@acdw I get the feeling that the answer to this question would only come after extensive research into the history of webrings.
@ontploffing haha, truth. I cobbled something together though.
@acdw Ooh; what do you have? I'm curious to read it.
@ontploffing let me know what you think!
@acdw So my immediate thoughts are:
- this page design, I like it
- you'll need to have definitions for every word under "Unacceptable content"
- split the reporting/consequences section
You're right about definitions, or at least a gesture toward them. I'm not sure how to reliably define those words right now, but it's a good thing to keep in mind.
How does content policy apply to user-generated content like comments?
Can a character in a fictional story do any of the ___ mentioned in the unacceptable content policy?
Can a webring webpage discuss an article on ___ with liberal quotations therefrom?
How do you distinguish whether a work /is/ ___ or just /mentions/ ___?
Is ___ content acceptable if it includes a browsewrap or other method to prevent unwary readers from seeing it?
These are really good questions, thanks for bringing them up. I think as to the comments, at least for me, commenters' words are their own, you know? As for the rest, the characters, the discussions of, etc., those are more squishy and I'm not sure where the line would be drawn. I want to say we can run on a complaint process, but I worry that's too easy.
@acdw I think that where I would draw the line is:
- the page displayed at the URL registered on the Webring ("The Page") may not have Unacceptable Content on it.
- the Page may link to pages with Unacceptable Content, so long as that Unacceptable Content is labeled in a way that allows Users to avoid unintentionally seeing it. Acceptable forms of labeling include, but are not limited to:
- content warnings on the linking Page
- content warnings or browsewrap on the linked page
@ontploffing this is sounding okay, maybe with an addition to the consequences section to where, if a page is found to be unacceptable, they're asked to put a cw on it
@acdw Yeah, having deescalation and dispute resolution policies is good.
Have you thought about ownership of the webring? Who gets to set policy, and so on? Is it a benevolent dictatorship of you for now?
@ontploffing for now, it's a benevolent dictatorship; I don't really see it being a big deal, since it's just the coordination of the member sites, and it's small right now. But it is definitely something I've thought about coming up in the future. Maybe it could be like a co-op thing? I'm not sure. I don't know the history of webrings to know what their structures were like.
@acdw That's okay; but you should still make it explicit in that organizing document. "This webring is owned by Case Duckworth, who currently functions as a benevolent dictator. The future status of ownership of this webring is tbd."
@ontploffing yes, that's a good idea. Thanks for all your suggestions and help!