Gaia's ToS needs to be revised

[Darius Runan]

Zero Omega

Katulain

Important to note and give a shout-out to some of the staff/mods who have participated in part of this thread. Turning back some long-standing paradigms with regard to the ToS and creating new ones creates change. And change is not always easy.

I'm proud to stand alongside a new staff and, at least what feels like, a new mod team, committed to listening, responding and taking action with regard to requests from this community. It's awesome!

Just as an fyi to clear up any confusion, aside from new management taking charge, we haven't changed anyone on the mod or admin team in a few years. A lot of the mods and admins on the team now are the same ones that have been on the team since 2010.

Seems like you need some additional help. I'll have to polish up my reporting 3nodding

But really, I'm as open minded as the next person about forging a new and more peaceful future where user and staff alike see eye to eye. So kudos to you Zero, and to the omni mods for your amazing levels of patience.

[Lanzer]

Katulain

lanzer

Most likely a new version. Any of the rules we knew were excessive will be removed, while things such as sharing personal info will probably stay since we've enforced that even before the ToS update.

Any appeal will be focused towards users affected in the past 2 years. All other appeals should be submitted through the regular channels as they had been done before.

Very cool! Just as a follow-up to that point, Will a new version also look at changing key clauses in the ToS that many in the community have felt are broadly subjective? Such as the famous trolling clause which defines it as: "intentionally interfering with any member's enjoyment of the website". We're hoping that re-shaping misinterpretation of gray areas in this document is one of your goals.

Also, I'm assuming the new appeal process specifically targets the past 2 years for sake of an initial volume of requests? There are quite a few requests that may apply as far back as 2013 (3+ years). Just wanted to note that.

Thanks for the continued responses. Very appreciative.

I have been diving in our codebase so I haven't comb through the details. Zero has a much better idea of what he wants to remove and I trust that he'll do a good job. Same with the details of the appeal.

[Alexius08]

By the way, has anyone here noticed that some parts of the ToS contradict each other? I'm talking about Sections 4d and 4f.

Section 4d

YOU AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:...
impersonate another person, user or member or access another Member's account without permission, or impersonate Gaia staff;

Section 4f

YOU AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:...
share Gaia Online passwords with a third party or encourage another Member to do so;

These provisions conflict with each other in cases where a user accesses another user's account. Sections 4d and 10, along with the Repercussions section of the Rules and Guidelines seem to allow it when permission is granted, while Section 4f, along with the first rule in the Rules and Guidelines, forbid it whether or not the original account owner authorizes access (unless there's a way to control access to accounts without using passwords).

These parts would be relevant in the following cases:

1. The user in question is quitting or expecting to die, and thus sends account details to another user
   
2. The account in question is a designated mule for running specific threads and/or guilds, and the guild/thread organizers share access to it
   
3. The account in question is a designated mule of a guild that's being transferred from the current captain to the next guild captain
   

I won't have problems with whatever choice you make in resolving this particular contradiction. I just want to see either/both of those provisions revised in the new ToS so that they'll no longer contradict each other.

[lief_7]

Alexius08

By the way, has anyone here noticed that some parts of the ToS contradict each other? I'm talking about Sections 4d and 4f.

Section 4d

YOU AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:...
impersonate another person, user or member or access another Member's account without permission, or impersonate Gaia staff;

Section 4f

YOU AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:...
share Gaia Online passwords with a third party or encourage another Member to do so;

These provisions conflict with each other in cases where a user accesses another user's account. Sections 4d and 10, along with the Repercussions section of the Rules and Guidelines seem to allow it when permission is granted, while Section 4f, along with the first rule in the Rules and Guidelines, forbid it whether or not the original account owner authorizes access (unless there's a way to control access to accounts without using passwords).

These parts would be relevant in the following cases:

1. The user in question is quitting or expecting to die, and thus sends account details to another user
   
2. The account in question is a designated mule for running specific threads and/or guilds, and the guild/thread organizers share access to it
   
3. The account in question is a designated mule of a guild that's being transferred from the current captain to the next guild captain
   

I won't have problems with whatever choice you make in resolving this particular contradiction. I just want to see either/both of those provisions revised in the new ToS so that they'll no longer contradict each other.

Hey there, just wanted to weigh in/ask a question here. Doesn't a third party typically mean a non gaia part as in a non Gaia personal and a non member? So like if asked you to give your password to Amazon that would be wrong or if you decided to give it to them on your own. Typically a third party in a contract is someone that the contract for the said thing (in this case your account) is not between.

I could be missinterpreting and not saying you are wrong, just curious. smile

[Katulain]

Lanzer

I have been diving in our codebase so I haven't comb through the details. Zero has a much better idea of what he wants to remove and I trust that he'll do a good job. Same with the details of the appeal.

Changes to the ToS document have an opportunity to fundamentally transform the community. You have a terrific intuition regarding changes that should be made and there's an underlying moral urgency about this entire process. My hope is that you will be a part of this process, perhaps in overview or some greater capacity, simply because the community largely trusts the vision you will ultimately adopt. Even if a rowdy few may loudly pronounce their grievances. While bug fixes are super important and we love you doing that, people feeling the rights, privileges, and deeper principles behind your broader UI/UX transformation will ultimately allow an unquantifiable amount of energy to be released as users buy into the "Gaia brand" once again.

I trust Zero to train moderators and enforce the rules we have with the commitment and fidelity one would expect from a professional.

But you're the man... and we'll go with your plan. smile

[Alexius08]

lief_7

Alexius08

By the way, has anyone here noticed that some parts of the ToS contradict each other? I'm talking about Sections 4d and 4f.

Section 4d

YOU AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:...
impersonate another person, user or member or access another Member's account without permission, or impersonate Gaia staff;

Section 4f

YOU AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:...
share Gaia Online passwords with a third party or encourage another Member to do so;

These provisions conflict with each other in cases where a user accesses another user's account. Sections 4d and 10, along with the Repercussions section of the Rules and Guidelines seem to allow it when permission is granted, while Section 4f, along with the first rule in the Rules and Guidelines, forbid it whether or not the original account owner authorizes access (unless there's a way to control access to accounts without using passwords).

These parts would be relevant in the following cases:

1. The user in question is quitting or expecting to die, and thus sends account details to another user
   
2. The account in question is a designated mule for running specific threads and/or guilds, and the guild/thread organizers share access to it
   
3. The account in question is a designated mule of a guild that's being transferred from the current captain to the next guild captain
   

I won't have problems with whatever choice you make in resolving this particular contradiction. I just want to see either/both of those provisions revised in the new ToS so that they'll no longer contradict each other.

Hey there, just wanted to weigh in/ask a question here. Doesn't a third party typically mean a non gaia part as in a non Gaia personal and a non member? So like if asked you to give your password to Amazon that would be wrong or if you decided to give it to them on your own. Typically a third party in a contract is someone that the contract for the said thing (in this case your account) is not between.

I could be missinterpreting and not saying you are wrong, just curious. smile

The agreement is between you and Gaia, so "third parties" would refer to anyone who's not involved, like other Gaia members.

[Katulain]

Alexius08

The agreement is between you and Gaia, so "third parties" would refer to anyone who's not involved, like other Gaia members.

For clarification, this is what I know to be the enforced standard. The other clause is typically cited through appeals process but rarely used as a standard for enforcement from what I've experienced/seen.

[Prue]

Alexius08

By the way, has anyone here noticed that some parts of the ToS contradict each other? I'm talking about Sections 4d and 4f.

Section 4d

YOU AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:...
impersonate another person, user or member or access another Member's account without permission, or impersonate Gaia staff;

Section 4f

YOU AGREE TO REFRAIN FROM ENGAGING IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:...
share Gaia Online passwords with a third party or encourage another Member to do so;

These provisions conflict with each other in cases where a user accesses another user's account. Sections 4d and 10, along with the Repercussions section of the Rules and Guidelines seem to allow it when permission is granted, while Section 4f, along with the first rule in the Rules and Guidelines, forbid it whether or not the original account owner authorizes access (unless there's a way to control access to accounts without using passwords).

These parts would be relevant in the following cases:

1. The user in question is quitting or expecting to die, and thus sends account details to another user
   
2. The account in question is a designated mule for running specific threads and/or guilds, and the guild/thread organizers share access to it
   
3. The account in question is a designated mule of a guild that's being transferred from the current captain to the next guild captain
   

I won't have problems with whatever choice you make in resolving this particular contradiction. I just want to see either/both of those provisions revised in the new ToS so that they'll no longer contradict each other.

Just to clarify this, account sharing is not something Gaia endorses. Many times when someone is hacked, it is due to the user giving their password to someone they think they can trust.

To be totally technical, if someone's account is accessed by a third party without their permission, that is hacking. Generally an account is investigated if there is clear evidence that the account was accessed by someone other than the true owner.

Your password is to be kept totally confidential, or you subject the account to being abused and accessed by unauthorized persons. In regard to policy, we do not allow users to share passwords for their own security, though this is obviously not something that can easily be enforced.

It's true that some users will share accounts for co-owned shops, auctions, casinos, etc. This, by default, requires password sharing. This is officially discouraged, but not something we actively moderate against. Additionally, by sharing your password, you may have a harder time receiving assistance in the case of your account being hacked.

Similarly, you may not ask another member for their password under any circumstances.

[Katulain]

Prue

Just to clarify this, account sharing is not something Gaia endorses. Many times when someone is hacked, it is due to the user giving their password to someone they think they can trust.

To be totally technical, if someone's account is accessed by a third party without their permission, that is hacking. Generally an account is investigated if there is clear evidence that the account was accessed by someone other than the true owner.

Your password is to be kept totally confidential, or you subject the account to being abused and accessed by unauthorized persons. In regard to policy, we do not allow users to share passwords for their own security, though this is obviously not something that can easily be enforced.

It's true that some users will share accounts for co-owned shops, auctions, casinos, etc. This, by default, requires password sharing. This is officially discouraged, but not something we actively moderate against. Additionally, by sharing your password, you may have a harder time receiving assistance in the case of your account being hacked.

Similarly, you may not ask another member for their password under any circumstances.

I'm not sure that I understand this. Perhaps you could clarify.

True or False: The question: "May I have your account?" is highly discouraged but allowed.

True or False: The question: "May I have your account's password" is not allowed.

True or False: Offsite, asking for a member's account is highly discouraged but allowed.

True or False: If a member offers up their account, offsite, this is highly discouraged but allowed.

True or False: If a member offers up their account, onsite, this is highly discouraged but allowed.


These questions could honestly have an impact on a warning I received on Gaia Online's subreddit that a current Gaia omni-mod is the lead moderator for. Gaia's ToS was cited but perhaps misinterpreted as reddit is occasionally used to privately share account information (as is other sites, or PMs).

[Alexius08]

Katulain

Prue

Just to clarify this, account sharing is not something Gaia endorses. Many times when someone is hacked, it is due to the user giving their password to someone they think they can trust.

To be totally technical, if someone's account is accessed by a third party without their permission, that is hacking. Generally an account is investigated if there is clear evidence that the account was accessed by someone other than the true owner.

Your password is to be kept totally confidential, or you subject the account to being abused and accessed by unauthorized persons. In regard to policy, we do not allow users to share passwords for their own security, though this is obviously not something that can easily be enforced.

It's true that some users will share accounts for co-owned shops, auctions, casinos, etc. This, by default, requires password sharing. This is officially discouraged, but not something we actively moderate against. Additionally, by sharing your password, you may have a harder time receiving assistance in the case of your account being hacked.

Similarly, you may not ask another member for their password under any circumstances.

I'm not sure that I understand this. Perhaps you could clarify.

True or False: The question: "May I have your account?" is highly discouraged but allowed.

True or False: The question: "May I have your account's password" is not allowed.

True or False: Offsite, asking for a member's account is highly discouraged but allowed.

True or False: If a member offers up their account, offsite, this is highly discouraged but allowed.

True or False: If a member offers up their account, onsite, this is highly discouraged but allowed.


These questions could honestly have an impact on a warning I received on Gaia Online's subreddit that a current Gaia omni-mod is the lead moderator for. Gaia's ToS was cited but perhaps misinterpreted as reddit is occasionally used to privately share account information (as is other sites, or PMs).

Basing on Prue's response, I think the answer is False for #1 & #3 and True for the rest. It's easy to look for people who request others' account details offsite and onsite. However, once the account owner goes around and actively looks for other people to share or take over, it's hard to determine which user is using the account to do which actions. If they say that #4 and #5 isn't allowed, they'll have a hard time enforcing it. (EDIT: Their current stance is, basically, do #4 and #5 at your own risk. Rules against offsite trading would still apply to all cases. If real-life money or offsite stuff is involved, a permaban is guaranteed.)

Either way, I hope the new ToS would be more clear on this.

[Katulain]

Alexius08

Katulain

Prue

Just to clarify this, account sharing is not something Gaia endorses. Many times when someone is hacked, it is due to the user giving their password to someone they think they can trust.

To be totally technical, if someone's account is accessed by a third party without their permission, that is hacking. Generally an account is investigated if there is clear evidence that the account was accessed by someone other than the true owner.

Your password is to be kept totally confidential, or you subject the account to being abused and accessed by unauthorized persons. In regard to policy, we do not allow users to share passwords for their own security, though this is obviously not something that can easily be enforced.

It's true that some users will share accounts for co-owned shops, auctions, casinos, etc. This, by default, requires password sharing. This is officially discouraged, but not something we actively moderate against. Additionally, by sharing your password, you may have a harder time receiving assistance in the case of your account being hacked.

Similarly, you may not ask another member for their password under any circumstances.

I'm not sure that I understand this. Perhaps you could clarify.

True or False: The question: "May I have your account?" is highly discouraged but allowed.

True or False: The question: "May I have your account's password" is not allowed.

True or False: Offsite, asking for a member's account is highly discouraged but allowed.

True or False: If a member offers up their account, offsite, this is highly discouraged but allowed.

True or False: If a member offers up their account, onsite, this is highly discouraged but allowed.


These questions could honestly have an impact on a warning I received on Gaia Online's subreddit that a current Gaia omni-mod is the lead moderator for. Gaia's ToS was cited but perhaps misinterpreted as reddit is occasionally used to privately share account information (as is other sites, or PMs).

Basing on Prue's response, I think the answer is False for #1 & #3 and True for the rest. It's easy to look for people who request others' account details offsite and onsite. However, once the account owner goes around and actively looks for other people to share or take over, it's hard to determine which user is using the account to do which actions. If they say that #4 and #5 isn't allowed, they'll have a hard time enforcing it. (EDIT: Their current stance is, basically, do #4 and #5 at your own risk. Rules against offsite trading would still apply to all cases. If real-life money or offsite stuff is involved, a permaban is guaranteed.)

Either way, I hope the new ToS would be more clear on this.

That's interesting because the way I interpreted Prue, #1, #3, #4, and #5 are all true. #2 is false? Essentially, the explanation I understood was that, asking for someone's account is not wrong, but asking for their password explicitly is. Which you may interpret to be the same thing but... here's an example of gray area:

A user is going to leave Gaia and has several accounts with many items they are willing to give away. Another user approaches the outgoing user and asks them for the account, rather than their items through trade. In return, the outgoing user agrees and sends the password via a PM.

Under my interpretation of what Prue wrote, this is acceptable, but discouraged.

But changing the narrative. Let's say a user asked the outgoing user "Please give me the password to your account(s)". That would not be acceptable.

But yeah...

Alexius08

Either way, I hope the new ToS would be more clear on this.

[Katulain]

Legal

[Alexius08]

It's good to see you handling appeals for bans over previous policies. I'm still waiting for a new ToS version, however.

[Katulain]

Alexius08

It's good to see you handling appeals for bans over previous policies. I'm still waiting for a new ToS version, however.

Still hoping for an independent investigation spearheading an effort to find and review unfair bans with regard to multiple 'overboard' permabans for ToS violations occurring during Schofield's time between 2013-2016. Less optimistic after that thread. :/

[terradi]

Katulain

Still hoping for an independent investigation spearheading an effort to find and review unfair bans with regard to multiple 'overboard' permabans for ToS violations occurring during Schofield's time between 2013-2016. Less optimistic after that thread. :/

I don't think they have the staff to do this. Easier to have people opt-in to a ban review than try and review three years worth of bans, even if it were possible to narrow down only permanent bans, I'd be surprised if every single ban that may have been connected with that was earmarked in such a way to make for easy retrieval.

While I think there's potential for discussion on public versus private review (neither system is perfect, and I do respect that Lanzer is trying to boost the rep of the mod team in response to this battering by offering transparency -- even if this is frustrating for those who'd prefer matters handled privately or feel this is intimidating) I don't think it is feasible to do this in any way other than via an opt-in system.