Is there a Moderator Training Manual?

[TrixieFox]

Didn't realize this was still going.

I've decided not to get in this debate so I just watch others do it

 

[Mambi]

Didn't realize this was still going.

BTW, here's a picture for you that I stumbled across you can use for the manual coverpage:

 

[TrixieFox]

BTW, here's a picture for you that I stumbled across you can use for the manual coverpage:

WOAH

 

[DesecratedFlame]

I wasn't going to reply initially because this hit home for me. Haha. I sold AT&T and got more training for Fur Affinity than I did AT&T's services.

Quoting is right.

AT&T makes you sit through a full month to a month and a half of training. 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 4 to 6 weeks.

 

[RestrainedRaptor]

I could have sworn I’d said it before, but I’ll say it again: adult photography, legally, requires model release forms on file. FA doesn’t have a system in place for this (nor I suspect the resources to maintain such a system, so I don’t think it’s ever going to be an option), so adult photography becomes a legal liability.

Yep, I remember that. It's an interesting theory, but in order for it to become relevant, we'd have to see the two following things happen:

1) Moderators actually cite this as a reason when they delete stuff.
2) Model release forms actually appearing somewhere in the AUP.

 

[RestrainedRaptor]

Didn't realize this was still going.

Would it help at all, if I put together a compilation of case studies regarding AUP 3.2 and make a new thread suggesting what should be done to resolve the issue?

 

[Rayd]

FA mods when they saw the supposed training manual

 

[luffy]

AT&T makes you sit through a full month to a month and a half of training. 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 4 to 6 weeks.

Not the AT&T I worked for. Sales is probably very different.

 

[quoting_mungo]

Yep, I remember that. It's an interesting theory, but in order for it to become relevant, we'd have to see the two following things happen:

1) Moderators actually cite this as a reason when they delete stuff.
2) Model release forms actually appearing somewhere in the AUP.

That’s an interesting interpretation. :V

What it comes down to is ultimately this: by rating the submissions as non-General, the poster indicates they consider the ropes (in this case) to be adult paraphernalia and/or the context to be sexual (arguably in violation of AUP 3.1).

Legal liability means FA needs to take photography with people in it hella seriously. It’s a reason FA can’t be more lenient/flexible on enforcement with this subset of photography violations. That’s how it is and will continue to be relevant. If you don’t consider your photos sexual, don’t rate them as though they are.

Mentioning model release forms in the AUP would be silly, since they’re something FA does not handle. I can’t think of any existing rule that mentions features FA doesn’t have in order to justify their existence.

I personally wouldn’t have posted ropework to FA without asking first, in the first place. That’s why there’s a whole “question about site policy” ticket category. Because ropework absolutely has the capacity to be artful, but also comes with connotations that may make it unsuitable for a gallery like FA. That’s no judgment on shibari as art. Just recognition of the fact that when in doubt it does behoove you (gen) to ask questions instead of just forging ahead.

 

[RestrainedRaptor]

That’s an interesting interpretation. :V

This interpretation is based on the assumption that FA staff want the rules of the site to be transparent to the user, of course. This comes back to the 'you cannot post a picture of an apple' argument. Mods can delete pictures of oranges too if they want, but that's not exactly fair, is it?

What it comes down to is ultimately this: by rating the submissions as non-General [...]

I've got counter-evidence of submissions being deleted that were rated as general, so we have to investigate further.

I personally wouldn’t have posted ropework to FA without asking first, in the first place. That’s why there’s a whole “question about site policy” ticket category.

That would place an undue burden on the admins. It would be far better to update the rules so they are easy for people to look up the answers. Of the dozens of people who have had their work deleted, none of them thought they were breaking the AUP, because of course they wouldn't. The way it's currently written only covers explicit sex, nudity and sex objects, with no mention of things which might be considered kinky by some people.

 

[DesecratedFlame]

Not the AT&T I worked for. Sales is probably very different.

After highschool and before college, I spent time working in AT&T's BEUC department. It required a 6 week training course, 5 full time days per week, complete with tests and practicals. They also ran thorough background checks on you since you would have access to customers records and would often been dealing with their credit card numbers. They also had their own sort of internal version of something like google that contained information on pretty much everything, including canned responses (aka scripts you had to read from per situation), how to fix certain problems, guidelines on what you could do in certain situations, how to escalate issues, etc. That same system tied into the customer side with things like device tutorials. Etc.

 

[Flamingo]

FA mods when they saw the supposed training manual

You're so funny.

 

[luffy]

You're so funny.

Can you summarize the video, please? It's too long.

 

[DesecratedFlame]

This thread killed the forums, lol.

 

[luffy]

This thread killed the forums, lol.

This is nothing compared to the politics forum days. lol.

 

[DesecratedFlame]

This is nothing compared to the politics forum days. lol.

Maybe but that suspicious timing, lol.

 

[luffy]

Maybe but that suspicious timing, lol.

This has been chatted about for years. If we waited longer, there would just be another topic kinda similar to this one that would have been "that suspicious thread".