Terms of Service - discussion thread

[iceman (Mike)]

Hi all.

The IceInSpace Forum Guidelines (Terms of Service) has been updated.

You can read them here - http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ead.php?t=7856

Please ensure you read and understand them.

This thread is for discussing the guidelines - please feel free to ask questions or give feedback/comments about the terms of service.

[davidpretorius]

They are very fair and tidy things up for my mind - I accept the terms of service!

[RB (Andrew)]

Excellent Mike,

The rules are very clear and make perfect sense.
Let's work together to keep IIS the great astro community it is today and build on it's strengths in the future.

[ving (David)]

all seems reasonable. just hope people are mature enough to follow it

[robin]

These rules rule Mike

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

The rules are very sensible, but the TOS is getting a bit too long. I doubt that new members would read them properly if at all. (We are all so used to being confronted by lengthy license/user agreements and clicking Accept/Agree without reading them.)

So a condensed version of the rules would be good to have IMHO (in addition to the full length version).

[ving (David)]

look at any COU or TOS steve and you will notice they are long. one has to cover ones butt you know
I thought these were reasonably short.

[johnno]

Hi All,

The TOS,seem very fair,and reasonable to me,I have no problem at all with the rules.
Good work Mike.
Regards.
John

[Starkler (Geoff)]

Perhaps after such a major rewrite there should be a general mailout to all members.

[iceman (Mike)]

Yep, I plan to Geoff.

[Enchilada]

Requests for consideration please.

1) Under the TOS, there is the following listing

2. Respect

1. Please show respect for others in the community, as you would expect to have respect shown to you.
2. Please avoid posting something that is intended to cause a reaction. Don't call people names or attack them or their character.
3. No racial slurs will be tolerated.
4. Think before you post. Think before you press submit. Re-Read the original post and read your reply before posting.

After the last closed thread, I would kindly like to request, that point No.3 be extended to include discrimination / discriminatory practices against religion or disability, or towards other minority groups.

After the experience of a recent closed thread, really showed a significant weakness in the TOS. It should be noted.

Direct or subtle discrimination is unlawful in all areas of Australia and New Zealand.

2) Furthermore how does someone make a complaint of violations in a closed, thread?

3) Finally you might like to consider, in the disagreements between IIS users that occur from time to time, I would encourage techniques of moderators using strategies of contrition. In a recently close thread, the issue could have been avoided by polite respect for others opinions, feelings or beliefs. Just closing threads by diverting the debate or leaving the situation up in the air, leaves nothing but bitterness and resentment. Sometimes closing threads, especially when based on deep-felt moral or personal issues, is a dangerous practice. There is no outlet for a solution to solve this, and just avoiding problems rarely makes it go away.

I would kindly ask you to possibly consider revising these policies in TOS.

[Davekyn (David)]

Yes, I agree that instead of people re-reading thier posts so it rolls of the toung easier, people should choose thier words more carefully & consider the wider implication they may have.

I know where your comming from Enchilada...I agree & could not care less to side on the air of caution. You have a valid point, & whilst many will argue for arguments sake...Good on ya for speaking up for those of us, whom would overwise may not be able.

That's all I can say about it. No disrespect meant to anyone. With due respect to Mike...I am sure he will and is making sure everything is being done, that can be done. Perhaps only good will come of it, as moderators will no doubt consider what has been said none the less.

[marki]

I agree totally. All posts need to be very carefully considered before submission, not only for spelling and grammer but also for possible offensive or unthinking content . But please remember that we all put our foot in our mouths occassionally and the mark of the person is the ability to recognise and make good their error. I am not sure any set of rules can possibly cover all eventuallities but I think careful consideration of what we say on the forum is a must. Most of this comes down to growing pains and with 5000 + people aboard it will not be too difficult to push the wrong buttons. My 2 cents worth.

Ciao Mark

[astroron (Ron)]

4. Think before you post. Think before you press submit. Re-Read the original post and read your reply before posting.


I still cannot fathom out that this sentence can be construed as offensive.

[Enchilada]

Originally Posted by astroron

4. Think before you post. Think before you press submit. Re-Read the original post and read your reply before posting.
I still cannot fathom out that this sentence can be construed as offensive.

1) Ron, firstly, what you've written above, I don't understand. Point 4 is already in the current TOS. I have no argument with you regarding this point. It isn't offensive.
In a calmer manner the issue was; "If they read their own posts surely they can see what is wrong, so why don't they go in and fix the offending sentence." The problem is there are people within IIS who do have problems seeing "what is wrong" (or correcting what is wrong). Some with some kinds of disability feel very intimidated because of their perceived limitations. The most liberating thing about the Net is whatever the circumstances, most disabilities are disappear - a totally level play field.
(I know of three in IIS, personally, one who can only type with one finger and one who has lost much of his eyesight late in life and is having trouble seeing the screen. Both are keen as mustard when it come to astronomy.)

Perhaps I may have reacted too strongly and might have been a bit out of line, but also spoke in terms of others and not about just myself. You also could of also avoided much of it by being more sensitive or even a little contrite.
What is done is done.

2) However, I think the way it which is was dealt with was all part of the problem. For me, trouble with in blogging sites is flair up do occur from time to time - especially when there are diametric opposing issues being discussed. The extra difficulties arise when the thread is closed, as the division quickly make two opposing camps, and my experience can easily spiral totally out of control. (With the original issue being long forgotten.)

A moderator could have simply said something (even privately) like "I never thought of <whatever> that way. I think the issue might be an important, but I'm sure <whoever> wasn't implying or is unaware of the <subject>. Also the issue <whoever> <original subject> is a good idea to promote. Regardless both issues are worthy to consider in the future.
IIS is aiming to produce <whatever>, and for the sake of harmony, it might be better to settle the issue amicably. If either of you wish to discuss this privately I'd be happy to hear your views."
This is an just plain example of contrition.
In this case, the issue was not confronted at all, but diverted by talking about "observing outside." The points of either side was just left up in the air. Worst those seeing a thread close, by human nature, go and see what it was all about. (Like people gathering around in a car accident.)

Closing threads and saying "Asta-la Vista baby" leaves no solution and an implied attitude of "who cares."

Regardless, the point of those with any kind of disability within this site is quite valid. In the future even the slightest feeling of any discrimination of any kind should by taken seriously and negated immediately. (In this case Ron's actual original post that started the thread wasn't discriminatory at all.)

The TOS should reflect the general society - and this is my point of consideration below.

In the end I don't want any argument here, just some general consideration and thought of others.

[Kevnool (Kev)]

C,mom fellas let it go.

[Davekyn (David)]

I'll settle for a 16" scope likes Trev's...one to go please

[rat156]

Hi,

I wanted to include a link to my fundraising page for the Sh!tbox Rally - NZ. I understand that the first part of the word is banned, but the url actually contains it, so it is replaced by **** when I want to save it, of course this breaks the link. As it is hidden from the end user, is there a way around this?

Cheers
Stuart

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Like "bloody" is it time perhaps to remove the word "sh!t" from the banned word list? I mean really? T'is Australia in 2015 and all ....just sayin

Mike

[iceman (Mike)]

Hi Stuart

You can use a URL shortener? That's probably the best way for now - like bit.ly or goo.gl etc.

Or even if you have a hyperlink like {url=http://yourlink}My Rally{/url} does that work?