A New User Agreement - Page 3

[Pynki]

Sorry forgot placed in my OP # 7

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by mamajama

I am strongly opposed to this idea. The internet is public. We should all be allowed to say what we want where we want according to the rules of the particular boards we frequent. MDC is open to the public. If it was a private board with a privacy policy, this rule would make sense. Proof is impossible to come by. Someone may be posting somewhere under the name mamajama and it may not be me yk? Spying is creepy.

I agree. I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask that someone not link to a blog criticizing MDC in their MDC signature (which I believe is actually already policy).

[Pynki]

Sorry. See post #7

[annettemarie]

Originally Posted by Pynki

And I'm cool with that AM, but to say that ANYTHING I post on ANY internet venue about MDC (if I'm in a tizzy about something) subjects my membership for banning well. I'm not down with that. I need to vent about things that happen here sometimes just like I vent about my husband or my IL's here.

I agree

[Hera]

I'm going to have to agree with people who say:
1. Removing people for no reason is harsh.
2. The ISP thing. I know lots of people who use yahoo or gmail, they should be able to post here. I know that having multiple identities is not cool, but I should think that would not be the norm. The UA covers that, anyway.
3.The spanking thing should be in the UA.
4. MDC rules can only apply to MDC. If someone complains elsewhere, that is their right. Perhaps they have a point, or perhaps they are being unreasonable, but it is still their right. MDC has chosen to have a lot of rules and restrictions, there will always be people who don't like it. You can't please everybody. Anyway, if they post something that goes against another board's rules then they will be called on it.

However I think that if the someone is spreading personal information or being rude about MDC members on other public sites, that person should probably be excluded from the MDC community. It seems draconian, and I know anything on the internet is post at your own risk, but there are parts of this board that are private and I would like to feel safe.

[dallaschildren]

*

[lotusbeans]

If someone really wanted to blog or post about what happens at MDC, that person could easily create an alternate ID to use on other boards on in a blog. The person would have access to everything at MDC with a userid here and post about it without anyone knowing who he or she really was.

So the blogger/poster could be banned from MDC, but she could be using a totally different ID so it wouldn't change or fix anything.

[Ruthla]

Originally Posted by dallaschildren

Oh come on now. Don't get yourselves into such a tizzy over my suggestion. Or read into it. I wasn't talking about blogs (which you can password protect). I wasn't talking about private off shoot boards. Let's let the people in charge determine if my suggestion warrants merit. And FTR, this isn't a PUBLIC board. It's private. Membership is approved. And can be denied. Any member can read what is posted here. Not every person is allowed membership. This is funny. And so predictable.

DC

MDC as a whole is a public board, but some forums are "members only"- ie restricted to members who have at least 50 posts and at least 60 days of membership. TAO is one of them, so THIS particular thread is "protected." GD, CAC, etc are NOT members-only, and anybody can read.

ETA: oops. I didn't notice the "only one post per member" rule in CM's post- MT's idea of making it boldfaced and in red is a good idea. Maybe CM could edit the OP and do the same?

I'll keep this post as is but any further comments will go to my post on the first page.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

IMPORTANT: To simplify things for our review, please post only once to this thread. You may edit your post at any time during the two week period to change or add things to your post as you wish but please, only one post per member.

Good idea. I'll save my post number to the computer because it needs thinking through carefully. This could however result in back cross talk if someone has to go back to page one to comment on something in page four. Could get a wee bit confusing.

ISP

In one sense I can see the sense in banning non-ISP e-mail addresses. On other boards I've been on, trolls have been pretty much eliminated that way, since trolls, by their very nature, tend to use a system whereby they can't be tracked.

8. Do not post to discuss the statements or behavior of a member or members on the board,

This might just be an issue of loose wording, but generally there is a lot of discussion of statements at Mothering. In a place like vaccination where members make statements, which might not be accurate, discussion is unavoidable.

So perhaps you could clarify what you mean, because as it stands, the way I read that statement negates the purpose of coming here.

1. Do not post in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, personal attack, or in any way which violates the law.

I think this might need broadening. As an example, if for instance, someone inferred on the board that a public person within the USA is a paedophile sympathiser with no evidence other then the poster's imagination, that is unacceptable IMO.

I realise that part of that is probably my inherent dislike of gossip but people should consider that that someone might see something they had put up, and take them to court over it... as you mention at the bottom.

10. Posts become the property of MotheringDotCommune as an integral part of discussion threads.....(at the bottom)The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of the MotheringDotCommune or any entity associated with this bulletin board.

I feel this should be checked with a lawyer, because on the one hand, the posts are declared the property of Mothering, yet they are the views of the authors, not Mothering or anyone connected with MDC. Therefore there is a conflict of purpose here.

If they are the views of the author, then inherently they are the property of the author, sort of like intellectual copyright. Therefore the author should have the right to delete/change/amend their views at any point.

I feel this has the potential to be a legal nightmare, particularly if the board reserves the right to delete anything for no reason at all, but on the other hand doesn't allow members to delete their posts for whatever reason. There is a fundamental issue here of freedom of speech, because a corrolary to that is freedom to withdraw comment.

Please be cautious in posting information of a personal nature or anything that might create legal concerns for you or Mothering.

I feel this needs to be repeated at the top in large red letters , with a reminder that this is a public board and anything said here could, can and has been in the past, used against members legally. Every effort should be made to make people understand that this isn't a place where anyone can bare their soul.

Theoretically you would think people should know that, but I've seen stuff posted On Mothering which I don't believe people have thought about the implications of. Or maybe they have and just don't care.

Just my opinions.

Editted to add... Cynthia, could you please clarify. I am under the impression that the board is a private board with public access. I was under the impression that anyone could, say, go to a library and read much of what is on the board without registering. For instance, I was on here at 2.00 a.m. my time (I have an infection and couldn't sleep) There were 18 registered members on the board and 200 something guests. I was staggered.

So while the board is privately owned, isn't it publicly accessible?

To Hera: I think you have to assume that Mothering isn't safe at all. There are many people here, me included who have been bitten, because we didn't take into account people here, who might feel free to report certain posts which were asking for advice or support, to CPS.

[dallaschildren]

*

[dallaschildren]

*

[dallaschildren]

*

[Kaitnbugsmom]

Originally Posted by Pynki

As has been stated by TPTB numerous times. MDC can not be everything to everybody. Asking TPTB to police the online activities of members on other spaces is either always OK, or NEVER ok. There is no middle ground. Do YOU want something you rant about in a blog taken out of context and given as the reason you are banned or the "no reason at all clause"?

that is very much what I'm worried about. I rant frequently. While my best friend other than DH is super-busy with work and the other one in the Sandbox, I use myspace to rant/gripe/b/moan/complain about things I can't for various reasons say out loud IRL. Sometimes that includes something on a message board somewhere. I don't name which board, either. So something totally un-MDC related being used to ban a person is taking things too far, IMO. I could see using a blatant mdc-bashing commentary as a reason to remove someone, so long as mdc is the named point of the rant

The ISP thing bothers me as well. I use my ISP based e-mail for business only. I don't use in connection with message boards because 1-I'm not the only person with access to it, and 2- my business name is the X part of [e-mail] and it would appear to be advertising, which is grounds in itself for banning from 99.9% of all boards. In fact, when I registered back in the dark ages, I didn't have an ISP based account, as I was using the library. But others have already covered that. another thing is, our ISP is our electric company, which was just bought out by another electric company. So our ISP's @ address changed. If we have to use our ISP address, and have to change ISP's, how would TPTB go about verifying our new address belonging to the same person? further, in May 2008 we will likely be going on the road in an RV for 80+% of the year, so I'd be on a wireless with no specific ISP, if I'm understanding the web on the road chapter of the Full Timer's Bible correctly... how would that work? Thanks

[darsmama]

Originally Posted by Hera

I'm going to have to agree with people who say:
1. Removing people for no reason is harsh.
2. The ISP thing. I know lots of people who use yahoo or gmail, they should be able to post here. I know that having multiple identities is not cool, but I should think that would not be the norm. The UA covers that, anyway.
3.The spanking thing should be in the UA.
4. MDC rules can only apply to MDC. If someone complains elsewhere, that is their right. Perhaps they have a point, or perhaps they are being unreasonable, but it is still their right. MDC has chosen to have a lot of rules and restrictions, there will always be people who don't like it. You can't please everybody. Anyway, if they post something that goes against another board's rules then they will be called on it.

However I think that if the someone is spreading personal information or being rude about MDC members on other public sites, that person should probably be excluded from the MDC community. It seems draconian, and I know anything on the internet is post at your own risk, but there are parts of this board that are private and I would like to feel safe.

[MamaMonica]

The ISP linked rule for emails seems unfair. Many of us went through a problem with Verizon blocking our emails from Mothering and had to change to yahoo or hotmail accounts.

(and like other posters said, many moms only have yahoo accounts).

[apple_dumpling]

I agree that the ISP rule would take out a lot of good people.. myself included. I don't really think that is fair for people who have to move around a lot (as we do... we are military) to have to register with an ISP address.

While I have an ISP address *right now* I always use my hotmail account... we simply move too much to have to switch my email address every two years. And there are times while we are moving, or when we first get to a base, when we might have internet access at someone else's house or the library, but we don't have our internet set up at home yet, so I have to use my hotmail address.

I think that the ISP rule ends up banning a lot more people then doing good. I do understand the reasoning behind it... but I just don't think it's worth it to ban a lot of people in order to block out a few trolls.

[mshollyk]

Originally Posted by dallaschildren

Google, dogpile, yahoo etc. make it next to impossible to keep any chat board restricted.

not really. if you add a "no index" tag to the board code, it will keep spiders away

[liawbh]

*I'd like to second MT's concerns about the discrepancy between posts belonging entirely to Mothering, and yet still be the responsibility of the member. If I am responsible for my post, then I should be able to delete it if circumstances warrant. Also, what if I post something here, then want to include that original wording in another format, such as a book or article. WOuld that be plagiarism under these rules?

*I never use my ISP email, because I have switched ISPs too many times. I have had the same Yahoo account since college. It is my constant, and the ISP account I only use for things that may get spam sent (like contests, and some email lists.).

* I really don't like the part about discussing MDC elsewhere. As mentioned by other posters, there are so many potential problems with this. I especially don't like the thought that a member who disagrees with someone here could then stalk them around the internet, looking for perceived misbehavior elsewhere to get them in trouble here.

Now, not linking to start a fight, that makes sense.

*In rule #6, will it be OK to invite MDC members to other sites if it's NOT for adversarial reasons? LIke if you know of a forum or chat with good breastfeeding help, or crafting ideas, or what-have-you, or just a place with people you get along with, could you tell someone here about it?

*In #7, what is "excessively" criticizing?


*I appreciate that this potential change has been posted beforehand for discussion. I hope this becomes the standard.

*Also, I like the idea of having a board to appeal to in cases of dissent/warning/etc. I wonder if it should be larger, though, than 5 people.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Please put "banned" or "suspended" inder user names, rather than just locking their account. That way people know the user is gone for that reason, and don't have to worry that something has happened to a person.

[LadyMarmalade]

Originally Posted by Kathryn

Why is there no mention of not advocating spanking, non-religious circumcision, CIO, or racism like we've all been asking?

I agree. I saw the suggestion above that circumcision for 'aesthetic reasons' shouldn't be advocated, but I passionately disagree with the 'aesthetic reasons' wording. We all know there are no medial, social, aesthetic, hygiene or any other reason to get it done (obviously some Jewish and Muslim mothers will say they have a valid reason - but then some Christians will say they need to for religious reasons as well even the Bible says Christians shouldn't circumcise, and then other Jewish and Muslim mothers will say you *don't* need to circumcise) so I don't see why a plain 'circumcision isn't to be advocated' sentence can't be included. It still leaves it open for mothers who circumcised for religious reasons to say "I did it for religious reasons" but it doesn't allow them to promote it.

[Brigianna]

I agree with the others' criticisms of the ISP e-mail rule, and would also add that many people's ISP e-mail address is their first and last name. Some people might not want to use their real last names on MDC.

Also, I think all of the rules and guidelines for the forums should be specifically spelled out. For example spanking--it's clearly against the rules to say "I think spanking is a good idea." But is it against the rules to say "I think some of the anti-spanking material is exaggerated?" Also, there are some rules that are not spelled out anywhere at all, such as the rule not to talk about abortion. That isn't listed anywhere; a newcomer wouldn't know about it until she was reprimanded for violating it.

I also think there should be some type of "protection" for the expression of minority views--not views that go against MDC or ap/nfl, but just views that are different from those of a majority of members. It seems like a lot of hostile personal disagreement goes unchecked on some threads where a minority viewpoint is being expressed.

ETA: I don't think it should be against the rules to express any opinion unless it's something *directly* against ap/nfl or Mothering. I do not think there should be any rule against voicing opinions about racism, sexuality, and the like, which have nothing to do with ap/nfl. Either all viewpoints should be allowed, or that topic should be banned from discussion. But I don't agree with having "an official MDC stance" on anything non-parenting-related.

I do think there should be a rule against criticizing MDC or its members on other sites, because that is using MDC as a tool of defamation, but I don't think people should be otherwise accountable to MDC for what they write on other sites (for example if they write something pro-spanking on another site I don't think MDC should intervene).

And I also think the issue of post deletion should be clarified. We can edit, but not delete? What is the reasoning behind this policy?

ETA 2: I think it would be better if individual posts that violated the UA were edited/deleted instead of deleting the whole thread. Sometimes there's a lot of good discussion that gets lost because 1 or 2 people started namecalling or whatever and get the whole thread pulled.

ETA 3: I think if someone posts something "borderline" the mods should advise the person on how to rephrase the same sentiment in an acceptable way, instead of just warning or deleting. Be a little more gd, if you will.