Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 93
  1. #71
    Senior Gamedog's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Gamedog
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Москва
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    843
    Mm, I guess I understand where you're coming from, Fay. That makes sense.

  2. #72
    Regular RogueSareth's Avatar
    Weasyl
    RogueSareth
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Mistake-On-The-Lake-Erie
    Posts
    97
    You know, I'm going to say-as someone who has been raped-I don't find what Term said offensive.

    Fact of the matter is Weasyl IS NOT the sex offender register, and The staff attempted to work with The User directly to modify the journal so that it complied with the rules. Unlike other sites that would have just deleted the journal, deleted any user comments calling them out on it, banned members for speaking out on it ( even if the spoke about it ON ANOTHER SITE)

    The staff acted professionally, Term has owned up to what they said-even though it was said in a moment of frustration in private-they have not tried to sweep it under the rug or punish users who disagree.

    I am firmly on their side with this one and do not-at all-think what was said came off in any way as a rape joke or making light of rape.

  3. #73
    Frigid Feline Ransom's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Ransom
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    As dor the rules, no call out journals were never allowed, the date of June 16th is the last time the CG was updated so even if it were changed it has been up as a rule since june at least.
    Hi, Fay. Long time, no chat.

    One thing that's drawing criticism towards Weasyl is the inconsistent enforcement of the no-call-out rule. Some people have the perception that journals that slander Fur Affinity have been allowed to stay online, whereas others are taken down. In my own observation, that doesn't seem to be the case; one of my friends had her anti-FA journal taken down recently. In fact, the selection seems random. I thought it may have been just a matter of more strictly enforcing the rule recently, or an update to the policy, but some old journals have gone down while some new ones have remained up. I haven't been able to pick out a pattern in the enforcement. Can you shed some light on how the staff find these journals and enforce this rule?

  4. #74
    Rattlesnake Flavored RedSavage's Avatar
    Weasyl
    RedSavage
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    293
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransom View Post
    One thing that's drawing criticism towards Weasyl is the inconsistent enforcement of the no-call-out rule. Some people have the perception that journals that slander Fur Affinity have been allowed to stay online, whereas others are taken down. In my own observation, that doesn't seem to be the case; one of my friends had her anti-FA journal taken down recently.
    I'm curious. Are the journals in questions making claims against a website as a whole entity, or are they making claims against staff members or certain individuals? This would be an important distinction I think.

  5. #75
    Frigid Feline Ransom's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Ransom
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    37
    They're against the staff members of FA, criticising them and their conduct. A site's staff's decisions and policies do affect the quality of the site itself, though, so they're practically one in the same. Criticism against FA is usually aimed directly at its owner and/or particular staff members in the same breath.

  6. #76
    Regular Jim's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Jim-Medic-Dude(NSFW), Jim
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    North Carolina
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    71
    Yeah I was gonna bring that up too, I noticed a lot of new developments against FA's better interest poppin' up on Weasyl. Though as far as being pulled for being call-outs it seems a little inconsistent, there's journals doing the same stuff from as far back as January that haven't even been edited to be less call-outy.

  7.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #77
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Ransom View Post
    Hi, Fay. Long time, no chat.

    One thing that's drawing criticism towards Weasyl is the inconsistent enforcement of the no-call-out rule. Some people have the perception that journals that slander Fur Affinity have been allowed to stay online, whereas others are taken down. In my own observation, that doesn't seem to be the case; one of my friends had her anti-FA journal taken down recently. In fact, the selection seems random. I thought it may have been just a matter of more strictly enforcing the rule recently, or an update to the policy, but some old journals have gone down while some new ones have remained up. I haven't been able to pick out a pattern in the enforcement. Can you shed some light on how the staff find these journals and enforce this rule?
    Hi!

    First and foremost these journals are found by the staff via reports. The biggest product of inconsistency is people simply not reporting content.
    Our staff simply don't have time to browse every single journal posted (particularly after an event with a lot of community reaction) and check for violations ourselves, as well as effectively moderate the content.

    There's been a lot of accounts of people complaining offsite about journals but just simply do not report it, which makes it much more difficult to moderate all the violating content evenly.

    Another thing is, we are attempting to work with many users. We offer time frames (as can be seen with the leaked logs and notes). The time frames allow the user enough time to adjust for the rules.

    Finally, there has been some confusion regarding this point. Simply speaking negatively about publicly available information is not a call out. For instance, the recent FA announcement has several journals discussing the content and perhaps links to other content that is provided, or was provided in public areas on the net.

    This is viewed as criticism, in the same way that users making a journal about Ubisoft and a recent announcement to speak negatively of the company is not a call out. The notable parts of this is A) the information was publicly available. This differs from call outs in a veracity aspect, meaning that the staff are not judging truth claims, and it is not bringing out any information that the other entity or person did not already provide. B) The commentary is on a company or entity. This differs from call outs because it is critical generally of a message or action. It is not making a judgement or comment on the character of the person or persons.

    Another example.
    "I disagree with Weasyl's recent action. I think the stance is hypocritical. This statement "blah blah blah" by Fay was disrespectful and made me uncomfortable"

    That's fine, not a call out. It's criticism of a particular entity (Weasyl) and uses public information (my quote)

    "Fay is a fartnugget liar and she told me in a chat once that she punches babies to death"

    This is a call out. It's a character judgment (I'm not a fartnugget, nor a liar) and makes accusations with non-public information (a chat no one else was privy and can not be verified)

    This is all the current approach, we do welcome feedback and are still examining the policy (this sort of matter does take time) but I hope this helps.

    Most importantly we really need users to actually report content. Even if old content was removed and new content remains up, we don't have time to constantly check up on users to be sure they didn't make the same mistakes again, meaning we do need users to always report violations they see.

    Finally, please be patient, we are human after all. There is a certain standard to be expected from site staff, but we do need time to complete tasks and sometimes things take longer than one might think. If you think something is a problem report it. We have some new tools to check on the status of those reports to give an idea of where we are in the moderating process, but ultimately we do need some level of trust from the users that we're not trying to purposefully be deceitful and it's simply the innocent case that if there's something that's in violation of the CG and it's up either A) we haven't seen it or B) there hasn't been time to fix it.

    --------
    Edit:

    To expand further
    "Another example.
    "I disagree with Weasyl's recent action. I think the stance is hypocritical. This statement "blah blah blah" by Fay was disrespectful and made me uncomfortable"

    That's fine, not a call out. It's criticism of a particular entity (Weasyl) and uses public information (my quote)

    "Fay is a fartnugget liar and she told me in a chat once that she punches babies to death"

    This is a call out. It's a character judgment (I'm not a fartnugget, nor a liar) and makes accusations with non-public information (a chat no one else was privy and can not be verified)"

    The first example does criticize a single person (for a quote) but in the capacity of working with the site. In the same way one could say "the president of Ubisoft is making poor game decisions in this announcement"

    But the second example is attacking me personally and doesn't have anything to do with my work with Weasyl.

    So comments about a company action focusing on a certain person is fine if it is criticism of the action associated with that company, not if it is simply attack the person and their personal life.
    Last edited by Fay V; 12-04-2014 at 12:41 AM.

  8. #78
    Regular Jim's Avatar
    Weasyl
    Jim-Medic-Dude(NSFW), Jim
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    North Carolina
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    First and foremost these journals are found by the staff via reports.
    This adds a lot of context to the original subject of this thread's genesis and discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fay V View Post
    "Fay is a fartnugget liar and she told me in a chat once that she punches babies to death"

    This is a call out. It's a character judgment (I'm not a fartnugget, nor a liar) and makes accusations with non-public information (a chat no one else was privy and can not be verified)"
    Not to make light of, or imply immaturity of the user attempting to call out a potential sexual predator, though. I'm sure that example is a silly little hyperbole for the sake of your explanation, but I think certain people could easily assume it's heavier-handed than that.

    Anyways, for this example, if the chat got leaked and became public as a result (confirming the assertions made), would that mean the assertion in question would no longer be a call-out, being that the leaked chat would then be considered public information to support the claim?

    Could the user then in fact state Fay is a fartnugget liar, citing the chat log in which Fay admits to murdering infants?

  9.   Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread.   #79
    Didn't try, Succeeded Fay V's Avatar



    Weasyl
    Fayv
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,379
    My hyperbole was in no way meant to comment on The User and the original issue addressed in this thread. I used the statement of hyperbole to provide a very obvious case of call out, to demonstrate a case that is unarguably wrong and to dissect its parts.

    Take note however, that all of these call out issues don't necessarily refer to cases of attempting to out sexual predators. In fact, it is an extreme outlier in terms of the type of content we deal with, which is why the original case is so problematic. It falls under a set of rules that applies to the majority of other content easily. We get a lot of content that does basically state "X sucks and will steal your money" or "Y is a dirty character thief".

    So no, I do not mean to imply The User is immature or frivolous in their comments. We do however get many immature call outs, and immature nonsense such as my hyperbole comment is very easily demonstrably wrong.

    "leaked" information doesn't necessarily act as "public" information. When a statement is publicly presented, it is presented within the appropriate context and is fully viewable by essentially anyone. Logs however are private, have uncertain context, and were not originally accessible to all, throwing the actual truth of the matter into question. It's possible that leaked logs can be faked.

    So let's say a User calls me (Fay) a fartnugget liar, and posts a skype log where it appears that I say that I murder infants. This is still a call out simply because there's the possibility that it is fake. This is compared to a journal, in which I publicly state for 100s of eyes that I murder babies. If someone were to screencap that journal to demonstrate proof in a journal, it is not a callout as the journal was publicized by the person involved and is still readily available. The important aspect here is the information is readily and easily verifiable.

    Now I want to make it absolutely and completely explicit that these rules were not made with sexual predator journals in mind. When we as staff discussed such a policy and the requirements we had things like Commission problems, art theft, bad dealings with customers in mind as we planed for the art community, and we found that moderating such issues was untenable preferring a blanket ban on call outs (because the majority of such cases are more like my hyperbole) and because other sites are much better suited for such information (Artists beware). We could act in conjunction with these sites so that our staff could continue to moderate effectively while such issues were still handled.

    The idea essentially is to do one thing very well, not two things poorly, and moderate an art site as well as moderate community disputes are two things that require full staff attention.

    Again, let me reiterate. These rules were designed to cover the majority of our cases, which are not cases involving sexual predators. Thus the dilemma which we were faced with the journal which is the origin of this thread. It is a very serious issue. We understand that the majority of sexual predation cases are not false and we understand that many in this position simply do not have the resources to gather empirical evidence at the time of the crime. These are outlier cases, but we were stuck between a rock and a hard place between such a prominent issue and consistently enforcing the rules of the site.

    Ultimately, obviously now, we chose to enforce the rules but offered alternatives to create the best possible compromise. I'll also reiterate again that this case was concerning for us, and we are reviewing the policy for clarity, better enforceability, and simply overall making a better policy.

  10. #80
    It's nice to see a site try to take defending civil discussion seriously. At the same time, I don't think Jim's concerns upthread are totally answered, and in fact, I think there are two or even three different issues that are not discussed clearly here. I'm not trying to push the site in one direction or the other, except that I feel that there should be a constant focus on protecting the community from predators - not just thieves and DDoSers - those are the kinds of problems that ruin lives and websites. I think that calls for a visit to a real attorney for a discussion of these issues, because nobody who isn't registered to practice law now, and doesn't have an understanding of these issues, can really tell you what your obligations are as a website. Anyhow, I'd like to share some ideas about how this looks:

    Apples: The "no callouts" represents part of the site philosophy, and an aspiration to do something beyond what's actually required. There's no free lunch, so choices like this come at the expense of other good things the site might try to do.
    Oranges: The law is concerned with trying to find foolproof methods of preventing bad actions, and is (currently) concerned with topics like sexual abuse, libel, and cyberbullying. It can always change.
    Pears? Ethics. Site philosophy and the law both try to take ethics into account, but we assume that ethics is kind of out there chilling somewhere, doing its own thing. Just because something isn't covered by the site philosophy or the law doesn't mean that it isn't what's really important. But it's also important to note that ethical concerns can lead us in the wrong direction - I'll link to an explanation about that below, but think about what it would be like if we didn't have a First Amendment because everybody hates liars or people who aren't patriotic.

    Everybody should be clear that we don't actually know what happened here. Who was wrong - one person, both, many, none? This explains how the law got to be the way it is: The legal landscape continues to shift the view of a site's obligations in cases like these. But it's widely acknowledged that a site can't investigate the actual facts, and it's also important to know that trying to take some action to do "the right thing" can lead to unexpected problems.

    >>>> This short article gives an overview of some of these issues. Frustratingly, it doesn't say much about how courts tend to rule - but a top-flight website shouldn't rely on out-of-date articles anyway; get professional legal advice.

    Defamatory content is not really the only potential issue here. Libel isn't the same as having "facilitated" predators (sexual, bullying, or other) with services. For example, that article's Section III A states: "The role an online social network takes when inadvertently facilitating sexual abuse varies from case to case." Whoa! For cyberbullying, the article points to many states passing laws (and the federal government working on them), though those appear only to target the actual perpetrators. I'm not going to say whether to be excited (about better protecting users) or concerned (with loss of freedoms), but I feel safe saying that there's more at stake here than just the Section 230 issues. It is certainly worth getting legal advice to find out what the current story is.

    OK, what about bad results of trying to do "the right thing?" The article's section title, "Part IV: Ineffective Solutions Encourage Deception," pretty much spells it out right away, but the details are interesting too. Are the burdens the website shrugs off - or puts on users, or however it's thought - worth the perceived gains in civility?

    * Even the choice to demand nobody take a stance represents a choice, and that can be bad. For example, upthread a user seems to say that a person should not spread their story (possibly even if we can assume that it is true and the person has no other way of getting justice). Ummm, no, that is pretty terrible. This is basically saying "I'm not going to make any ethical judgments here, except that my own comfort and 'da rulez' are more important than somebody else's quest for justice." The site certainly can, and maybe even should, make the requests or demands that they have. Yet criticizing users believed to be pursuing justice the only way they know how...that's wrong. If a user is telling the truth, they have no obligation to censor themselves - none! They are not exempt from consequences, like having their journals deleted - at the same time, who else has the right to tell them what they should do on their own behalf? *head asplode* Civil disobedience. Right action > da rulez.
    Last edited by Qeyhzx09; 12-04-2014 at 02:46 AM. Reason: Bit of formatting cleanup

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •