Attention All PFB Users - A Terms Of Service Update

Oh My Goodness! I LOVE the new terms! I was so sick of people yelling
at the letter writer that THEY didn't check their McDonalds bag before
leaving, therefore they are to blame! And the
spelling/punctuation/typo thing, GOD BLESS YOU!

is it a violation to tell the letter poster that... "It might not be a
good idea to post the account number online where anyone can see it"?

... yes you probably know what letter i'm talking about.

debating if it's worth taking a hit on my "6 deletes" to offer her
advice in protecting her already-compromised credit information

speaking of TOS questions...

how many times are we allowed to submit the same letter? i've seen a
lot of double posts, often of identical letters, lately.

How can one remove or edit a previous post to remove personal
information that was posted?

Say someone posts a letter and people reply. If the letter writer's
responses to those replies are rude and nasty is he held to the TOS
too? I ask because in the #1 letter on the top 25 (about Qwest)the
letter writer has been a real jerk. Every response he's given to
people's replies has been incredibly rude and snotty. I'm just curious
if the new TOS rules suggested by Nate apply to both letter writers
and commenters?

Thanks and have a great day!

Have you seen any reduction in comments since the new TOS took effect?
Doesn't look like it from this posting, but on other letters?

Whether you agree or disagree with the TOS, it certainly isn't Nate's
"fault", so I think the sarcastic "thaaaaanks, NATE!" comments are
uncalled for. He made some suggestions (based on things I've seen
commenters bring up before, like not receiving an explanation as to
why a posting was removed, and apparently presented those suggestions
in a clear, reasonable, and well thought out manner that impressed the
heck out of PF to the extent that they made some procedural changes.
Personally, I think that's pretty darn cool.

As for how well the new procedures will be enforced, that lies on PF -
so I'd hate to see Nate get flack if someone doesn't like the way
their comment is handled.

When was PFB started? I remember back in the day you had to e-mail
Beth I think it was to get commenting privileges. I know the relaunch
was a few years ago but what about before that?

In my opinion, we're stepping on a slippery slope here. I despise
censorship in almost every form imaginable, but especially that which
curtails freedom of speech and opinion.

Certainly SOME moderation is needed, particularly towards those who
would launch personal attacks on others. However, I've personally
seen what over-moderation can do to a popular message board. Years
ago, there was an extremely popular football message board, of which I
was a member. One of the reasons it was so popular was because it had
a well-known reputation of laxed moderation. People knew they would
be able to speak their mind, even during hotly contested debates. The
only messages that were ever deleted were those that contained
extremely vulgar personal attacks on another member. But those were
very few and far between. Eventually, this site, due to it's
popularity, became linked into a national network of football message
boards. However, the TOS of the board changed drastically. No longer
tolerated were messages that contained any 4-letter words, anything
even remotely off-topic, and anything that resembled a heated
argument, even if it was simply a good-natured disagreement. Shortly
thereafter, a HUGE number of regular users fled the site, especially
after a new independent board opened up, which allowed the freedom of
expression that the original board once had. The old board still
exists, but it's merely a shell of its former self.

I feel that these new TOS regulations might diminish the messages
posted on this board. Not only because they handcuff people who wish
to state their opinions, but also from those who won't post at all out
of fear from getting a "black mark". Indeed, even before these more
rigidly enforced rules, I know of at least one of the more popular
members on this board who rarely posts here anymore. It's a shame
because his posts were almost always entertaining, without being
abusive towards the letter-writer.

I would certainly hate to see that happen to this site. I feel as
though you have a good thing going here, and as was pointed out
further downthread, regulars on here have policed themselves over the
past year or so.

It ain't broke, so don't "fix" it.

I think you should go back to having moderators again.

*Waits for things to be thrown at her*

I don't understand this one "Placement of links to past letters or
comments to "prove a point" or otherwise try to discredit a letter
writer". Why? If someone writes the exact same letter to three
different companies on the same day (which would make no
sense)...doesn't it violate your rule that you shouldn't lie in your
letters?

I had a long reply to your reply to me typed out, hit submit, got a
"site under maintainence" page and lost the whole thing...GRRRR

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that the reason I and some
of the others made the comment that Nate seems to have been given the
power to dictate site policy to the rest of us is because of how the
announcement was written. I don't think it would have been perceived
that way had it not started with a paragraph stating how wonderful
Nate is and then every new rule/point preceded with "Nate thought we
should" It comes across as though Nate is somehow above us and his
opinions have more merit than the rest of us lowly members. I think it
should have been presented in a more general way without trumpeting
one particular member. Just my two cents. As I said before I will
respect and abide by the new rules.

Have a good afternoon. :-)

What is the point of letting us comment on letters if we can't
critique the persons's letter/explain why they were not allowed to
return something against policy/tell them that threatening to throw
things at employees is wrong?

I understand some commenters go overboard. I had a few downright
cruelly mock me in comments and stuff in the past, but oftentimes
people are just trying to help when they say 'If you spelled it
clearer, they would be more likely to respond as they would understand
you better'.

Just curious, you know.

Sounds good to me.

While I'm both amazed and dismayed that one member was given the power
to dictate how all of us should behave, I will abide by the new rules.

Way to go Nate!!!

i understand that it is your website to do wish as you wish and that
ultimately, opinions of the visitors to your website carry no weight.
i'd just like to share an insight my son had. his gripe is with
"clean" and unedited versions of songs. while i'm not a potty mouth
and believe that profanity is a sign of slow witted mind, it's
different when it comes to songs. when you edit out the essence of
the message and don't allow an artist free speech without censorship,
you bind his hands, his mind and his soul. since i don't believe in
censorship and can't look myself in the eye if i continue to visit a
website that condones censorship, this will be my last visit. but,
like most things, i will recall the "old days" and remember them for
the superior times they were.

It is great to see the support for this new idea, along with the few
criticisms below.
My emails with Greg addressed the fact that I had a comment removed,
and I had no idea why. I was not contacted, nor was there a rule
anywhere on the site specifically citing the reasons comments can be
removed. I suggested that this be changed to make the rules more
clear. Note that these are the two points attributed to me.

Now to defend myself for a moment to the "Thanks a lot, Nate" comments
below.
The strikes and you're out portion was not my suggestion. In the
policy Greg stated in his email, it was originally FOUR strikes. I
suggested that this might be a bit too strict, so I suggested four per
individual rule. As a compromise, Greg changed it to six for all
rules, primarily due to the difficulty of tracking of individual
rules. So I think a non-snarky thank-you can be given for that one.
:)

But considering this fact, now that there is a clearly defined set of
rules, how hard is it to follow them?
Nobody should have a problem with comment removals if they stay away
from the behaviors clearly posted.
With the vagueness and "interpretation" before, it led to comments
being removed for no apparent reason.
Now there is a clearly defined set of rules, and you will be notified.
It doesn't sound like it will be too hard to get your act together.

With that being said, if you look over your comments and think twice
before posting something that violates or is close to violating the
rules, nobody should ever have a problem.

Just my thoughts on this policy discussion.

Are you going to block usernames or Ip's? And I do know blocking Ip's
is not the cure all either.

There are several that run around here using different names. It does
no good to ban someone if they just sign up again with another
username and email address.

Good Day

Questions regarding number 1 " Criticism of the way a person writes
their letter whether it be spelling/grammar/punctuation or writing in
all caps or any variation thereof"

If someone posts a poorly written letter (grammar, spelling etc) and
someone comments that they would likely recieve a better response if
they corrected the spelling and grammar, would that be a strike
against them? To me, it seems as though it would be constructive
criticism and would help the letter writter do better next time, or
re-submit it. Don't get me wrong, I get that the snarky comments
would be a strike, but what about the helpful ones?

If a letter is written that way, will the letter itself be removed,
and a note sent to the writer telling them why? Messages written in
capitalized letters are considered shouting at the top of your lungs
by experienced internet users, and the behavior is considered
extremely rude under most if not all circumstances. It's also hard to
read.

In case you can't tell, this is a pet peeve of mine. (a gross
understatement, but using accurate terms would get the letter pulled)

all great ideas, props to Nate for helping shape the future of PFB. i
especially like the email notification of comment removals, one
question.

If we reply to a comment that is later removed, will our reply be
removed and an email sent?

i am always in favor of clearer rules and expectations.

Thank you for coming up with a clearer TOS.

I have one small question. Sometimes, I like to explain to a letter
writer why something happened to them. Is this still okay? I don't
feel like I am discrediting the letter writer; I am only explaining
why the situation might of occurred.

Tbanks for your time.

I think it'd be hilarious if someone responded to this and their
comment got yanked! Ha! I double dog dare someone! ;)

Thank you! Although I may not agree with all of the rules, I can
respect them. And, now I know that I'll receive a message if any of
my comments are out of line. I believe I've had some comments removed
here and there and it will be nice to know why.

and consistency too.


but aw... we can't comment about people using ALL CAPS? dang it. =)


but hey, as long as we're still allowed to agree or disagree with the
letters as the situation fits, i'm not going to be against consistent
rules.


though I am wondering one thing... obviously if we write something
abusive in the comments it'll get pulled. But if the original letter
say, boasts of abusing or attacking the staff, will it be treated the
same?

I think this is going to be great and I fully support it. There is
something about set rules and policies that makes me comfortable.

I have a question though... Lets say Kitty leaves a comment and not
long after that, Sio responds to Kitty. PFB then see's Kitty's comment
and realizes that it is in violation of TOS. So you remove Kitty's
comment, but you also have to remove all the replies, so Sio's comment
gets removed as well.

Is that a black mark for Sio?

With all due respect Mr. Helpful, I believe these changes to the TOS
are overkill and should be reversed.

As adults (most of us, anyway) shouldn't it be common sense as to what
we can (and should) post? However, we now have a written set of
restrictions, coupled with your absolute discretion as to what is
appropriate which, in my mind, could have the potential to further
restrict the voice of commenter.

I believe you have been poorly advised.

I think this is a great idea, and certainly new people will be the
ones to get the most benefit out of the change. Those of us who have
been here have gotten to know what is appropriate and what isn't, by
and large.

Someone wrote about consistency. As a user who has had comments
removed, I just wanted to say I think the moderators are doing a fair
job with that. It can't be an easy or pleasant task.

It may be that when certain kinds of comments were deemed to no longer
be appropriate (and began to be removed), certain people thought they
were being singled out. The site continues to evolve, and IMO it
continues to move in the right direction as far as moderation. Thanks
to you and Nate for coming up with this improvement!

I think this will be especially helpful to new people, but mostly to
people who visit the site infrequently, who may have missed out on
various debates and developments in changes.

I applaud this. I've felt for awhile that letting a user know why the
comment was removed would be helpful in helping them phrase their
comments differently.

All I ask for is consistency.

Some of you may have not noticed but I have toned down my comments.

The "assumption" is what gets me the most, meaning letters removed.

Some of the more regulars can get away with doing the exact same thing
I do (assuming, grouping people), I feel it is due to them being part
of the clique. I know one posting right now that I can point out where
a regualar grouped and it never got removed, had I said it, I feel it
would have been.

Consistency



Good Day