Forum Concern regarding new TOS

[Frank Gulotta]

I was looking for the new TOS and found them to be much less thorough than the previous ones.

Especially concerning is this paragraph :
"We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice."

So... can you get banned for no reason whatsoever now? or am I missing something?
If so, how is this supposed to be an improvement from the previous version where at least you were supposed to break a rule before getting banned?
Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Ovidia Dragoness]

I was looking for the new TOS and found them to be much less thorough than the previous ones.

Especially concerning is this paragraph :
"We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice."

So... can you get banned for no reason whatsoever now? or am I missing something?
If so, how is this supposed to be an improvement from the previous version where at least you were supposed to break a rule before getting banned?
Thank you for clarifying.

Technically any company can do this online. Look up Section 230. I believe that is the law.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

Technically any company can do this online. Look up Section 230. I believe that is the law.

Usually they still have TOS that tell you how to avoid getting banned and a recourse to bring up in case of no rule being broken, now we don't even have that

 

[RyuokoWolf]

Mods wouldn't remove something without reason. It's more so letting you know, that if something you post breaks the rules, and it gets reported or they see it, they'll remove it.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

Mods wouldn't remove something without reason. It's more so letting you know, that if something you post breaks the rules, and it gets reported or they see it, they'll remove it.

But I just pointed out that they reserve the right to remove something for no reason. It's almost verbatim what the new TOS say. And I'll add that what little is said about what constitutes "breaking the rules" is VERY vague at times.

 

[smolmuffin]

This is a bit confusing but I don't think they would legit ban someone because they feel like it. I think this is a general statement for them to have coverage if the site needed to be deleted for whatever reason or if they had to take administrative action for legit reasons. Its hard to explain and I don't 100% understand either but this isn't "we are going to remove you because we don't like you!"

 

[Frank Gulotta]

This is a bit confusing but I don't think they would legit ban someone because they feel like it. I think this is a general statement for them to have coverage if the site needed to be deleted for whatever reason or if they had to take administrative action for legit reasons. Its hard to explain and I don't 100% understand either but this isn't "we are going to remove you because we don't like you!"

Well... if that was the case, wouldn't a reiteration of the previous rules, which were rather fair on paper, be enough?
I'm having doubts because I previously had bad experience dealing with them, but eventually won because I had broken no rule. I'm afraid that these new TOS would make it okay to bypass actually breaking a rule to ban someone. That would suck.

 

[Yav]

This is mainly a notice that *every* website generally provides, but even if they don't have it in their ToS, they are still fully free to do it.
This is mostly used for anything not specified under traditional rules, or if they see you as a general nuisance, but you're not explicitly breaking any rules (trust me, those people can pop up.. a lot)
This also means they don't need to be formally noticed you before you are banned.

So pretty much this is just a warning to have common sense, and is applied to every website/ forum page in existence.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

This is mainly a notice that *every* website generally provides, but even if they don't have it in their ToS, they are still fully free to do it.
This is mostly used for anything not specified under traditional rules, or if they see you as a general nuisance, but you're not explicitly breaking any rules (trust me, those people can pop up.. a lot)
This also means they don't need to formally notice you before you are banned.

So pretty much this is just a warning to have common sense, and is applied to every website/ forum page in existence.

Hmm, I would agree if there weren't been many problems regarding moderation in this part of the site.

 

[smolmuffin]

Well... if that was the case, wouldn't a reiteration of the previous rules, which were rather fair on paper, be enough?
I'm having doubts because I previously had bad experience dealing with them, but eventually won because I had broken no rule. I'm afraid that these new TOS would make it okay to bypass actually breaking a rule to ban someone. That would suck.

It would most likely take consistent rule breaking and/or a extreme action that leads to the consequence of being removed. Just read IggyKoopa's message and yea, I think that is the case as well. A lot of sites have this on their ToS.

 

[Yav]

Hmm, I would agree if there weren't been many problems regarding moderation in this part of the site.

That's on FA's own hands in trusting they have unbiased staff/administration
Like I said, even if they change the ToS, this will still actually apply

 

[Frank Gulotta]

That's on FA's own hands to trusting unbiased staff/administration
Like I said, even if they change the ToS, this will still actually apply

Okay, but the rules were also a lot clearer before.

 

[Yav]

Okay, but the rules were also a lot clearer before.

I would say thats in preference of trusting peoples common sense rather then writing down rules and guidelines for nearly e v e r y specific subject, but with FA's past on this I'm actually not sure

 

[quoting_mungo]

Okay, but the rules were also a lot clearer before.

Assume the rules are the same as on mainsite; add the fact that the forum is ~PG-13 and general common sense “act appropriately for a forum” rules, and you should be good.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

Assume the rules are the same as on mainsite; add the fact that the forum is ~PG-13 and general common sense “act appropriately for a forum” rules, and you should be good.

What if I don't trust moderation to be fair? because I've not been given reasons to trust it. And at least if there are actual clear rules, like it was before, I can have a decision overturned if it's unfair. Here it just sounds like they want to be able to ban anyone they don't like without recourse.

 

[quoting_mungo]

What if I don't trust moderation to be fair? because I've not been given reasons to trust it. And at least if there are actual clear rules, like it was before, I can have a decision overturned if it's unfair. Here it just sounds like they want to be able to ban anyone they don't like without recourse.

If you don’t trust moderation to be fair, there are better people to raise that paranoia to than someone who used to be on the mod team and knows how much effort goes into keeping rulings fair and consistent, tbfh. I just told you, refer to the mainsite rules and treat the forum as a General-rated area, until and/or unless staff say otherwise. Because that’s more or less what the forum rules were.

“We can remove you at any time for any reason” is the type of clause virtually all services have so that they can remove disruptive users who carefully follow the letter of the law. The only real reason to worry about that clause is if you plan on trolling and/or stirring up shit.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

If you don’t trust moderation to be fair, there are better people to raise that paranoia

Way to be dismissive and contemptuous -_- Just because something doesn't affect you doesn't mean it's just "paranoia". I've been suspended two times months ago for completely phony reasons, and had a main site moderator intervene, and reverse both measures. Even then, FAF moderators dragged their feet in giving me back certain posting privileges and I had to remind them of it.
Now, I think you would agree that since site staff didn't think these measures were fair, then I didn't deserve them. So is it "paranoia" when I have to do that in order to be treated fairly?

 

[Dragoneer]

I was looking for the new TOS and found them to be much less thorough than the previous ones.

Especially concerning is this paragraph :
"We may remove or modify any Content submitted at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We may terminate your access to all or any part of the Service at any time, with or without cause, with or without notice."

So... can you get banned for no reason whatsoever now? or am I missing something?
If so, how is this supposed to be an improvement from the previous version where at least you were supposed to break a rule before getting banned?
Thank you for clarifying.

It's a right we reserve, but rarely execute. It's just saying that we have the right to remove content or accounts for any reason. This clause has been in the Terms of Service for well over a decade. This isn't new by any means..

 

[Frank Gulotta]

It's a right we reserve, but rarely execute. It's just saying that we have the right to remove content or accounts for any reason. This clause has been in the Terms of Service for well over a decade. This isn't new by any means..

Really? thanks for clarifying!

 

[Fallowfox]

Can somebody point me to where the terms of service for the forum are and tell me if there are any important changes?
I can't find 'em. am too dumb.

 

[Frank Gulotta]

Can somebody point me to where the terms of service for the forum are and tell me if there are any important changes?
I can't find 'em. am too dumb.

Hello! long time no see!
Bottom right corner of the screen. At least those are the only ones I could find.

 

[Fallowfox]

Hello! long time no see!
Bottom right corner of the screen. At least those are the only ones I could find.

Only thing I see as odd is links to adult content, since any link to furaffinity could be considered that? I'm guessing that they consider their own website okay though.

 

[RyuokoWolf]

Only thing I see as odd is links to adult content, since any link to furaffinity could be considered that? I'm guessing that they consider their own website okay though.

While FurAffinity does contain adult content, you're also prohibited from seeing it if you are under 18. And the general public cannot see it. Take PH for example. Anyone can view it, you're not required to log in to see you, you dont have to verify your age. That's why it wouldnt be allowed.

If any random person can view it, it's not allowed.

 

[Deleted member 134556]

It’s like a restaurant saying they have the right to refuse service to anyone. I see it almost everywhere. It’s rarely ever practiced, and almost always isn’t used maliciously. I’m not too worried about it really.

I’d actually uphold the same standard if I ran my own site or establishment.

 

[quoting_mungo]

Only thing I see as odd is links to adult content, since any link to furaffinity could be considered that? I'm guessing that they consider their own website okay though.

It should be the same restrictions on linking as in the mainsite CoC - if it requires a login to see the adult material, that’s fine.