groups' (as such), by 'Owners' (as individuals), and by individual subscribers (members), all of which may require different actions. And to distinguish between conduct which is (or appears to be) illegal (what if member or group is 'foreign'?), against groups.io ToS, or as what the group might regard as uncivilised behaviour (defined in a group code of conduct or otherwise). A further issue: what should be done in relation to an issue (ToS violation) caused by someone in one group, in relation to another group that they may be a member of? Finally, looking at the Terms of Service: While I recognise that Groups.io is an American company, should it actually say so somewhere? (By putting 'USA' in address, and having a 'Groups.io, Inc. is ..., governed by the laws of ...' type statement.) Nor is there an obvious 'This agreement is governed by the laws of X , whose courts have jurisdiction' type statement, that I've seen elsewhere. While there is a note about changes to the ToS, and a last changed date, there is no pointer to any archive of changes/older versions visible, which is something I would like to see. I felt the link to policy on pornography, etc. rather inconspicuous, especially as it's on a different page (to which there is no obvious other link) While there is a reference to JAMS, there is no explanation of it/them, who they are, etc. Jeremy
|
|
|
|
Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
Mark,
Personally I think there absolutely needs to be "a playbook" and that said playbook should be available for review by any member. How one handles a given ToS complaint would really depend on the actual ToS being violated, or at least it would have that potential. I do not think that absolutely all ToS violations would be shared with group owners simply because if the complaint is against a group owner then you would be addressing that complaint and be the "enforcer/intermediary" between the person reporting and the group owner. Virtually any other complaint that I can think of off the top of my head would have the group owner as the first line enforcer rather than Groups.io. You would only need to get involved directly at the behest of a group owner once they were made aware of the complaint. I am a moderator on another site and I keep having small battles with the moderation team and the site owner (to a lesser extent) because far too much is handled ad hoc or with "tribal knowledge of the unwritten rules." If you have tribal knowledge that is getting used for a second time (or third, etc.) then that should be codified somewhere that a member being pursued using that "unwritten rule" can be pointed to the now written rule noting that they've broken it. ToS are not static. Any good ToS I've ever seen has a "can be modified as necessary" clause because you will be encountering situations you had not anticipated that will require you to formulate the actual policy for that situation and that you wish to apply to any future occurrence. The terms grow out of necessity. That doesn't mean, however, that the main "Rules for Members" page could or should show every possible eventuality. They should contain links to pages which detail certain classes of violation if someone wants more gory detail since many won't want or need that detail. -- Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063 (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature) I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up. ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe
|
|
|
|
toki
On 08/23/2017 05:23 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Do you think I should include a disclaimer in thehelp section saying that messages to support may be forwarded to group owners? Yes. Include in that disclaimed that forwarded reports will include the contact information for the individual making the complaint. Notify the individual that filed the complaint, if the message was, or was not forwarded to the group owner, when the decision to forward/not forward is made. Where things get tricky is when I believe there is an issue, and the owner doesn't address it.Require that the owner address the issue, or else clearly explain why s/he does not think it is an issue. I'd suggest seven days within which to respond. One tricky part is going to be where the activity is perfectly normal, legal, and moral in one country, but not in another country. For example, insulting the leader of North Korea is a capital offence in North Korea, but legal in the United States(^1). Hence the need to have an explanation from the group owner. Sexuality and sexual expression has been controversial for six thousand years. Define, in advance, what will be acceptable, and what will not be acceptable, making those criteria easily accessible to all. (^3) You'll still end up with edge cases, like a support group for unconvicted paedophiles (^2), but you'll be able to point people towards the quasi-playbook. I understand that I will not be able to codify responses to everything,Walk through the Terms and Conditions, clause by clause, setting out what you would do, if that specific clause was violated. That won't cover everything your playbook needs, but it sets up the basic precedence. Furthermore, I'd suggest reviewing socio-political changes in the landscape every three months, with a view of adding scenarios to your playbook, incorporating those changes. By way of example, what happens if any of the following have a chapter that utilises Groups.IO? * Antifa; * 1488; * Daish; * 187; Alternatively, what happens if an existing group switches to supporting/advocating for one of those groups? I'm just using those groups as examples. There are at least 5,000 similar (^4) organizations to each of them. ^1: I'm using this law as an example, mainly because he has been the subject of jokes and insults. Since North Korea law doesn't apply in the People's Republic of China, an individual residing there might, despite the 2014 campaign suggesting that one not insult that individual, conclude that such activity is legal in PRC. [That campaign was widely seen as the PRC officially saying that said head of state is a useful idiot.] ^2: In the United States, one need not have any contact with a minor, to be convicted of this crime. Individuals with this affliction, seeking support, expect to be jailed for life, even if they never act on it, because of the way the law is written. ^3: This means that at least one page of your site will contain a description of content that is not acceptable. ^4: Similar, as in has the same aims, and utilizes the same modus operandi, as the example I use. jonathon
|
|
|
|
All good comments that I mostly agree with.
Another thought to think: A group is 'owned' by the owner(s) in one sense, but really the group is 'owned' by all members of the group in another sense. If the owner(s) of a group are involved in the ToS violation, and you contact them about it, I can imagine that owner simply deleting the group in a fit of pique, which could be a major blow to the members of the group. (This blends over into another issue that I'll mention in the next paragraph.) As a result, you might want to consider having the ability for you to 'lock' a group from being deleted/modified by the owner if/when you feel the owner may be complicit in the ToS violation. Once the situation is resolved, then the lock can be removed. In an extreme case, you might end up removing the current owner(s) as owners after posting to the group for new volunteer owner(s) and installing them, thus protecting the integrity/existence of the group for the (possibly) hundreds or thousands of members using that group. Even the U.S. constitution has the means to remove a rogue President... :-) The other issue the above touches on is this (and maybe you already do...)--when an owner deletes a group, perhaps you should simply set a flag and a time/date stamp that the group has been deleted (and treat it as deleted, in most ways). After a reasonable time without 'complaints', you could then 'realize' that group deletion. But if complaints about the deletion are filed, then it could be possible, through some mechanism, to allow those complainants to become the new owners of the group and "bring it back from the dead." Again, a group is not just the owners, so in many ways the group IS owned by all members of the group, and a single 'owner' shouldn't be able to destroy everything the group has created without just cause. I realize this would involve investigation into the issues and a judgement call on your part as to whether the deletion was justified or not, but it seems like a very similar issue to the ToS violation issue. Everett
|
|
|
|
How about this.
I've had to write such wording for other things such as a management contract for a semester final. Yuck. This brings back memories lol!
|
|
|
|
Bob Bellizzi
I;ve reviewed a bunch of messages in this thread and have some comments based on our groups' experiences and operating procedures.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 07:43 am, Everett wrote: Again, a group is not just the owners Sorry but I take exception to this statement as over-generalization. Bob Bellizzi Founder, Fuchs Friends ®
|
|
|
|
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 03:11 pm, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
I have found more than one person who would jump in to answer an important question by saying "I think I read that Dr. X might have said XYZ" which is pure conjecture, may be dangerously false info or likely to be misinterpreted. When pressed in a private email to be very specific when responding to a question about our common issue, they would continue the practice and also argue with the decision of the owners and senior moderators.I also run a group (on a cat disease) in which this occurs, and which I, too, find very dangerous. We have very strict and strictly enforced guidelines in our group regarding facts (though none of them have to do, I have to say in reference to the other thread, with what I consider petty issues like typos, poor grammar, or iPhone signatures), and these are for the sake of the health and safety of critically ill cats whose owners may be reading the posts and relying on them. I think your running of your group is a great model and I'm not surprised you are successful. I plan to read your post in greater detail later and consider some of your policies for my own group. We are still very small, but we are international and growing all the time. And I fully agree that the group owners do "own" theirs group in an important sense. -- J
Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
Bob and J_CatLady:
I don't mean to demean or diminish your ownership of your groups or the work that you do with them. Yes, there will always be exceptions to any generalization. However, what I'm trying to get at is that, for most groups, the 'group' is useless without the group members. Therefore, the group members DO have some "ownership" in terms of what they contribute to the group. I'm NOT suggesting that "regular members" should normally be able to "take over ownership" of your group. Imagine that Bob or J_CatLady got dementia (heaven forefend, just an example) and, in a moment of irrationality, decided to delete the group. Think of the impact that would have on the members of your groups. What I was suggesting was merely a way for Mark/Groups.io to recover from an owner accidentally or maliciously deleting 'their' group. Should that happen, I envision a method for the group members to petition Groups.io for resuscitation under a new ownership. It would then (possible scenario) be up to Groups.io to attempt to contact the prior owners for an explanation for 1) Why they deleted the group, and 2) Why group ownership should not be passed on to other responsible group members. In fact, those two questions could become required answers before group deletion occurs. If contact with the prior owner(s) is non-responsive or if the responses don't seem reasonable, then in the judgement of Groups.io, the group could be resuscitated under new ownership. Everett
|
|
|
|
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 04:48 pm, Everett Kaser wrote:
Imagine that Bob or J_CatLady got dementia (heaven forefend, just an example) and, in a moment of irrationality, decided to delete the group.To that I would say, with all due respect, tough shit. If I want to delete my group at any time, for a good reason or for no reason, that is my absolute right and privilege, even if I want to do it "maliciously," as you put it. Of COURSE a group would be nothing without its members. That means that group owners must do a good job in making their members happy and satisfying their needs in whatever drove them to join the group, or they will leave. " those two questions could become required answers before group deletion occurs." No, they should not. If I want to delete my group, it's absolutely nobody's business but my own. If some former group members want to get together and create their own group afterwards, they are certainly able and welcome to do that. But no group member has the right to force a group owner to continue a group. I really hope you're kidding. (BTW, block-quote bug: the block-quote button no longer works for a section of text if there is any text below it.) -- J
Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
Douglas M.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 01:46 am, Shal Farley wrote:
Generally I'm not a fan of web forms as the only way to contact support I am all for an easy reporting system that can go either to group owners/moderators or the groups.io but I like it to be a web-based form or process. This way it is not so simple that minor complaints or a member in a bad mood that day can't just click a button and make a flippant report. Filling out a form makes the complainant organize their thoughts and evaluate or clarify exactly what they are complaining about. If a member really thinks it needs to be responded to, they will take the time to do it right.
|
|
|
|
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 07:43 am, Everett Kaser wrote:
a single 'owner' shouldn't be able to destroy everything the group has created without just cause.Yes, they absolutely should be able to. Including documents that I myself have singelhandedly written and posted to the site; information that I myself have researched and posted to the site; a membership that was gathered by me and attached to me because of my expertise in the area; etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc etc. The notion that deleting a group should anything at all to do with a "judgment call" by Mark is ridiculous. One thing I agree with here is the suggestion to "disable" rather than permanently delete a group for some period of time (perhaps a few days), subject to undoing the deletion ONLY by the group owner's express wishes. Nothing else. -- J
Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
Brian Vogel <britechguy@...>
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 05:04 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
To that I would say, with all due respect, tough shit. If I want to delete my group at any time, for a good reason or for no reason, that is my absolute right and privilege, even if I want to do it "maliciously," as you put it.And to that, I would say, you are gravely mistaken. A group owner is nothing more than a group's originator and overseer until or unless they no longer want that role. A group is, quite literally, owned by its members. If a group owner wishes to withdraw entirely that's entirely their call. But they cannot dissolve the group if someone else is willing to step in to the owner role. Or I guess I should say that it should be an official rule of setting up a group that the owner cannot unilaterally decide to dissolve a group if anyone in the group is willing to assume the owner role. You have no absolute rights that involve potentially hundreds of group members other than yourself just because you happen to be the founding member. I personally despise the terminology used here of "group owner" because it creates just the attitudes that you're espousing and that I reject entirely. Groups have a life of their own that is completely disconnected from the group's founder and I also don't believe that anyone, ever, gets to literally erase the historical record. Once you've posted to a group, whether public or private, those posts are not your property to do with as you see fit. -- Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1703, Build 15063 (dot level on request - it changes too often to keep in signature) I worry a lot. . . I worry that no matter how cynical you become it's never enough to keep up. ~ Trudy, in Jane Wagner's Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe
|
|
|
|
Hi, To add support for Brian’s argument: this is exactly the reason why I require unanimous consent from members before dissolving one of my groups (Win10 forum), with members providing justifications as to why the group should be closed. This procedure was set in place and written in the books from the day that group moved its operation to Groups.IO. As for my overall opinion of the discussion taking place: I think it is the responsibility of members to inform both leaders (owners and moderators) and Mark and other staff regarding copyright violations, with decisions left up to owners. There are words and phrases in messages from people on various groups that’ll trigger owners to take action, especially if violation of terms of service is suspected. But I think a better approach is educating members about being vigilant and testing their conscience and ethical stances regarding things they post, especially if it could run into legal problems. Cheers, Joseph
From: main@beta.groups.io [mailto:main@beta.groups.io] On Behalf Of Brian Vogel
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 05:04 pm, J_Catlady wrote:
And to that, I would say, you are gravely mistaken. A group owner is nothing more than a group's originator and overseer until or unless they no longer want that role. A group is, quite literally, owned by its members. Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe
|
|
|
|
It's my content in the files and the wiki, it's my work putting the group together and maintaining it, it's my money paying for premium, it's my rules, it's my knowledge that I have chosen to share with members, it's my time that I have chosen to give to them, and it is simply my group. Period. I'm very surprised at you, Brian, for thinking at all otherwise, J Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
There really is no argument In favor of the group 'belonging' to the members. I am actually shocked that this even came up and actually find the idea laughable. I've been getting a good chuckle out of it all afternoon, really J Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:28 PM, Joseph Lee <joseph.lee22590@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|
|
It's my living rooom. The members are my guests, they are there at my pleasure and leave I'd and when they are no longer welcome, and they CERTAINLY have no right to tell me I have to keep my doors open if I decide to close them. J Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 24, 2017, at 7:45 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author. Especially the fishy ones. I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu
|
|
|