Only in cases of _________ will MeFi ________ a user's previous __________ and __________.
(verb+ing) (verb) (plural noun) (body part)posted by not_on_display at 11:21 AM on February 28, 2010 [5 favorites] posted by carsonb at 11:23 AM on February 28, 2010 [7 favorites](verb+ing)(gerund)
(gerund)is used inconsistently throughout.
cortex says: Easy to delete someone's whole history? Yes. The policy has nothing to do with the difficulty of crafting the SQL query. It'd be easier yet to drop every table from the db, but we aren't going to do that either.Sure, when cortex leaves and takes his words with him, you might get the stuff he wrote, but what about quotes and such? Not so easy to craft that query. A person has to realize they will be leaving a mark on a site when they join.
"Please do not turn users, especially sort of off-kilter users, into in-jokes, it's cruel and sometimes problematic for us."I also want to suggest that taking down content, and replacing it with an appropriate editorial marker for persona that choose to leave on the adoption of a TOS which attempts to make users give MetaFilter a permanent display license ought to be a no brainer. As future opportunities present themselves to monetize and grow the site, it is in the current ownership's interest to have a bright line date of future and ongoing content use license, regardless of future use or value. Those past and current contributors, active or voluntarily inactive, who haven't thought about those implications pre-TOS, ought to be given a no harm, no foul exit date for all their content, if they don't want to continue, under new TOS terms.
posted by jessamyn at 6:52 PM on October 11, 2009 [13 favorites +]
"What cortex said and to address what cjorgensen said about copyright, you still keep your copyright, but a TOS will make clear that posting to mefi gives mefi a license to display your content, regardless of who owns the words."and
posted by mathowie at 1:04 PM on February 28
"... We're pushing for a perpetual license because threads don't make a lick of sense with missing answers, missing halves of conversations between two members, and missing clarifications from askers."and
posted by mathowie at 9:31 PM on February 28
"We have talked about also having an opt-in for older members before we accept any future comments but of course someone could refuse and stay in limbo."and this, too, which is a decent plea from #1 for the interests of The Site and The Community
posted by mathowie at 2:58 PM on February 28
"This is the heart of the problem of running a community -- how do you balance the needs of individual members versus the community sphere as the sum of all contributions from everyone? I'm saying letting people remove their contributions to the sphere is a tad selfish (because you can make permanent changes on a whim) and disruptive because it can leave thousands of holes in the community threads, making them largely less understandable and at times incomprehensible.and
Again, on a case by case basis, we've done our best to comply with requests but at a certain point (certainly when contributions number in the thousands and site history is over several years) it's not likely to happen because we don't want to add confusion or do anything else to make the site unreadable by others."
posted by mathowie at 1:27 AM on March 1
"I'm also curious for the people saying that adopting a perpetual license in a long overdue TOS would be a dealbreaker for them: what would an acceptable license look like? One that times out after x years? One that requires both parties agree they want to allow display (letting users back out?)? Saying contributions can only appear as long as users want?"What I can say about the divisions of purpose and dissolutions of interests of parties in changing commercial and personal relationships, from hard personal experience, is that they proceed best when both parties are generous to the point of pain towards the interests of the other. "Give, and give, and give again, and finally, be done with it." as I think Danny DeVito as divorce attorney Gavin D'Amato counsels his divorcing lawyer client Mr. Oliver Rose, played by Michael Douglas, in The War of the Roses.
posted by mathowie at 1:35 AM on March 1
posted by cjorgensen at 9:50 AM on February 28, 2010