The current Terms and Conditions are inadequate for DeafDC.com and in response, we have developed a new one. To review it, please click on “Terms and Conditions” directly below the comment box (scroll to the bottom of comments to see the box). For a direct link to our new terms and conditions, please click on:
http://www.deafdc.com/blog/wp-content/themes/connections/toc.html
DeafDC.com has decided to make more prominent the relevant part of our Terms and Conditions. We have created space below each comment box that shares the following rules:
The blog is owned by DeafDC.com. We allow you to use DeafDC.com as long as you follow the rules in our Terms and Conditions (click on “terms and conditions above for the complete, official rules). The opinions expressed in the blog are the opinions of the individual bloggers and do not represent DeafDC.com’s opinion and we are not responsible for the content of those posts.
DeafDC.com visitors are prohibited from posting comments which are illegal, morbid or disturbing, threatening, defamatory, invasive of privacy, infringing of intellectual property rights, or otherwise injurious to third parties or objectionable, or which consists of or contains software viruses, political campaigning, or commercial solicitation, chain letters, mass mailings, or any form of “spam.” You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, or otherwise mislead as to the origin of your comment.
DeafDC.com reserves the right (but has no obligation) to remove comments, but does not regularly review posted comments. You agree that DeafDC.com maintains the sole right to remove comments for these reasons, for any reason and at any time.
If you feel that our terms and conditions are being violated, promptly notify the DeafDC.com manager at info — at — deafdc (dot) com.
Certainly, the new Terms and Conditions will still contain gray areas. While we value the importance of open discussion, we need a reasonable amount of protection for our organization and a Terms and Conditions flexible enough to allow our audience to engage in intelligent dialogue.
Since the inception of this website, we always honored requests for removals of comments. From this point forward we will evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis. This time, the new Terms and Conditions along with a more profound understanding of relevant laws and concepts governing the Internet will guide our decision-making process.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
Hanna Sends Her Regrets for Tonight’s DPHH Video Comments on DeafDC.com! Yahoogle!
10 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Surprised by the total lack of input to the new TOC considering all the strong feelings from last week.
I have one suggestion; just reduce the font size under the comment box. Kinda overwhelming.
Oh, and maybe something, enclose the TOC in a box or something to set it off more?
The lawyers won, huh? :)
I’m not surprised by the lack of comments. The TOC doesn’t really address the core question: what is deemed appropriate and inappropriate regarding attacks on people. Too many inconsistencies from the past point to that cavaliar attitude.
Anonyomous, the only way your apparent expectations could be met is if the management here were to itemize each possible attack.
“Please don’t attack other users, or your comments will be reviewed for potential deletion.
1. Grounds exist for deletion if your comment uses the F word, as if ‘F___ you.’ If, however, you say ‘F___ the deaf’ as a polite request, your comment will be given a pass.
2. Grounds exist for deletion if you accuse another user of being part of the deaf diaspora.
3. Grounds exist for deletion if you accuse another user of, at the age of three, having bitten the neighbor’s dog.
paragraph 3a. An exception will be made to item 3 if the accused party provides court documents attesting to the conviction of the neighbor’s dog, at any time, on charges of audism.
paragraph 3b. An exception to paragraph 3a. will be made if anyone ever claimed that it wasn’t about audism.
4. Grounds exist for deletion if you accuse another user of being an extraterrestrial in such a way that proves deeply offensive to three readers of the website.”
To my mind, the new guidelines listed at the outset of this entry satisfy the goal of warning users that general categories of comments run a risk of being deleted. That is the most that we can ask for in a public venue like this one, and such guidelines are considerably more specific than those of many other blogs.
Anonyomous, if you were in charge of a blog like this one, what would your policies say? It is pretty common for blog owners to at least say something like, “That type of remark isn’t appropriate here.” But what would you specifically write that would satisfy your own expectations?
JS-
I wish I knew who you are :)
Anonymous-
I was thinking (uh-oh) that, if a single person made a request for a comment to be removed, DeafDC.com probably would have had to honor it in the past — regardless of who made the comment or that person’s justification. That would probably explain the “inconsistency” you noted. Now, they seem to have wisened up a bit — so isn’t that a good sign? That they’ve actually listened to the people who questioned their decision? And done something about it?
DeafDC -
Keep it up, but I’d like to see more blogs especially from Vikki, Shane, Adam and Allison :)
Jt: As to my identity, it would suffice to know that I turn to the Internet, and this website, to escape from some tedious aspects of my job.
In reference to my comment above, I should note that my quip about “f___ the deaf” being a “polite request” is an appropriation of words from a review printed in the New York Times about a comedian’s act about the disabled. I’ve not seen the DVD myself, but the comedian seems to have won his share of esteem. You can see the review at the NYT website here, but since we are dealing with strong language, you may find the link not safe for work.
I think, for you, the Abovethelaw blogsite would be a great resource to escape the tedious aspects of your job. You might also want to try the Wall Street Journal blogs. The WSJ, too, has a legal blog there.
Sure beats Lexis and Westlaw.
The Internet enables a lot of people to escape the drudgery of their jobs.
or http://www.deafattorneys.com for that matter. :)