New terms of service on MonroeTalks.com
We posted new “terms of service” this week for MonroeTalks.com, our social networking Web site.
They aren’t much different from the original terms, which have been used since the site debuted last June. The biggest difference is that they’re shorter and easier to read — more written for regular folks than for lawyers.
Our basic principle remains the same: This is the community’s Web site, and we want the users to moderate themselves.
There are now more than 2,000 people registered to use MonroeTalks.com, and about 500 of them are regular talkers. In addition, thousands more visit the site every day to check out the conversation — totaling more than 1 million page views a month.
We’ve had exceptional good luck for the first nine months of MonroeTalks.com. Use of the site has grown dramatically and continues on a steady upward curve. And while there have been a few incidents, for the most part the users have been responsible in their posts on the site.
Before rewriting the terms of service, we asked users of MonroeTalks.com for their suggestions. There were many good comments and several were used in the final version.
Most of the discussion involved how aggressively we should moderate the forums.
As on all Internet talk forums, it’s easy for discussions to veer off the topic. One person changes the subject, or flirts a little, or gets personal in an attack on another user. Before you know it, there have been pages of comments that don’t resemble the original topic.
The problem is obvious. If you were drawn to a topic such as “Should Michigan have another primary,” or “What can I do to fight the gas prices,” you don’t want to have to dig through Sam and Suzie flirting online or Joe and Pete insulting each other to get to the next serious post.
On the other hand, that’s part of what an open discussion forum is all about. It’s a lot like the talk at dinner during the holidays, when there are lots of cousins and nieces and uncles gathered around the table. Good luck trying to keep the conversation on track.
We did decide to add a rule that says, “Try to keep your posts on topic as much as possible.” But you can’t make a rule against twists and turns in a conversation. Sometimes one thing makes you think of another, and then another, and the new direction may be better than the old one.
Others wanted us to get more specific in defining what is in good taste and what violates community standards of decency.
Sorry, but it’s not possible to provide a distinct definition. The Supreme Court can’t do it; what makes folks think we can. This is how the rule reads, and it’s the best we can do:
“Please be responsible. Self-moderate, remembering that this is a family Web site. Don’t post content you wouldn’t want your 13-year-old child or your mother to view. That includes profanity, nudity and lewdness.”
Some people wanted us to add a chat room, or a separate category for socializing. We considered it. But it seemed obvious that wouldn’t stop people from socializing while commenting on any topic. And that’s part of the value of an open community forum — everyone can join in the fun.
There seemed to be a clear majority who like MonroeTalks.com basically the way it is. We agree. That’s why the changes are more in readability than in substance.
My favorite line on the MonroeTalks.com conversation came from “the nosh.” His suggestion: “Dan, go back to your desk…” In other words, leave us alone to moderate ourselves.
Nosh, that’s my preference, too. I hope the new terms of service will help.
—–
Here are the rules for posting, taken from the terms of service:
- Please be responsible. Self-moderate, remembering that this is a family Web site. Don’t post content you wouldn’t want your 13-year-old child or your mother to view. That includes profanity, nudity and lewdness.
- Any content you post on MonroeTalks.com must be your original work, or you must have authorization from the copyright owner. Do not attempt to impersonate another individual.
- Do not post content that defames or invades the privacy of an individual. Keep your disagreements civil. No harassing or intimidating others. Disagree with another person’s views – don’t attack the person.
- Keep your ranting to a minimum. Take a deep breath, count to 10.
- Try to keep your posts on topic as much as possible.
- Content that promotes racism, bigotry, homophobia, hatred or physical harm to any group or individual will not be tolerated.

March 31st, 2008 at 9:49 pm
You’ve become the censorship Nazi on the MonroeTalks and even resorted to banning people without just cause. You’ve posted an open invitation for the early birds to meet you at a local coffee shop in the new terms of service topic…..the same demand you made of “Frenchfry”……one of the people you’ve banned by deleting that membership and blocking the IP address. Your reasoning was the removal request but when he requested to rejoin…..you’ve remained silent.
I’m curious which of the allegations forced you to squelch the FRY voice…….was it the news of ticket fixing or was it the observation that all the Monroe County Judges were connected to SMCC?
Our local news seems unimportant to you because you’re preoccupied with New York and Mount Rainier in Washington State.
Perhaps inviting your religious friends to work with you at the Monroe News has something to do with the direction you’ve been taking our local paper into.
BTW, member FRY is not the same as Frenchfry
bumfunkegypt
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 am
I am happy with how the Terms of Service are now outlined. It’s clear and easily understood.
I would agree that an exhaustive list about what is lewd and indecent isn’t necessary. I think most understand what lewdness is, at least I hope. And I also agree that topics should stay on point for the most part, but of course they’ll drift off somewhat. Topics drifting off here and there are not a big deal, the complaint, as you know, was so many being overtaken with lewd content (sexual) - certainly not fitting for a 13 year old.
But the Terms of Service is basically worthless and of no real substance if there is no consequence for the violators. A law that is unenforced is no law at all; it’s simply something to mock. It’s been said that Law awakens within people the lust to break that very law, and the only way to keep that lust in check is by enforcing the law by consequence to the offender.
These principles trace back to the very first laws or rules.
I understand you’d rather sit at the desk and relax, but as you do people are violating those rules in the TOS without consequence, making the forum comfortable and very uncivil. A simple system of consequence will ensure and strengthen the TOS and decency on the forum.
Sadly, you will lose many kind people from this forum community if the violators are allowed to go without consequence. It will not be a great burden to set forth a system of so many infractions (one per violation) and you’re out. I’ve sent you a personal message on the forum suggesting a proven system of infraction that works well and ensures that harassing and intimidating people cannot rule the forum, pushing out more kinder civil people. Employing such a system now will save having to ultimately do it later, as many forum administrations have come to learn with increasing numbers.
I feel the need to keep persistently pointing out that the rules of the TOS are of no substance without enforcement.
I hope to hear your thoughts on this matter.
Sincerely, Jeremy L