I see your point - a clearly identified quote from a published source is fine, but repeating private conversation without clear permission probably isn't.

The second thing that I noticed, which isn't directly applicable, but only because our AUP is not very flushed out and because we don't have a community standards policy of our own.

So looking at Medium's CSP it states this, which I find very relatable to this suggested niche:

Medium Community Conduct

Privacy and Reputation

We do not allow the following:

Posting copies of private communications between private individuals without the explicit consent of all parties to the communication.

I think this is an important thing for us to also include in our AUP specifically relating to post's. not just our profiles as stated. This would make this niche more debatable, at the very least the description would need to really tighten up and outline what part of social media conversation is usable, and to remove the IRL portion.

Also this from Medium's CSP

Harassment
Medium exists to share and discuss ideas. We don’t tolerate harassment, which includes:

• Bullying, threatening, or shaming someone, or posting things likely to encourage others to do so
• Using Medium features like responses, private notes, mentions, follows, story requests, or writer requests in a way intended to annoy or harass someone.

This niche certainly has the capacity to weaponize advice. Especially since the context is presented only one-sided.  This niche is asking people to weigh in and cast a financial reward to validate or not, the posting person's involvement. This can so easily lead to shaming either party, harassing them, and bully, under the guise of community validation. I think this is problematic, and should be avoided altogether, since we are talking on other threads about hate speech and conduct standards.

My two bits. What do you all think. I have yet to change my vote. But unless i hear some really compelling reasons why this is a good niche, I will be changing my vote today.

Emily Barnett posted:

The second thing that I noticed, which isn't directly applicable, but only because our AUP is not very flushed out and because we don't have a community standards policy of our own.

So looking at Medium's CSP it states this, which I find very relatable to this suggested niche:

Medium Community Conduct

Privacy and Reputation

We do not allow the following:

Posting copies of private communications between private individuals without the explicit consent of all parties to the communication.

I think this is an important thing for us to also include in our AUP specifically relating to post's. not just our profiles as stated. This would make this niche more debatable, at the very least the description would need to really tighten up and outline what part of social media conversation is usable, and to remove the IRL portion.

Also this from Medium's CSP

Harassment
Medium exists to share and discuss ideas. We don’t tolerate harassment, which includes:

• Bullying, threatening, or shaming someone, or posting things likely to encourage others to do so
• Using Medium features like responses, private notes, mentions, follows, story requests, or writer requests in a way intended to annoy or harass someone.

 

This niche certainly has the capacity to weaponize advice. Especially since the context is presented only one-sided.  This niche is asking people to weigh in and cast a financial reward to validate or not, the posting person's involvement. This can so easily lead to shaming either party, harassing them, and bully, under the guise of community validation. I think this is problematic, and should be avoided altogether, since we are talking on other threads about hate speech and conduct standards.

My two bits. What do you all think. I have yet to change my vote. But unless i hear some really compelling reasons why this is a good niche, I will be changing my vote today.

 

An Addendum to my point....

We do have an AUP that states no harassment. I guess one has to determine if this niche is by it's very nature, capable of harassing, or bullying other people, by being publicly judged, when one party didn't ever agree to it, may not be aware of it in order to present their side of the argument...anonymously or not, I think it it definitely can quickly blur into harassment. 

Regarding the anonymous bit, it seems totally irrelevant. One only has to copy and past a sentence into google and you will be able to reveal who the argument was with. 

One only has to copy and past a sentence into google and you will be able to reveal who the argument was with. 

As with all human behavior, I would put the onus of responsibility on the actor. However, the sentence above from your last post @Emily Barnett brings up an interesting point. Since such comments are public, the person making them has no right to claim privacy. Even in the physical world, a word spoken in a public place is not private communication. It is public and, therefore, quotable. 

Regarding actual private communications, I think the Medium CSP is problematic because if you send me an email calling me a jerk and I post to a forum where I would not expect you to be (though you might indeed be there), quoting you verbatim but don't say who it is I'm quoting, I'm not violating your privacy. As far as my readers are concerned, you're anonymous. If you speak up and say, "Hey, I didn't give you permission to quote me," that's you outing yourself.

I think all of these issues can be headed off by simply stating in the description that personally identifying information is not allowed. That would not, of course, include the source material. If I Google the phrase and it turns out you made a public statement that is Googleable (oooh, a new word), then you have made a public statement.

In matters such as these, I believe the correct question is ask is "What would a reasonable person conclude from the information provided?"

If I want to judge whether a person is right or wrong with regard to an exchange between two people, one whose identity I do not know and the other who is asking for my input, then my response will almost always be, "If the information you are conveying accurately characterizes the situation, then ...."

People are responsible for their own behavior. If someone posts personally identifiable information about another and he niche guidelines clearly say that is not allowed, then the niche moderator is obligated to reject that post. I'm assuming the platform is going to allow moderators to state the reasons for rejecting content much the way they allow niche voters to state why they're rejecting a niche. If that is the case, check the box "violates niche guidelines" and reject the post. The poster then has the prerogative to resubmit without personally identifying information.

FYI-- the Narrative AUP already says:  

No personally identifiable information (including phone number, addresses, or email addresses) or confidential information should not be shared. This applies to your own information or other people’s information.

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

One only has to copy and past a sentence into google and you will be able to reveal who the argument was with. 

As with all human behavior, I would put the onus of responsibility on the actor. However, the sentence above from your last post @Emily Barnett brings up an interesting point. Since such comments are public, the person making them has no right to claim privacy. Even in the physical world, a word spoken in a public place is not private communication. It is public and, therefore, quotable. 

Regarding actual private communications, I think the Medium CSP is problematic because if you send me an email calling me a jerk and I post to a forum where I would not expect you to be (though you might indeed be there), quoting you verbatim but don't say who it is I'm quoting, I'm not violating your privacy. As far as my readers are concerned, you're anonymous. If you speak up and say, "Hey, I didn't give you permission to quote me," that's you outing yourself.

I think all of these issues can be headed off by simply stating in the description that personally identifying information is not allowed. That would not, of course, include the source material. If I Google the phrase and it turns out you made a public statement that is Googleable (oooh, a new word), then you have made a public statement.

In matters such as these, I believe the correct question is ask is "What would a reasonable person conclude from the information provided?"

If I want to judge whether a person is right or wrong with regard to an exchange between two people, one whose identity I do not know and the other who is asking for my input, then my response will almost always be, "If the information you are conveying accurately characterizes the situation, then ...."

People are responsible for their own behavior. If someone posts personally identifiable information about another and he niche guidelines clearly say that is not allowed, then the niche moderator is obligated to reject that post. I'm assuming the platform is going to allow moderators to state the reasons for rejecting content much the way they allow niche voters to state why they're rejecting a niche. If that is the case, check the box "violates niche guidelines" and reject the post. The poster then has the prerogative to resubmit without personally identifying information.

ok, @Garden Gnome Publications i am a bit confused by your bouncing back and forth, so bare with me if I got something wrong as I respond to your post.

1. Narrative's AUP states you cannot post anything identifiable. Many people choose to remain anonymous on this platform, so even linking information that can link to a social media account that does have the persons public identity seems to me to be a breech of the AUP as I read it. I don't think you can say that the there is no onus on the person posting the topic, as they are by nature inciting curiosity of the identity.

2. We have to go by the description of the niche, not your philosophies from  a greater stand point. The description says On social media and in real life. Real life arguments don't all happen in public, most take place in the privacy of homes, private vehicles etc. This does has an expectation of privacy.  Also we only have the person who wrote the post's word that there was no expectation of privacy.

3. Yes public posts are fair game. But PRIVATE messaging does come with the expectation of privacy. and so does texting. Do people violate this expectation all the time and get away with it yes. But that doesn't mean we need to further corrupt it, by paving the way with a niche just for that sort of thing. Not at all.

4. I have a disclaimer that all my emails are private and intended for the reading consumption of the intended recipient only. Don't you? No I must differ with you on this one, I clearly have an expectation of privacy for my correspondence.

5.But how are you to know if the person is accurately depicting the situation. Especially when someone is being financially rewarded, depending on the outcome. 

This isn't Dear Abbey. The niche didn't say paraphrase the situation. It states to quote someone. And based on the description, some of these people may have said things in private situations, and not given permission to be quoted or judged by a community that may or may not be their peer group. The wording of the description is a breach to reasonable expectations of privacy, can certainly lend itself to harassment issues, and also goes against parts of the AUP. 

Unless I'm missing something important, I have no problem with this niche existing.  I don't think these sorts of online attention-seeking to validate arguments with third parties are in particularly good taste, but lots of people find them entertaining, and my taste isn't relevant.  I don't think the niche violates any of our standards.

The description contains:

"Don't link to online conversations, just quote them without revealing usernames..."

This seems to indicate that the niche is encouraging people to respect the terms spelled out by the Narrative Company, relevant to personal information.

Malkazoid posted:

Unless I'm missing something important, I have no problem with this niche existing.  I don't think these sorts of online attention-seeking to validate private arguments are in particularly good taste, but lots of people find them entertaining, and my taste isn't relevant.  I don't think the niche violates any of our standards.

The description contains:

"Don't link to online conversations, just quote them without revealing usernames..."

This seems to indicate that the niche is encouraging people to respect the terms spelled out by the Narrative Company, relevant to personal information.

 

Yes, that's the way I see it too.

@Emily Barnett, if you and I are throwing down a couple of beers in my man cave and you make a wry remark that unsettles me, should I decide to say to @Malkazoid, "Hey, a friend of mine in private the other day said ...," there's no breach of privacy there. I didn't identify which friend said it. It's simply conveying information about an event without personally identifying the individual who could potentially be embarrassed by the situation. That's all I'm saying.

We humans do these things all the time. Some people would include names, which is essentially gossip (and I don't like gossip). Others are more discreet and are able to handle this kind of conversation without making someone else look bad. It's all in the matter of how you approach it.

This niche could potentially lead to some embarrassment for some individuals, yes. But the description clearly says not to include personally identifying information. So, if someone does include information that clearly identifies a party in a private dispute and it gets through, that's a moderator and niche owner problem. They should have caught it and flagged it.

Individuals have to be responsible for their own behavior, good and bad.

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

Malkazoid posted:

Unless I'm missing something important, I have no problem with this niche existing.  I don't think these sorts of online attention-seeking to validate private arguments are in particularly good taste, but lots of people find them entertaining, and my taste isn't relevant.  I don't think the niche violates any of our standards.

The description contains:

"Don't link to online conversations, just quote them without revealing usernames..."

This seems to indicate that the niche is encouraging people to respect the terms spelled out by the Narrative Company, relevant to personal information.

 

Yes, that's the way I see it too.

@Emily Barnett, if you and I are throwing down a couple of beers in my man cave and you make a wry remark that unsettles me, should I decide to say to @Malkazoid, "Hey, a friend of mine in private the other day said ...," there's no breach of privacy there. I didn't identify which friend said it. It's simply conveying information about an event without personally identifying the individual who could potentially be embarrassed by the situation. That's all I'm saying.

We humans do these things all the time. Some people would include names, which is essentially gossip (and I don't like gossip). Others are more discreet and are able to handle this kind of conversation without making someone else look bad. It's all in the matter of how you approach it.

This niche could potentially lead to some embarrassment for some individuals, yes. But the description clearly says not to include personally identifying information. So, if someone does include information that clearly identifies a party in a private dispute and it gets through, that's a moderator and niche owner problem. They should have caught it and flagged it.

Individuals have to be responsible for their own behavior, good and bad.

@Garden Gnome Publications Sure if you ask @Malkazoid in person then I can see your point. But that isn't the situation here. Our TOS states you are giving your consent to The narrative platform to recreate and use your content, and that by giving them that right you have full consent to do that. Do you?

I don't think you do. Definately not the Real life conversation that had a reasonable expectation to privacy.

I agree with you Malkazoid, it is kind of distasteful, and has gossipy undertones. But i also do see it as a breech of the TOS, as I read it, and especially when I compare how the description was written.

Malkazoid posted:

Unless I'm missing something important, I have no problem with this niche existing.  I don't think these sorts of online attention-seeking to validate arguments with third parties are in particularly good taste, but lots of people find them entertaining, and my taste isn't relevant.  I don't think the niche violates any of our standards.

The description contains:

"Don't link to online conversations, just quote them without revealing usernames..."

This seems to indicate that the niche is encouraging people to respect the terms spelled out by the Narrative Company, relevant to personal information.

 

@Malkazoid I read your comment on the niche suggestion page. Perhaps you have missed something important. You suggest that it is just public online debates, so no harm no foul. But the niche suggests #IRL that opens up expectations to privacy, which the way i read the TOS seems to be in violation of consent. 

I am not really interested in convincing anyone here. I am attempting to layout my reasons for submitting it to the Tribunal, at a greater length of discourse, and they can decide if it violates the ToS or not. Maybe it doesn't, but i think it is close enough that the people who wrote the TOS should be amongst the ones to decide, and they rarely vote in niche elections.

I had to look up #IRL because I was unfamiliar. Since the app is targeted toward teens, there is a potential issue there if someone is inadvertently pointed at and a moderator misses it. It could lead to harassment allegations. However, the description does clearly state not to link to conversations or reveal usernames. You can appeal it to The Tribunal and see what they say. No harm in that.

at the very bare minimum...the description is unclear. Many people I suspect don't know what IRL means "In real life". 

Emily Barnett posted: 

@Malkazoid I read your comment on the niche suggestion page. Perhaps you have missed something important. You suggest that it is just public online debates, so no harm no foul. But the niche suggests #IRL that opens up expectations to privacy, which the way i read the TOS seems to be in violation of consent. 

Hello Emily,

I respect your opinion, but real life conversations cannot be searched online, so if the poster does not breach the privacy of the person by identifying them in their post, I'm not sure what your objection is.

What further obscures it, in my mind, is that there is an app aimed at teens named In Real Life. So does the #IRL in the description refer to that or actually real life? 

I think, either way, the description still clearly states no identification and no links.

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

What further obscures it, in my mind, is that there is an app aimed at teens named In Real Life. So does the #IRL in the description refer to that or actually real life? 

I think, either way, the description still clearly states no identification and no links.

Yes - insuring anonymity of the third party or parties being discussed is the only real consideration here.

This niche in and of itself, doesn't set itself up to violate privacy.  Whether it is real life conversations stripped of any identifiers, or online discussions which are only searchable if they are already public... we should be on the right side of the AUP, as long as the AUP itself is ironclad enough.

Perhaps we should be focusing on asking the @Narrative Network Team to enhance the AUP to bullet proof this aspect, as right now, people could allude to the identity of others in ways that makes it easy to guess who they are, without technically breaking the rules?

Malkazoid posted:

Emily Barnett posted: 

@Malkazoid I read your comment on the niche suggestion page. Perhaps you have missed something important. You suggest that it is just public online debates, so no harm no foul. But the niche suggests #IRL that opens up expectations to privacy, which the way i read the TOS seems to be in violation of consent. 

Hello Emily,

I respect your opinion, but real life conversations cannot be searched online, so if the poster does not breach the privacy of the person by identifying them in their post, I'm not sure what your objection is.

I have stated my objection pretty obviously @Malkazoid in the first post of the thread where I actually copy and pasted the ToS. It isn't just about the identification. That is the point that Ted brought up in this discussion. My point is that you have to have consent of all party's involved for content according to the ToS. So if you are posting a quote from someone from a private conversation that they have an expectation of privacy, without getting their consent then this is a breech of the ToS. 

This isn't just a "opps, i accidentally posted something i shouldn't have". This niche asks people to post conversations, some that will have by the very nature of the description have had an expectation of privacy, as part of its modus operandi. Try to get past the social media posts for a minute and look at the whole description. Anyways it is pointless to try to change your mind, it has passed. As I said last night, it will go to tribunal, who can now decide.

Emily Barnett posted:

Malkazoid posted:

 

I have stated my objection pretty obviously @Malkazoid in the first post of the thread where I actually copy and pasted the ToS. It isn't just about the identification. That is the point that Ted brought up in this discussion. My point is that you have to have consent of all party's involved for content according to the ToS. So if you are posting a quote from someone from a private conversation that they have an expectation of privacy, without getting their consent then this is a breech of the ToS. 

This isn't just a "opps, i accidentally posted something i shouldn't have". This niche asks people to post conversations, some that will have by the very nature of the description have had an expectation of privacy, as part of its modus operandi. Try to get past the social media posts for a minute and look at the whole description. Anyways it is pointless to try to change your mind, it has passed. As I said last night, it will go to tribunal, who can now decide.

 

Very good - yes, the Tribunal will decide!

I apologise for not reading your initial post carefully enough - I jumped into the thread thinking I knew what the issue was because I had read the comments on the niche approval page itself, but of course you did lay things out in more detail here.

I'm pretty sure the section of the TOS you quote is referring to obtaining 'rights power and authority' from a copyright perspective.  The part that deals with privacy is elsewhere, isn't it?

I doubt there is a copyright issue for quoting snippets of real life conversations, or snippets of online conversations from a public space... but I may be wrong.

Medium's policy is a result of a misunderstanding of the law mixed with an over abundance of caution/not wanting to defend a lawsuit even if it's baseless. In point of fact, I believe their policy to be so draconian as to be unenforceable in a court of law, any settlements notwithstanding. Not sure if such exist but I'd bet my buttons.

Malkazoid posted:

Emily Barnett posted:

Malkazoid posted:

 

I have stated my objection pretty obviously @Malkazoid in the first post of the thread where I actually copy and pasted the ToS. It isn't just about the identification. That is the point that Ted brought up in this discussion. My point is that you have to have consent of all party's involved for content according to the ToS. So if you are posting a quote from someone from a private conversation that they have an expectation of privacy, without getting their consent then this is a breech of the ToS. 

This isn't just a "opps, i accidentally posted something i shouldn't have". This niche asks people to post conversations, some that will have by the very nature of the description have had an expectation of privacy, as part of its modus operandi. Try to get past the social media posts for a minute and look at the whole description. Anyways it is pointless to try to change your mind, it has passed. As I said last night, it will go to tribunal, who can now decide.

 

Very good - yes, the Tribunal will decide!

I apologise for not reading your initial post carefully enough - I jumped into the thread thinking I knew what the issue was because I had read the comments on the niche approval page itself, but of course you did lay things out in more detail here.

I'm pretty sure the section of the TOS you quote is referring to obtaining 'rights power and authority' from a copyright perspective.  The part that deals with privacy is elsewhere, isn't it?

I doubt there is a copyright issue for quoting snippets of real life conversations, or snippets of online conversations from a public space... but I may be wrong.

well they voted it down. Even if i get a hit on my rep. I have no regrets. I value my private conversations, and i would be right friggin choked if somebody posted my arguments verbatim from inside the privacy of my home, email, text, or vehicle, onto the internet in hopes of financially cashing in. 

I believe in privacy. But lately it is has become the cheapest thing in the world. 

I don't understand how it's an invasion of your privacy if you aren't connected with the published comments. You'll have anonymity. That is privacy.

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

I don't understand how it's an invasion of your privacy if you aren't connected with the published comments. You'll have anonymity. That is privacy.

if i end up reading it, how is it private. And why should you, make money off of what I said, without asking me if that is ok?

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

 You'll have anonymity. That is privacy.

Anonymity is not the same as privacy. They are different words, with different meanings. 

Emily Barnett posted:

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

I don't understand how it's an invasion of your privacy if you aren't connected with the published comments. You'll have anonymity. That is privacy.

if i end up reading it, how is it private. And why should you, make money off of what I said, without asking me if that is ok?

Copyright restricts what is considered an original work.  Only original works are protected by copyright.

I'm not completely on top of the criteria for what constitutes an original work, but conversations do not.  Written correspondence does.

That means technically you could object to someone using a portion of written conversation, and ask them to remove it, but you would have very little effective legal recourse.  If it is just a portion of the full written conversation, fair use would apply.  Even if you prevailed, legal costs would make the exercise a foolish one.  

So that leaves us with your ability to request that a quote be taken down, but that's about it.

Authors borrow from real life conversations all the time, and use them in published works.  Sometimes it is things they overhear at a cafe, in a bus, or on a train platform...  Sometimes it comes from private conversations.  And they go on to make money from it...

I'm not saying that these limits to copyright are completely fair... but I think they arose from a place of pragmatism.

As I was typing this, Bart mentioned the difference between anonymity and privacy.  They are different words with different meanings, but it still is difficult to make a case for privacy being violated in such a way as to be problematic for the platform, if nobody knows who is being quoted.  Our sense of privacy is subjective, and some people could feel violated by reading some of their words quoted anonymously in a context they are not comfortable with.  

I don't like the idea of people doing this, but it doesn't break any rules as far as I can tell, and the same pragmatism copyright takes towards quoting conversations seems to need to apply here.

Malkazoid posted:

Emily Barnett posted:

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

I don't understand how it's an invasion of your privacy if you aren't connected with the published comments. You'll have anonymity. That is privacy.

if i end up reading it, how is it private. And why should you, make money off of what I said, without asking me if that is ok?

Copyright restricts what is considered an original work.  Only original works are protected by copyright.

I'm not completely on top of the criteria for what constitutes an original work, but conversations do not.  Written correspondence does.

That means technically you could object to someone using a portion of written conversation, and ask them to remove it, but you would have very little effective legal recourse.  If it is just a portion of the full written conversation, fair use would apply.  Even if you prevailed, legal costs would make the exercise a foolish one.  

So that leaves us with your ability to request that a quote be taken down, but that's about it.

Authors borrow from real life conversations all the time, and use them in published works.  Sometimes it is things they overhear at a cafe, in a bus, or on a train platform...  And they go on to make money from it...

I'm not saying that these limits to copyright are completely fair... but I think they arose from a place of pragmatism.

As I was typing this, Bart mentioned the difference between anonymity and privacy.  They are different words with different meanings, but it still is difficult to make a case for privacy being violated in such a way as to be problematic for the platform, if nobody knows who is being quoted.  Our sense of privacy is subjective, and some people could feel violated by reading some of their words quoted anonymously in a context they are not comfortable with.  

I don't like the idea of people doing this, but it doesn't break any rules as far as I can tell, and the same pragmatism copyright takes towards quoting conversations seems to need to apply here.

I think this is a very interesting conversation, and one that really addresses "Quality", and community standards. I have no regrets by testing the limits of the ToS and the AUP on this instance with the Tribunal, because I think it is important that we do understand what they will allow, and not allow. (although it does seem like they allow anything)

@Malkazoid I see your point regarding the difficulties to make a case. But that should not be our only defining compass. In life, or on a platform, that is striving for quality content. My initial response to this niche was a bit more like @Garden Gnome Publications "interesting", but the more i think about the context, and how  people will use the niche if it is purchased, is really rather icky to me. 

I regularly sit in coffee shops, and often people who are being overtly loud, will be having funny conversations that pop into my listening zone. I have been known, for my social media humor -- especial posting funny takes on other people- in a kind way, and even quote them. It is always anonymous. But I don't make income from it, and I don't betray someone, from the privacy of their home, or correspondence. So I agree with Allen, about being in public is fair game. Where i have concerns is an example like this:

A husband and wife are chronically fighting (thankfully not describing my marriage). they are unhappy, vicious even...divorce seems inevitable. One of them decides to be petty and spiteful, and posts things that really is nobodies business, but their own, under the guise of "hey I just wanted to know if I was being an a-hole or was it my spouse's fault". Everybody in the community decides the person posting is not in the wrong, and so they all reward the content maker with votes up. So now this person has just been rewarded for being a real douche, to someone he once cared for. And everyone casts an opinion on their marriage which will definitely be out of context.

This really does not seem like a far fetched scenario to me.  And i can think of numerous other issues that lend itself to bullying, that could seriously happen with this niche.

Just because it might be legal, or more accurately too expensive to do anything about it, doesn't make it right. I am happy I voted it down. That sits right with me.

Emily Barnett posted:

 

 

This really does not seem like a far fetched scenario to me.  And i can think of numerous other issues that lend itself to bullying, that could seriously happen with this niche.

Just because it might be legal, or more accurately too expensive to do anything about it, doesn't make it right. I am happy I voted it down. That sits right with me.

It doesn't seem far-fetched to me either - it seems very likely!

That's why I suggested that the AUP and/or TOS be updated to forbid not just the sharing of personal details, but also the sharing of information that would likely allow people to identify other in this sort of context.

I think this is something that should be fixed in the AUP/TOS anyway, regardless of this niche.  If I say something like:

"I won't tell you this person's name because it is against the TOS, but she's my spouse, and you all know who I am...

That should be a violation of the TOS.

Bullying can occur anywhere on the site.  Yes it might be a bit more likely to occur on this niche, just as it might be more likely to occur on a niche about Racism... but I don't think we can forbid the niche because some users will break the rules.  We need to make sure the rules are strong enough, and enforce them when they are broken...

Malkazoid posted

 

Bullying can occur anywhere on the site.  Yes it might be a bit more likely to occur on this niche, just as it might be more likely to occur on a niche about Racism... but I don't think we can forbid the niche because some users will break the rules.  We need to make sure the rules are strong enough, and enforce them when they are broken...

@Malkazoid true, bullying can indeed happen on many niches as you pointed out. But the difference between Your Racism niche and the suggested Was I Wong niche is that its very modus operandi IS to have the community cast a judgement on the a situation, that is not being fairly represented by both parties, both parties did not consent to be involved in being judged, and both parties are not their to defend themselves. (show me a court of approval like that, and I will show you a kangaroo) That just seems ripe for problems. I think the AUP and probably the ToS (since both were quoted in my appeal)  as very  much lacking. 

I think, what is obviously happening over the last few days between my discussion about consent and privacy on the platform, You bringing up hate speech to the forefront again, and @Gaia Glee bringing up the need for proper parameters of what defines pornography, is demonstrating a huge, and potentially critical flaw if left unchecked, that exists with the platform. We need better definition of rules. Or we need to be able, as a community to lobby for new rules and then vote to implement them, as we continue to grow.

The community is supposed to define what content is allowed on the platform. Build this city of content, so to speak it, but our instruction manual is the equivalent of a post-it note, and we aren't allowed to go by anything else but that post it note. 

To me the Tribunal is of very little help to us. As this platform grows, things will get more complicated; the mechanisms we have to decide on things, will need to be lockstep, in order for the community to vote on things that require more nuance than just if it is spelled correctly, or redundant.

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

What further obscures it, in my mind, is that there is an app aimed at teens named In Real Life. So does the #IRL in the description refer to that or actually real life? 

I think, either way, the description still clearly states no identification and no links.

I had no idea than an app with that name existed. I literally meant in "real life" as in not in online communications. I also just became aware of this thread, as the one who suggested Was I Wrong? 

It seems my own intent for suggesting the niche was a lot more corruptible than I would have considered. As an autistic woman, I quite naively don't understand when I've made a mistake in etiquette or such sometimes, and I do need to ask people if I was wrong and should apologize. I'm also apparently quite naive to what others might do in the niche as described.

I do not have the money to bid on the niche at this time, so if someone else chooses to buy it, I hope they can make some clarifications about acceptable behavior. My intent was pure, but I see the potential for abuse now.

Christina Gleason posted:

Garden Gnome Publications posted:

What further obscures it, in my mind, is that there is an app aimed at teens named In Real Life. So does the #IRL in the description refer to that or actually real life? 

I think, either way, the description still clearly states no identification and no links.

I had no idea than an app with that name existed. I literally meant in "real life" as in not in online communications. I also just became aware of this thread, as the one who suggested Was I Wrong? 

It seems my own intent for suggesting the niche was a lot more corruptible than I would have considered. As an autistic woman, I quite naively don't understand when I've made a mistake in etiquette or such sometimes, and I do need to ask people if I was wrong and should apologize. I'm also apparently quite naive to what others might do in the niche as described.

I do not have the money to bid on the niche at this time, so if someone else chooses to buy it, I hope they can make some clarifications about acceptable behavior. My intent was pure, but I see the potential for abuse now.

Thanks for weighing in Christina. I think the issue is more about where it could quite easily go, not your intentions. Not doubting your intentions. And also the group is much larger now, than when I first brought up community standards last year, and as we rapidly move to beta, we are all seeing how important it is, that we have more defined community standards, so that we can lean up against something, when we are voting. Right now there doesn't seem to be much to lean against, so some of us have to have a little fire in our bellies to test the system a bit.

I've had to think about this a little more deeply, as well. I do think there is a lot of potential here for abuse with a niche like this. I've never much cared for these kinds of games, but a lot of people do. Maybe we'll all be lucky and no one will buy it.

@Christina Gleason, might I ask where you fall on the spectrum? My grandson has Asperger's and he also has trouble sometimes knowing where that line is.

@Garden Gnome Publications I was diagnosed with Asperger's (in 2012?) a few years after my son was diagnosed in preschool in 2009. By trying to learn as much as I could to help him be the best version of himself, everything I read about Asperger's sounded like my own childhood. After waffling about my "Asperger's traits" for a while, I asked my psychiatrist if he could give me a proper diagnosis - or not, as the case may be. But I had more than the minimum required criteria for diagnosis, so it was official.

Technically, my diagnosis is now coded under "Autism Spectrum Disorders" because the APA decided that less precision was somehow better when they came out with the DSM-V, which my graduate degree in Psychology disagrees with strongly. But they didn't ask me. I could wax on about the inappropriateness of functioning labels or describing autism as "mild" or "severe," but that is not what this thread is about, and I intend to discuss such topics in my niche, Actually Autistic. 

Before I even suspected my own diagnosis, I was often told that I was condescending and rude - never my intent - and that I could be tedious and pedantic. I cannot deny that I can be tedious and pedantic, but the fact that I can come across as being condescending and rude is at the root of why I suggested Was I Wrong?

It stemmed from a recent conversation between me and another autistic woman on another social platform, and she blocked me before I could apologize for coming across as passive aggressive, as she'd accused me of being. I linked to the conversation in a closed Facebook group specifically for neurodivergent people so I could ask my fellow autistic people if what I said and how I said it was wrong, and they all assured me that I didn't say anything wrong, that she was being unreasonable, and that while I may have been rather passive aggressive in my last mention of her username, it was considered justified because I'd exhausted other attempts to explain why a certain type of analogy was harmful to another marginalized group. 

So, to make a short story long, as I often do, the character limit in the description wouldn't have given me the room to lawyer the niche rules to avoid abuse had I even considered the need for them. (And trust me, I've hashed out the theoretical wishes I'd ask a genie for so that my wishes could not be perverted beyond my original intent. As an X-Files fan who remembers how Mulder's wish for "world peace" was granted in the episode "Je Souhaite," I want to be prepared in the unlikely change that genies/djinn do exist AND would be willing to grant me even a single wish.) So...the niche's eventual owner will need to sort that out.

It is great to get some insight into the really good place Christina's niche idea came from.