DU: How to Behave?
Ahavati and Strangeways
- It would easier if DU could deal with behaviour without having to go to the police. Not in a way that is 'behind-closed-doors' but by having any bad and stalking behaviour shut down before it builds up. Depriving the other person of communication so that cannot harass. Unfortunately as it is social media related and internet related, knowing the exact identity is hard yet access to people's social media is easy. By having rules cover this, anything slightly underhanded can be taken as bad: if its not on the list then its not allowed!
Luna
- Competitions and Threads do seem to lack a set of fundamental rules; this allows freedom and quirks but makes it hard to know how to roughly behave (and conform) per thread. An answer may be to have templates or tags for things: signposts that roughly classify the 'feel'. Such as whether a competition is strictly for entries only, or whether a competition is more along the liens of sharing entries and thoughts and discussion on the topic. This is probably best expanded in its own thread.
Imperfectedstone
- My gut says you are referring to posts/poems/threads that advertise writing on platforms such as amazon. As they are writing related they kind of sit between being advertisement and poetry/writing related.
Tallen
- It may well be that including a username will require to have consent beforehand in the future. That any reference to a poet or username also falling into this category; the category of personal and private identity. Meaning users 'own' their name and identity, but can share it out if they want to. This would be hard to enforce however as each and every poem would have to be checked, though prma banning repeat offenders may persuade people to follow the rule/guidance on this.
Ahavati
- This is a thread on behaviour for all members: applicable to all regardless of rank or status or duration. I am against the word 'expectation' as it vague and leave a lot to be desired in what actually then happens. It is probably better worded as 'mod responsibilities'; though that is probably best left to its own thread. - Having mods accountable, but not entirely at the mercy of a mob of trolls.
I will remind everyone again, that anything not directly related to this topic of behaviour, will not be tolerated. Your comment will be hidden.
Saying something along the lines of I allow 'x' to do 'y', or questioning if a post is about you directly, will be considered off-topic. Granting use/freedom to do 'x', and insults/references, are personal matters and all such personal matters I will consider off-topic.
Emoticons etc will be allowed to a certain degree: I have faith in these rules/guidelines for comments being followed and respected. Do not test me.
- It would easier if DU could deal with behaviour without having to go to the police. Not in a way that is 'behind-closed-doors' but by having any bad and stalking behaviour shut down before it builds up. Depriving the other person of communication so that cannot harass. Unfortunately as it is social media related and internet related, knowing the exact identity is hard yet access to people's social media is easy. By having rules cover this, anything slightly underhanded can be taken as bad: if its not on the list then its not allowed!
Luna
- Competitions and Threads do seem to lack a set of fundamental rules; this allows freedom and quirks but makes it hard to know how to roughly behave (and conform) per thread. An answer may be to have templates or tags for things: signposts that roughly classify the 'feel'. Such as whether a competition is strictly for entries only, or whether a competition is more along the liens of sharing entries and thoughts and discussion on the topic. This is probably best expanded in its own thread.
Imperfectedstone
- My gut says you are referring to posts/poems/threads that advertise writing on platforms such as amazon. As they are writing related they kind of sit between being advertisement and poetry/writing related.
Tallen
- It may well be that including a username will require to have consent beforehand in the future. That any reference to a poet or username also falling into this category; the category of personal and private identity. Meaning users 'own' their name and identity, but can share it out if they want to. This would be hard to enforce however as each and every poem would have to be checked, though prma banning repeat offenders may persuade people to follow the rule/guidance on this.
Ahavati
- This is a thread on behaviour for all members: applicable to all regardless of rank or status or duration. I am against the word 'expectation' as it vague and leave a lot to be desired in what actually then happens. It is probably better worded as 'mod responsibilities'; though that is probably best left to its own thread. - Having mods accountable, but not entirely at the mercy of a mob of trolls.
I will remind everyone again, that anything not directly related to this topic of behaviour, will not be tolerated. Your comment will be hidden.
Saying something along the lines of I allow 'x' to do 'y', or questioning if a post is about you directly, will be considered off-topic. Granting use/freedom to do 'x', and insults/references, are personal matters and all such personal matters I will consider off-topic.
Emoticons etc will be allowed to a certain degree: I have faith in these rules/guidelines for comments being followed and respected. Do not test me.
Luna
- Competitions and Threads do seem to lack a set of fundamental rules; this allows freedom and quirks but makes it hard to know how to roughly behave (and conform) per thread. An answer may be to have templates or tags for things: signposts that roughly classify the 'feel'. Such as whether a competition is strictly for entries only, or whether a competition is more along the liens of sharing entries and thoughts and discussion on the topic. This is probably best expanded in its own thread.
Thank you, Viddax
- Competitions and Threads do seem to lack a set of fundamental rules; this allows freedom and quirks but makes it hard to know how to roughly behave (and conform) per thread. An answer may be to have templates or tags for things: signposts that roughly classify the 'feel'. Such as whether a competition is strictly for entries only, or whether a competition is more along the liens of sharing entries and thoughts and discussion on the topic. This is probably best expanded in its own thread.
Thank you, Viddax
Viddax said:Ahavati and Strangeways
- It would easier if DU could deal with behaviour without having to go to the police. Not in a way that is 'behind-closed-doors' but by having any bad and stalking behaviour shut down before it builds up. Depriving the other person of communication so that cannot harass. Unfortunately as it is social media related and internet related, knowing the exact identity is hard yet access to people's social media is easy. By having rules cover this, anything slightly underhanded can be taken as bad: if its not on the list then its not allowed!
Much appreciated. What I provided was a simple guideline as a beginning per your request. I am sure you will modify it to best suit DU.
Ahavati
- This is a thread on behaviour for all members: applicable to all regardless of rank or status or duration. I am against the word 'expectation' as it vague and leave a lot to be desired in what actually then happens. It is probably better worded as 'mod responsibilities'; though that is probably best left to its own thread. - Having mods accountable, but not entirely at the mercy of a mob of trolls.
Viddax, I was merely requesting a thread for moderator's behaviour, not dictating the title of such thread. I am sure you will label it appropriately.
Thank you.
And lastly, member names are currently not allowed to be used in other's poems in a disparaging way which would imply or infer malicious wrong-doing. See my quote from MadameLavender in this thread.
Thank you again. Much appreciated.
- It would easier if DU could deal with behaviour without having to go to the police. Not in a way that is 'behind-closed-doors' but by having any bad and stalking behaviour shut down before it builds up. Depriving the other person of communication so that cannot harass. Unfortunately as it is social media related and internet related, knowing the exact identity is hard yet access to people's social media is easy. By having rules cover this, anything slightly underhanded can be taken as bad: if its not on the list then its not allowed!
Much appreciated. What I provided was a simple guideline as a beginning per your request. I am sure you will modify it to best suit DU.
Ahavati
- This is a thread on behaviour for all members: applicable to all regardless of rank or status or duration. I am against the word 'expectation' as it vague and leave a lot to be desired in what actually then happens. It is probably better worded as 'mod responsibilities'; though that is probably best left to its own thread. - Having mods accountable, but not entirely at the mercy of a mob of trolls.
Viddax, I was merely requesting a thread for moderator's behaviour, not dictating the title of such thread. I am sure you will label it appropriately.
Thank you.
And lastly, member names are currently not allowed to be used in other's poems in a disparaging way which would imply or infer malicious wrong-doing. See my quote from MadameLavender in this thread.
Thank you again. Much appreciated.
Most people don't read Terms of Use or Guideline or Policy
It's been reported that it would take 250 hrs a year to read all the Terms of Service we are confronted with
The need to break it down into smaller bites is one idea
A new member could be presented with the use of their email and information upon sign up a small bite with the guidelines and policy to follow .
To offer it in pieces may ensure they are read
Their is a difference between policy and guidelines therefore should be presented separately
All on the same page of agreent only break it down in a reader friendly format
Guidelines- for rules to be adhered to
Policy- repurcussions for breaking rules
It's been reported that it would take 250 hrs a year to read all the Terms of Service we are confronted with
The need to break it down into smaller bites is one idea
A new member could be presented with the use of their email and information upon sign up a small bite with the guidelines and policy to follow .
To offer it in pieces may ensure they are read
Their is a difference between policy and guidelines therefore should be presented separately
All on the same page of agreent only break it down in a reader friendly format
Guidelines- for rules to be adhered to
Policy- repurcussions for breaking rules
Too many "rules" listed
is too gestapo
Treat members as responsible adults, with mature easy to understand language,
that is reader friendly.
Important to remember, wording is everything,
as it is in posts.
Respect diversity-
Be mindful-
Use words that offer
no confusion
like "sarcastic"
NO YELLING we all know what it means to read " yelling " comments
The internet lacks the visuals that a normal conversation provides
Body language, and
facial expressions
are absent, which can
lead to misunderstandings
Good netiquette is our goal
It would be nice to see mods interact in threads as support, not always policing.
Making themselves available as peers would help build trust.
To comment on a thread positively would be welcome.
Having a mod on board occasionally to interject if someone displays negative attitude is much easier to swallow if there presence seems normal or is expected.
The "do your part" angle worked for Smokey the Bear
Making themselves available as peers would help build trust.
To comment on a thread positively would be welcome.
Having a mod on board occasionally to interject if someone displays negative attitude is much easier to swallow if there presence seems normal or is expected.
The "do your part" angle worked for Smokey the Bear
"All on the same page of agreement only bring Ken down in a reader friendly format"
Who , or What is "Ken" ?
( I remember Barbie , but she does not apply here )
Anyone know , please ?
( three posts up , second paragraph )
Who , or What is "Ken" ?
( I remember Barbie , but she does not apply here )
Anyone know , please ?
( three posts up , second paragraph )
Blackwolf said:"All on the same page of agreement only bring Ken down in a reader friendly format"
Who , or What is "Ken" ?
( I remember Barbie , but she does not apply here )
Anyone know , please ?
( three posts up , second paragraph )
Too damn funny BW too damn funny
My typos will get me someday
Freaking hilarious thank you auto correct (not)
Who , or What is "Ken" ?
( I remember Barbie , but she does not apply here )
Anyone know , please ?
( three posts up , second paragraph )
Too damn funny BW too damn funny My typos will get me someday
Freaking hilarious thank you auto correct (not)
Viddax, this is something that would do well to be addressed in the behavioral guidelines for the members here or in a code of conduct for the moderators elsewhere. Or both.
Ahavati said:attack the character or damage the reputation of other users, name-call, insult, ridicule, mock, electronically stalk ( on or off-site ) or otherwise harass another user; use any member's name in a poem without their specific consent.
One way to attack the character or damage the reputation of other DUP members is to falsely report another member's poem as an attack to the Mods.
Not a blatant attack, the likes of which MadameLavender recently endured - but veiled, as in the poem does not mention any names or point to any specific individual, but can be interpreted as an attack out of innnumerable interpretations that can be made.
This has happened on three occasions to me with nothing taken into consideration other than the accuser's words saying, "These poem(s) are about me and I want them removed."
One of these occasions involved the Webmiss herself removing one of my poems that supposedly mocked a physically disabled member of DUP. Then for an entire year, the physically disabled member posted in numerous poems and forum posts that he was being harrassed for being "legless". As much as I argued my case, Webmiss took the word of "the person who reported the poem" over mine. The poem didn't even mention legs; instead, it mentioned arms and was metaphorical as well! The same poem has since been reposted and allowed to stay.
In late 2019, an account belonging to a member of Team Podcast began Private Messaging members berating them for supporting another poem I had written a full year later that supposedly attacked a person associated with the Podcast. According to the unsubstantiated accusation, this poem mocked a person who was physically disabled. Gee. What an astounding mind blowing coincidence.
I did not report the blatantly false accusation Private Messaged to me and another person that I am aware of, but instead brought it to the attention of Moderator Lepperochan so he could be informed as to who on the Podcast Team was spreading the vicious rumors. What he ever did with the information I sent to him in a ginormous private message, I can't say. I didn't expect him to do anything. I just wanted him informed. It was at a time when Lepp expressed an interest in mending supposed rifts around DUP.
Bottom line is, there needs to be more taken into consideration than just the accuser's word, while applying this to the membership behavior guidelines, it would read something like:
Thou shalt not harrass other DUP members by filing false reports about their poems to the Moderators.
Or some shit like that.
Ahavati said:attack the character or damage the reputation of other users, name-call, insult, ridicule, mock, electronically stalk ( on or off-site ) or otherwise harass another user; use any member's name in a poem without their specific consent.
One way to attack the character or damage the reputation of other DUP members is to falsely report another member's poem as an attack to the Mods.
Not a blatant attack, the likes of which MadameLavender recently endured - but veiled, as in the poem does not mention any names or point to any specific individual, but can be interpreted as an attack out of innnumerable interpretations that can be made.
This has happened on three occasions to me with nothing taken into consideration other than the accuser's words saying, "These poem(s) are about me and I want them removed."
One of these occasions involved the Webmiss herself removing one of my poems that supposedly mocked a physically disabled member of DUP. Then for an entire year, the physically disabled member posted in numerous poems and forum posts that he was being harrassed for being "legless". As much as I argued my case, Webmiss took the word of "the person who reported the poem" over mine. The poem didn't even mention legs; instead, it mentioned arms and was metaphorical as well! The same poem has since been reposted and allowed to stay.
In late 2019, an account belonging to a member of Team Podcast began Private Messaging members berating them for supporting another poem I had written a full year later that supposedly attacked a person associated with the Podcast. According to the unsubstantiated accusation, this poem mocked a person who was physically disabled. Gee. What an astounding mind blowing coincidence.
I did not report the blatantly false accusation Private Messaged to me and another person that I am aware of, but instead brought it to the attention of Moderator Lepperochan so he could be informed as to who on the Podcast Team was spreading the vicious rumors. What he ever did with the information I sent to him in a ginormous private message, I can't say. I didn't expect him to do anything. I just wanted him informed. It was at a time when Lepp expressed an interest in mending supposed rifts around DUP.
Bottom line is, there needs to be more taken into consideration than just the accuser's word, while applying this to the membership behavior guidelines, it would read something like:
Thou shalt not harrass other DUP members by filing false reports about their poems to the Moderators.
Or some shit like that.
I know that in the past, the Webmiss has not been in favor of IP bans, but with all the issues we (still) keep having, I think this needs to be readdressed. It would make it more difficult for the offender to get back in--would have to find access through another IP address.
Even if when people are signing up for accounts, the IP address could come into play--if there's some way to log/ register that part, and put a lock on it when people try to create additional accounts from the same IP--gives a message like "sorry, you already have an account through this IP address, you can't create more".
Might cut down on some of the hydra accounts around here, and keep out the banned accounts, if we could look at the IP aspect.
Even if when people are signing up for accounts, the IP address could come into play--if there's some way to log/ register that part, and put a lock on it when people try to create additional accounts from the same IP--gives a message like "sorry, you already have an account through this IP address, you can't create more".
Might cut down on some of the hydra accounts around here, and keep out the banned accounts, if we could look at the IP aspect.
