Proposed Content Policy ToS and FAQ changes

Post Header

Published:

2013-06-28 18:07:52 UTC

Tags:

In mid-March our Content Policy workgroup asked for user feedback about the following ways in which we would have to address the addition of fannish non-fiction content to the AO3. Because work type is not yet in place as part of the basic upload form, we have been working on a general policy focused on tagging. Based on internal and external feedback, we have made some changes to the initial proposal, though the basic structure remains the same.

The Terms of Service document has proposed minor language changes in the following sections and one major addition:

Section II - minor
Section IV B and F - minor
Section IV K new sections 5 and 6
Section V D - minor

You can access this in either Word format or PDF format.

The new FAQ proposal includes some minor word changes in various sections, primarily in how users are referenced ("they"). The major new additions are labeled as follows:

Can I archive nonfiction?
How will “ephemeral” be defined?
What falls within the definition of fandom nonfiction?
What isn't fandom nonfiction?
How does tagging apply to podfics, vids, and other nontextual content? Do I need to use particular tags?
Do I need to tag for “fan fiction”?"
What kinds of mis-tagging does Abuse handle?
What do you mean by recategorizing a fanwork type?
What do you mean by a manual recategorization?
When will you change a language tag?
When will you remove a fandom tag?
Will you recategorize or remove other tags, such as relationship tags?
What should I do about recs/commentary on fanworks?
I would like to create a list of recommendations or a list of works that use certain tropes.
What counts as a recommendation that should be in a bookmark versus a more general discussion or analysis of multiple fanworks?
How does the harassment policy apply to reviews?
I am looking for a particular story. Can I create a work explaining what I’m looking for?
What about a fanwork prompt?
What about a letter to someone I've been anonymously matched with for a challenge?
How do these rules apply to bookmarks?
Addition to "What is tag wrangling?" section.

You can access this in either Word format or PDF format.

As stated in our Terms of Service this post constitutes the beginning of a two week comment period regarding these changes: "At the end of the comment period, proposed changes will be voted on by the Board. If the Board votes in favor, the changes will become effective at that time."

Actions

Comments

Sorry, this news post doesn't allow comments.

Elf (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 08:13PM UTC

The new TOS says:

I would like to create a list of recommendations or a list of works that use certain tropes.
Please use our collections feature for this rather than creating a separate work.
But only authors can add works to collections, and they only apply to works on the site. Will we be able to make collections of bookmarks? (That would work nicely as rec lists.)
I can understand rec lists not being considered "meta" (some rec lists are definitely meta, but most probably aren't), but giving advice that *cannot be followed* is not a reasonable way to say "no, we'd like you to use a different feature for that purpose."

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Support (Official) Fri 28 Jun 2013 08:45PM UTC
  
  Hi, Elf!
  It’s not currently possible to directly add works by other authors to a collection, but you can add bookmarks/recs, complete with your own bookmarker’s tags and notes, by putting the collection name into the “Add to Collections” box on the bookmark creation form. If you have any questions about setting up a collection for recs, please contact Support!
  Best,
  Lady Oscar
  AO3 Support
  (Edited to fix a typo that was making the parser sad)
  
  Last Edited Fri 28 Jun 2013 08:51PM UTC
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Elf (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:19PM UTC
    
    Thanks, and sorry! I'd looked over some of the collections info but missed that you can add bookmarks to them.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. AO3_Support (Official) Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:41PM UTC
      
      No problem! I'm afraid our Collections and Challenges documentation is currently due for an overhaul.
      Best,
      Lady Oscar
      AO3 Support
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
  3. melannen Sat 29 Jun 2013 12:00AM UTC
    
    Can I add another vote that bookmarks be mentioned in this section of the FAQ anyway, if you're going to bring it up at all? I had the same first thought as Elf on reading that, and it's possible to create a themed fic list just by distinctively tagging bookmarks without using collections at all.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
busaikko Fri 28 Jun 2013 08:38PM UTC

So re ToS 4-6, "we reserve the right to manually recategorize language and other Archive tags, including fandom tags" -- does this mean that finally, there is a rule in place to correct typos? Does this give tag wranglers the power to flag a tag like "Lrod of the Rings" or "Harry Potterr" and either a) correct it or b) alert the poster that they have a typo?
... this would be a wonderful thing. (Though I note in the FAQ it says "We encourage users to engage with each other on these issues" -- which I really hope does not mean that readers are supposed to notify posters that their tags are misspelled.)
(argh, half my comment was eaten!)
From the ToS: "I would like to create a list of recommendations or a list of works that use certain tropes.
Please use our collections feature for this rather than creating a separate work." But -- this is not possible, is it? I just created several collections, and was under the impression that only authors could add works.
As well, on this page there's no indication that the ToS and FAQ links lead to MSWord .docs -- they are identical to the 2 internal AO3 links. Giving a visual cue, like "Terms of Service [downloadable .doc]" would help people on devices which do not open files, or do not support .doc files. (like, for example, my cell phone.)

Last Edited Fri 28 Jun 2013 08:41PM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. samjohnsson Fri 28 Jun 2013 08:42PM UTC
  
  Not speaking as chair here, since I haven't gotten clearance, but I don't think it's spelling so much as when an exclusively RPF fic is placed in the fictional fandom, which has become common in a number of fandoms. In any case, any changes per the ToS are strictly handled by Abuse - not even Support.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. AO3_Support (Official) Fri 28 Jun 2013 08:55PM UTC
  
  Hi! You can't add works directly to a collection, but you can add bookmarks/recs to those works by putting the collection name in the "Add to Collections" box on the bookmark creation form.
  Best,
  Lady Oscar
  AO3 Support
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
3. 1. busaikko Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:27PM UTC
    
    Then the FAQ should read:
    I would like to create a list of recommendations or a list of works that use certain tropes.
    Please [strike]use our collections feature[/strike] *add your bookmarks to a collection you have made for your rec list* for this rather than creating a separate work.
    ...it would absolutely never have occurred to me to approach "add to collections" from Bookmarks -- there's no connection in my mind between Bookmarks and Collections. Not sure how typical a user I am, but I do note at least one other person here had the same confusion.
    (Now I need to find out whether Bookmarks Collections are different from Regular Collections, and whether a Collection ahs to be created first before I can add bookmarks in, or whether I can create one from a Bookmark.)
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. AO3_Support (Official) Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:46PM UTC
      
      Hi! Collections can contain only bookmarks, only works, or a combination of the two; there is no specific type of collection for bookmarks. A collection does have to be created separately before bookmarks or works can be added to it.
      Best,
      Lady Oscar
      AO3 Support
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. busaikko Fri 28 Jun 2013 10:13PM UTC
        
        Thank you! That clears things up! And your icon has me feeling very nostalgic *g*
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
4. Sheogorath Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:59PM UTC
  
  I just created several collections, and was under the impression that only authors could add works.
  AFAIK, that's not entirely true. While in the ordinary course of events only authors can add their works to collections, if an author has allowed works to be added automatically (as I have), then the user who started the collection can add them.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Mu (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 08:53PM UTC

I chose my tags for a reason. I'm not interested in having to check routinely whether anybody has just retagged my works.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Elf (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:25PM UTC
  
  I don't believe they change tags; they sometimes recategorize them. Some tags are syn'd with others; sometimes they un-syn a set of formerly-connected tags. And they assign tags to meta-tags, and subtags to some tags.
  So if your fic was tagged with "car sex," that might be set as a subtag of "cars" or "sex" or both. "Sex in the Batmobile" might be synned to "car sex" or made a subtag of it.
  If your fic was tagged with "great sex in a car," it would be syn'd to "car sex," so people searching for "car sex" could find it, but it'd still show up as "great sex in a car" on your story. And if your fic were tagged "car seXXX," it'd be synned the same way.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Mu (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:36PM UTC
    
    That's what's done now, I don't think that warrants a TOS change, so to me it reads like retagging my works.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. Elf (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:44PM UTC
      
      It looks to me like the changes are (1) someday, we'll add a "work type" category, and we may assign works to what seems the appropriate category; (2) we'll change language tags if they're obviously wrong; (3) we may change fandom tags if they're obviously wrong.
      And "obviously wrong" doesn't mean tagging something for Thor when it's an Avengers story; it means tagging it for Batman fandom because Ton wears a Batman t-shirt at some point.
      They said they're not planning on changing relationship or freeform tags at all.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Mu (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:49PM UTC
        
        So they are going to decide which tags the author "wrongly" put on a work. Does this only work for completed stories or for WIPs too? Can I no longer tag all relevant fandom in a WIP because I may have had a Batman Tshirt foreshadowing but no Batman yet and it has taken me six months to add another Batmanless chapter?
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. Subarukun Fri 28 Jun 2013 10:11PM UTC
        
        In that case I'd probably put up an author's note explaining why I use the tag from the beginning although there are only Batmanless chapters now. (Also I wish I could finally mark something like this as a crossover to make this clear right from the start.)
        I don't think this will lead to "random retagging". This is a way for Abuse to react in isolated cases and when there were readers complaints and it's an obvious mistake/miscategorization (like RPF listed under the canon fandom and so on). I think that's reasonable, especially in cases where it's obviously a mistake.
        I understand why you feel a bit on the fence about it, but I don't see the TOS changes indicating that the freedom of creators to chose tags will be taken away.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
3. AO3_Support (Official) Fri 28 Jun 2013 10:28PM UTC
  
  Hi,
  The process will be very similar to how Abuse cases work right now. If a user claims a story is tagged with an incorrect fandom the Abuse team will investigate. If the author, for instance, tagged the work as 'The Hobbit' when it is clearly a 'The Hobbit RPF' work, we will contact the author and ask them to change it. If we do not hear back, the fandom tag will be changed to something like "Unspecified Fandom". The author can edit this to add the correct fandom tag at anytime.
  In the aforementioned case, as long as it is noted or referenced somewhere the work will eventually be a crossover, Abuse will not take action. If the author prefers not to indicate it's a crossover, to avoid confusion I'd recommend not adding the fandom tag until the crossover is actually introduced.
  Matty
  AO3 Support/Abuse Staff
  (edited for clarity)
  
  Last Edited Fri 28 Jun 2013 10:30PM UTC
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
4. 1. Lydia (lydiabell) Sat 29 Jun 2013 02:00AM UTC
    
    I know that as a reader, I would strongly prefer for stories that might cross over with my fandom at some point in the future not to show up under my fandom until the crossover actually happens.
    
    Last Edited Sat 29 Jun 2013 02:01AM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
What for? (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 08:57PM UTC

Why is there a comment period, if it's a board only decision? Presumably the board already thought about these changes.
And can you provide readable versions instead of .doc with the proposed changes clearly marked?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. OTW_Communications (Official) Sat 29 Jun 2013 12:26AM UTC
  
  Hello What for
  PDF versions have just been added to the post. If you scan through to the sections indicated in the post, you'll find the proposed changes marked in red.
  The comment period is for the board to get external feedback now that we have specific proposed language in place, even if no new issues are raised.
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Nonny Quixote (Guest) Tue 20 Aug 2013 02:50PM UTC
    
    Here is a good set of instructions for the semantically correct HTML for marking up a revised document to be displayed on the web: Comparing and contrasting ins, del, and s
    The post includes some good suggestions for styling the inserted and deleted text that provide better accessibility than browser defaults.
    Next time you need to show your users proposed changes, there is no need for links to .doc or .pdf files. Just use good HTML because it is always more accessible.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. OTW_Communications (Official) Wed 21 Aug 2013 01:16AM UTC
      
      Hi Nonny Quixote
      Thanks for the link! Unfortunately, the problem with presenting documents in HTML has more to do with staff abilities and how they are drafted.
      There are many people who volunteer for the OTW whose knowledge of HTML is limited to non-existent, and documents are not drafted this way internally. Rather, most are done with a word processing software that does not allow for automatic coding -- it must all be added manually. For example, when the OTW's annual report is ready for release we are able to create a PDF within a day but it then needs to be sent to our Web Strategy, Design & Development committee for manual coding. The HTML version can then take weeks to be completed depending on the availability of Web's staff. As such we generally only go through this process for finished official documents, especially since there might have to be multiple drafts and thus multiple delays while they are coded.
      Claudia Rebaza
      Chair, OTW Communications
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Nonny Quixote (Guest) Wed 21 Aug 2013 01:51PM UTC
        
        I was aware that doing this the right way, that is, the way that makes the information accessible to the most users is more work than your quick posting of a link to a document download and then letting the user do the work. Or not be able to read it at all.
        It is also painfully obvious that the available people to work on the front end of any of your sites is a count on one hand number.
        But thank you for your comment which is the single best illustration I've seen in a while of why accessibility and usability begin in the very foundation of an organization.
        Accessibility has to be in the mind of the creators of a site. All of them. It has to be there when you first think up a new feature or a new project. It has to be there when you talk about the professional development of your volunteers and "staffers". Of course, you have to actually promote professional development in the first place. It sure sounds like you're relying on what your volunteers know the day they sign up.
        You, the OTW, are stuck on adding on accessibility as a feature later, when you get the time, when all the important things are done first. When it doesn't interfere with the way you've always done it. When someone volunteers who already knows more than how to run up a Livejournal post. I know you're really proud that you've made your sites work (mostly) with screen readers, but that's not accessibility. Clearly, you see accessibility as a barrier to development and as an optional enhancement.
        You have chosen to do this. You have made the institutional choice to not provide accessible web services but to pretend you'll totally get to it some day. Is it too late now for you to ever change your attitude?
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
3. Agreed (Guest) Sat 29 Jun 2013 08:54AM UTC
  
  We were already informed that the OTW board has approved meta and is going to implement it even though there is absolutely no way to manage it. Yet another case of the OTW claiming they serve fandom but actually they only serve their own interests without looking beyond their own noses to see that they the OTW board is not the entirety of fandom, no matter how much they might like to think they are.
  Where are work types? Maybe you should make sure the Archive actually supports what you want it to host so that the ToS don't have to be rewritten in such a way that they become so nonsensical it's almost as though they're a farce...
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
4. 1. sanders Sat 29 Jun 2013 07:53PM UTC
    
    Changes to the TOS and adding works type filtering are two of the steps to fully hosting meta, and to moving toward being a truly multimedia archive. Deciding whether meta belongs on the archive and fits into our mission was absolutely a board level-decision, as we're meant to determine those sorts of issues. It was not a decision made in a vaccuum, but one that took into account a range of feedback from well beyond the Board, and was made intentionally to widen the scope of fans we do represent. Implementation is, and will be, collaborative work between our committees, just like any other changes to the archive.
    ~sanders, otw board member & treasurer
    
    Last Edited Sun 30 Jun 2013 09:49PM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
kelcat Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:10PM UTC

The changes seem to be very fair and accommodating, and I appreciate the OTW actually listening to and implementing user feedback! (such a rare thing on websites nowadays)

Comment Actions
- Thread
adifferntanon (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:24PM UTC

Do you have any timeframe for when categories (ability to categorize work type: fandom nonfiction, fanart, fanfiction, etc) will be implemented on AO3?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Haha (Guest) Sat 29 Jun 2013 08:56AM UTC
  
  From what I've heard the OTW Board has actively stopped all work on categorizing by work type even though the committees that work on the Archive want to implement it. Ridiculous...
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. sanders Sat 29 Jun 2013 07:45PM UTC
    
    That isn't what happened at all. Preliminary conversations started between committees to get works types happening, and Board asked staff to make sure all of the relevant committees were looped in, and that a proposal outlining the plan for development and implementation be written so all of those committees would be able to follow the progress.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. Haha (Guest) Tue 02 Jul 2013 01:54PM UTC
      
      Please don't lie. The Board said they were going to allow the committees to discuss the issue of meta and give input (which would have meant issues like implementation could have been addressed) and then unilaterally changed course. It would be nice if the Board would actually be honest about this with users. The committees and volunteers were shut out of the closed-door discussion.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
Anon (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 09:24PM UTC

I'd like to know if you're going to clarify the policy on generic writing guides that have nothing to specifically do with fandom. I've seen several pieces that amount to just "Hey, don't make these common spelling and grammar mistakes" and don't mention fandom at all, and I don't see how they belong here.

Comment Actions
- Thread
Subarukun Fri 28 Jun 2013 10:20PM UTC

Why are these .doc files? This had me confused for a moment.
The wording is clearer than it was last time and I like how many of the suggestions from user comments were taken into account. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with where you draw the line for allowed/not-allowed. I'd have preferred a even narrower scope for non-ficiton, but that decision was made already anyway. As long as I can filter the non-fiction stuff out easily, I'll be okay.
Will the TOS change be announced more widely via a banner or e-mail message?
Also any idea when the category implementation will actually be viable? Because this still sounds like this is going to be a mess.

Comment Actions
- Thread
Nonny Quixote (Guest) Fri 28 Jun 2013 10:58PM UTC

Link purpose: accessibility for web writers.
"Warn users, within the link, when links will open documents (PDF, Word and so on)"
I recommend the entire site for anyone who posts or edits content for OTW sites. This isn't about pretty design, this is about usable and accessible content.
Also, the underlined edits in the linked files are very hard for some people to read and assuming all users can open a .doc file is tacky as well as bad practice.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. OTW_Communications (Official) Sat 29 Jun 2013 12:28AM UTC
  
  Hello Nonny Quixote
  Apologies for the difficulties. Yes, this could have been better presented. The post now includes PDF versions and has the two formats broken out separately.
  Claudia Rebaza
  Co-Chair, OTW Communications
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Account Deleted Sat 29 Jun 2013 02:05AM UTC
    
    Is there a reason they couldn't just be HTML documents...?
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
night_reveals Fri 28 Jun 2013 11:09PM UTC

Great to see there's being some action taken irt TOS and especially the FAQ, though it would have been nice to have an online format delivery for the changes themselves.
One quick question: lately I've been seeing people post "fic prompts" to the Archive as works on their own. (Basically people posting pleas for others to write for them.) Under the new rules re: ephemerality, these would be disallowed, no?

Last Edited Fri 28 Jun 2013 11:10PM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Subarukun Sat 29 Jun 2013 08:20AM UTC
  
  I was relieved to see the new FAQ address this, because this has become a bit of an annoyance. The FAQ says:
  Where we provide a specific function (search, bookmarking, challenges) we will ask you to use the specific methods we provide for those activities rather than create separate works.
  and
  What about a fanwork prompt?
  Please use our challenge function for this rather than creating a separate work
  .
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
melannen Sat 29 Jun 2013 12:02AM UTC

This looks great! I like the changes (and look forward to the day when we have Media Types with great anticipation.)
My only other, very minor, comment:
>>primarily autobiographical or non-fandom-related essays (e.g., essays on bike lanes, even if they contain a single reference to a fannish source);
...Archive is officially declaring that Bicycling is not a fandom, then? :D

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. N. Ot Serious (Guest) Sat 29 Jun 2013 12:50AM UTC
  
  Gasp, and just when the Tour is about to start!
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
msilverstar Sat 29 Jun 2013 03:35AM UTC

I think the FAQs don't have enough context, they just jump in.
The suspending account for email bouncing question is particularly confusing. It's unclear why it would even come up. I think starting out explaining that it only applies in an abuse complaint situation would help. It should probably be in the abuse section -- out of context, it's hard to tell what a "strike" is. Actually, it's a fairly North American-centric concept and you might want to put in a Q "what is a strike?"
Also, what does warranty even mean here? Are readers buyers? If not, why this? I think you should add more of the original text and say where it shows up and what it's supposed to convey.

Last Edited Sat 29 Jun 2013 03:37AM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. msilverstar Sat 29 Jun 2013 03:48AM UTC
  
  1. "If you use Tag Search, you'll be able to find fanworks that anyone, whether creator or user, has labelled "wingfic.""
  This example looks like a leftover from a more consistent set of examples, I think you should either remove it or apply examples of wingfic to the other points.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
shinetheway Sat 29 Jun 2013 05:28AM UTC

[sighs] This is about meta. Again.
From my perspective, wanting meta is one thing. I get it, I really do--there's nothing like a well-written fannish essay. Cereta just reposted her brilliant essay on fandom and male privilege, which I read and loved years ago and which is still perfectly pertinent today. It doesn't seem realistic to me to add a new type of fanwork to a site which is still in beta--and whose beta status is occasionally justified by server and code hiccups. But I get it. So you're going to allow meta to be posted.
But this FAQ makes it clear that your real goal is more unrealistic than that. You want meta--but only the Good Kind.
The example of "ephemeral" meta given is a particularly dismissive stereotype of a flailing incoherent teenage fangirl, an example of something that's a negative and undesirable text. To my mind this is, by the way, inappropriate in a formal administrative document (why are stereotypically "teenage girl" responses always a shorthand for immature writing?) but that's not the point. The point is, work like that is going to be posted anyway, and who is going to make the distinction using what criteria? You've just set yourselves up as the judge on fandomwide nonfiction content, in communities (manga, RPF, literary, webcomics, slash, het, tv/movies, music, perfume ads, whatever) that you may have absolutely no experience in to gauge relevancy, quality, and context. And you make it clear that you WILL be judging what is and is not fandom nonfiction by clarifying exactly what's permitted, and in fact saying that the things that are not allowable are "potentially limitless". (Maybe we just remove the "potentially" from that statement? ;)
I don't believe the volunteers' time and energy should be dedicated towards this kind of hairsplitting, in fandoms they might have no experience in, making judgements on the OMG SAM'S HAIR!ness and exactly how much of a post is designed to be experienced "in a moment" to see if it's non-ephemeral enough. It seems like there's only one way to control how much and what type of meta is posted to AO3, and that's to disallow the genre (at least until you can use a slightly better example of ephemera than Becky The Fan). DW and LJ aren't dead yet, and even if they were there are still dozens of platforms where this type of meta can safely and peacefully live.
Finally, you don't say what you're going to do if you judge content to be inappropriate, so it isn't clear if you'd be deleting user data, and whether you'd do it with their permission or knowledge. You say you can "correct" a misidentified work on your own if a user hasn't responded to your content, and that the servers aren't set up to be able to handle ephemeral postings and that you need to set limits, but you don't go into details. If someone posts something that an admin judges as "ephemeral," will it be deleted by default? Referred to the user to either correct it to a more non-ephemeral text or delete it themselves? If they don't respond, will it be deleted then? Will the user receive a warning or suspension? You've set up a standard, but I don't see how it's being enforced.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AnonMetaWriter (Guest) Sat 29 Jun 2013 08:58AM UTC
  
  You've just set yourselves up as the judge on fandomwide nonfiction content, in communities (manga, RPF, literary, webcomics, slash, het, tv/movies, music, perfume ads, whatever) that you may have absolutely no experience in to gauge relevancy, quality, and context. And you make it clear that you WILL be judging what is and is not fandom nonfiction by clarifying exactly what's permitted, and in fact saying that the things that are not allowable are "potentially limitless".
  Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. Pslasher Sat 29 Jun 2013 12:50PM UTC
  
  I agree with this. Either you allow it or you don't; I don't think the OTW has any more right to judge what is acceptable meta than they do what are acceptable fanworks of other types. There are plenty of terrible fics that amount to nothing more than "OMG SAM'S HAIR", but no one proposes kicking them off the archive. Nor should they be kicked off the archive. The AO3 has filter and search functions to find the 'good' fic, and that should apply to meta as well.
  Personally, I support Meta on the AO3 as long as we get functioning work types, so this comment refers only to the OTW moderating the quality of meta.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
AnonMetaWriter (Guest) Sat 29 Jun 2013 09:33AM UTC

A few questions/concerns:
1) You're adding a section to the Terms of Service addressing Fanwork Types. Based on the fact that there is no indication here that a clear way to denote Fanwork Types is being added to the Archive along with the change, how enforceable is that? Should you really be adding actual terms to the use of the service when the means to actually comply with those terms do not exist?
2) All instances where specific tagging is required of the ToS or FAQ are related to defined tag categories (ratings, warnings, etc.) and the Archive's standpoint has been that beyond those, users are able to freely tag however they please. Suddenly telling meta writers that they are expected to use Additional Tags to denote that their work is "meta" or "nonfiction" seems completely counterintuitive to the rest of the ToS/FAQ and the AO3's general standpoint on these issues previously. (And if this is going to be the case, then why aren't all work types required to be noted in Additional Tags - aside from the easy and reasonable argument that it would probably make more sense to create a new required tag field 'Work Type' that not only makes it clearer and easier but also doesn't specifically single out one fannish practice over others - I see no similar request/requirement for podfic, art, fanmixes, photo manips, etc.) This is not an inclusive or welcoming set of terms for those who write meta - in the slightest - and is really troubling and upsetting to me as a fan whose primary fannish activity is in the "nonfiction" realm.
Generally, I applaud the AO3/OTW for being willing to recognize meta as a legitimate fannish practice, but you all are going about this in a way that reads as either lip-service or that you're begrudgingly allowing meta onto the site - neither of which is supportive to this particular part of the fannish community.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. I concur with all of this (Guest) Sat 29 Jun 2013 11:28AM UTC
  
  Basically they are telling meta posters 'please tag your work because we had many people complain who want to filter them out'. Charming!
  Another problem with introducing more or less mandatory medium tags to the additional tags is that the 'meta' tag is already being used for fictional works that have a meta slant to them, as the sort of content information that usually goes into additional tags. Also I'm not sure new meta posters will naturally study the TOS more closely than fic writer newbie users who just starts filling out the posting form as seems logical to them. Or that people who have been using the archive before for fic will suddenly go check when they never needed to before. If there's no indication in the posting format itself this will just go over people's heads imo.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. AnonMetaWriter (Guest) Sun 30 Jun 2013 03:37PM UTC
    
    Exactly. If you want people to tag for work types, create a mandatory field for doing so. And until then, don't be putting things like that in the ToS. The AO3 ToS used to be a great example of very well-written terms but with these changes they become so incredibly tentative and sections contradict and turn on themselves in ways that disappointment to no end...
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
onlyforreading Sat 29 Jun 2013 09:35AM UTC

Soooooooo, out of curiosity, have you done the coding needed to identify the different work types? Have you even consulted the coders?
Or have the idiots in the Board let power go to their heads, and made this decision without consulting everyone? And let me guess, have left the people who do the communicating in the dark to deal with the frustrated comments this will produce - AGAIN.
Where are the people who made this decisions? Why aren't they here answering questions?
Are you just planning on letting people post this stuff, tag it whatever the hell they want and clutter up everything?
You won't let the tag wranglers correct obvious SPELLING mistakes in tags, but you'll judge if meta is tagged correctly?
And by the way, I just got a new laptop. Guess what files I can't open at the moment? Did you guess PDF and DOC? Cause ding, ding, ding we have a winner.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. sanders Sat 29 Jun 2013 08:15PM UTC
  
  Actually, our general policies about fanworks could be considered to fall under "letting people post this stuff, tag it whatever the hell they want and clutter up everything," depending on your feelings about freeform tags and the relative quality of the fic we host, but that's an argument on other posts.
  The coders have been consulted, and providing mechanisms for work types is actually part of the roadmap for AO3. It's a feature folks have been requesting fora long time, and one that pre-dated any discussion of hosting or not hosting meta.
  As far as changes to the TOS, these came out of committee and are currently up for review. Board will look at them for approval once feedback's been collected and incorporated.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Account Deleted Sat 29 Jun 2013 11:41PM UTC
    
    The coders have been consulted, and providing mechanisms for work types is actually part of the roadmap for AO3.
    We know it's on the roadmap. What we'd like to know is how far away it is. Is there a rest stop a couple exits away, or do we have to go 49 miles without a goddamn piss break?
    Also, I'm repeating my question from above since you totally ignored onlyforreading's complaint: Why are these revision documents in .doc and .pdf format rather than something much more accessible like .html?
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. sanders Sun 30 Jun 2013 02:20AM UTC
      
      Honestly, I can't speak for the coders on a definite timeline. There are some other pieces of work for them that have priority, and being a non-tech person I can only sum it up as putting what exists in code into a cleaner form (so big projects are easier in the future and small projects are faster to incorporate), evaluating where they really stand in terms of progress, and taking a bloody well-deserved breather. The estimate I heard last for kicking into gear on works types was August, and I'm not sure when that would ultimately get deployed.
      Frankly, though, a little patience would go a long way. Everyone in the org is a volunteer with other life commitments, and we're working as fast as we can to satisfy folks with the time and energy we have available without burning each other out, and to get you answers as quickly and thoroughly as we can.
      As for why the docs aren't in html, I have no idea. It's something that can definitely be asked for and that I'll follow up on over the weekend, and in the meantime, I'd suggest doing what I do when I run into a format I can't open on my laptop, DL it as as .doc and use googledocs or something similiar to view it.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Account Deleted Sun 30 Jun 2013 02:30AM UTC
        
        That's as good an answer as any, I guess.
        I'd suggest doing what I do when I run into a format I can't open on my laptop, DL it as as .doc and use googledocs or something similiar to view it.
        This is not how to do accessibility. In the future, it would be extremely considerate if AO3 would provide HTML documents for this kind of stuff instead of something that requires the use of other programs and/or a third-party website.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. sanders Sun 30 Jun 2013 02:35AM UTC
        
        It's definitely not an answer I like giving or a permanent solution, expressly because it does make accessibility a heck of a lot harder. I know that we generally try to provide docs in html (the Annual Report is one example that comes as, I believe, doc, pdf and html), and I honestly don't know what happened here. It's possible that it was straight out overlooked, but it's also possible that it's in the works and will be added over the weekend. I'll follow up and see if we can get the additional format, but it may take a couple of days as we're a little light-staffed this weekend due to various personal commitments and major holidays over the week in North America.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      3. Anon (Guest) Sun 30 Jun 2013 08:43AM UTC
        
        Frankly, though, a little patience would go a long way.
        This is supposed to be a joke, right? People have been asking for categories for a long time and it is something that should have been part of the plan from the beginning and something that even a person who isn't tech savvy can see will only get harder down the road.
        And as far as I remember many Ao3 users were asking the OTW to be patient when it came to allowing in meta and wait until the categories were finally implemented.
        Yes, we know it's on the road map now, but that still doesn't tell us when categories are going to happen. Yes, we know this site is run by volunteers. Yes, mistakes can happen. It's human. But this decision seems rushed and impatient to me.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      4. sanders Sun 30 Jun 2013 09:10PM UTC
        
        No, really not joking. There are a lot of features that would have been great to have from the start, but none of us can see the future. We do our best to anticipate and plan, and we have limitations. As I said elsewhere, the most recent conversation I've had with our coding team lead suggested August for a start on the work toward having category filters.
        At this point, we're just not comfortable slapping dates on something for the sake fo having a date attached. I hope we never reach that point. With our workforce, it's just flat hard to anticipate when there will be time to knock out a complex project, and make no mistake, this is a complex change.
        As for meta, many members were also asking us to allow it. It was _already_ on the archive, and was not significantly disrupting people's experience. The strident anti-meta reactions puzzle me when it was something so few of us even noticed until it became a discussion point. It's a lot like het fans wading in and being repulsed by slash existing in their fandom, or slash fans complaining about the icky het, only more overblown given the ratio of meta to any other work type on the archive. That, for me, was one of the deciding factors in voting to allow meta, because it doesn't fundamentally impact the experience of anti-meta users, and creates a space for fans of meta to engage with the archive, and also because I really loathe this hierarchy of what's considered legit fannish practice.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Anon (Guest) Mon 01 Jul 2013 08:56AM UTC
        
        I'm sorry, but the Ao3 can still not host anything but text and nobody seems to have a problem telling people to patiently wait for that. You have no problem telling people to wait patiently for the work type categories right here. But it's really too much to ask from the people who wanted to have meta on the Archive to wait till we have said work categories and filtering will be easier? Didn't you imply that patience would go a long way?
        It's nice to know that work on the code for said work type categories will probably start in August and that it's finally on the agenda at all again. I was happy to see it on the roadmap again - although the last roadmap promised a lot of stuff that never was worked on. I understand that it's not easy to implement the work categories and that it will take time and I'd be totally okay with that if the OTW would be upfront about the fact that it was a huge mistake not to think of this from the start. Because now a major overhaul of the whole database is needed and the longer down the line it happens the more complicated it gets, especially when you invite in a new text based type of fanwork.
        Which is why I think meta could really have waited a little longer - at least until coders had time to make feasible plans for how all this is going to work. And maybe if this would have been handled differently, nobody would have been so angry about it in the first place. That is what most people in the last discussion were saying.
        Meta is welcome on the Archive for all I care, so is Podfic and Fanart and Vids and Cosplay pics and whatever else people come up with. But the creators of these other fanworks have been waiting for much longer for categories and appropriate posting posibilties. I'm sure fic writers and readers would be okay with it, too, with a better way to filter fanworks.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      5. What (Guest) Sun 30 Jun 2013 09:33AM UTC
        
        a little patience would go a long way
        Waiting five years for decent accomodation for other works in the form of work types or a work-appropriate posting interface is rather patient from the fans. And we know even the embedding was bloody well fought for.
        If you need more coders, hire them.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      6. sanders Sun 30 Jun 2013 09:25PM UTC
        
        I see the 'just hire them' answer for a lot of things, but it's not simple. Before we can take steps to hire anyone, it would require a huge shift in our HR practices to provide for direct management, pay roll, potentially coordinating international employment practices, raising our annual insurance by 500%, developing employment contracts, running a hiring process, at minimum. If our Legal, Financial, Volunteers & Recruiting Committees, and Board, again at minimum, did nothing else for the next year, then, yes, we could do that. We'd also need donors to kick in at least 3 times more than they currently do annually to adequately pay a professional coding staff and cover the overhead.
        This is something we're working toward, but like everything, it has a place in our priorities. I think, at least for this year, we'd all prefer securing our existing volunteer base, keeping our tax status, and adding more servers so we can continue to function rather than backsliding in the services we do provide.
        ~sanders, otw treasurer, board member
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        What (Guest) Sun 30 Jun 2013 10:19PM UTC
        
        I actually just meant re-opening the volunteering for interested coders but it's good to know that you are considering employing people as well.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      7. Nonny Quixote (Guest) Sun 30 Jun 2013 01:12PM UTC
        
        1. Please take steps to clearly identify yourself as a member of the Board of Directors of the OTW in these comments. Not everyone is just going to know nor, considering how some of these comment sections have been allowed to devolve into claims and counter claims of insider knowledge and ad hominum attacks is everyone going to even know at a glance your screen name is genuine. Also, you profile here does not list you as a Board Member.
        2. Please take a moment to consider that your comment here is the first time anyone in an official capacity of the OTW on an afficial forum of the OTW has even hinted at a time frame for work types. People think it's simple, that it should take no longer than the filters to implement, because it's such a simple idea to imagine. People, your members, the AO3 users, so important people, have been left in the dark on this in a way that seems like it's on purpose. They should not be expected to be able to intuit how complex this is and what your work loads are like.
        So really, asking for patience from these important people you've left in the dark to guess where the door is is going to sound like, "Shut up and go away, HDU question us."
        Think on this from their point of view.
        Imagine, just for a moment, if you'd been honest about this with yourselves and the volunteers as well as with these important people. Imagine how much more co-operation with the work-type tagging you'd get if the important people felt like they were in it with you.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      8. AnonMetaWriter (Guest) Sun 30 Jun 2013 03:35PM UTC
        
        Everything about this is so incredibly on point. Meta is being pushed through and implemented before the AO3 can actually accommodate it and they're likely just going to call that "good enough" like they've done with art and podfic embeds. People can only be so patient, especially when they keep seeing workaround after workaround after workaround (this time being written into the Terms of Service themselves) with no actual progress on the technical pieces to make the archive what it's advertised to be.
        I think many people recognize that everyone working for the AO3/OTW are volunteers, but I still don't think it's too much to ask for actual project management, transparent updates, and leadership that understands that you look to implementation and have a plan for it before you make sweeping policy changes?
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        sanders Sun 30 Jun 2013 09:47PM UTC
        
        Saying we'd allow meta really wasn't a sweeping policy change. It affected roughly 1000 works on the archive at the time the decision was made, and was rooted in a question of what to do with those 1000 works. Rather than take a mealy-mouthed, half-way solution of "we'll allow these but not anyone else," and rather than outright reject the works already on the archive, we said we want this. As a high level policy, in looking to make the archive broadly inclusive, we want this to be allowed. And then we said we will figure out how to implement this in a way that's fully supported along with figuring out how we fully support other work types.
        One step of that implementation is in making changes to the TOS, and that work did progress faster than the coding work for the simple fact that the committees involved in developing the TOS were able to make it an immediate priority. The technical factors are in line after other user-requested features, and after other backend fixes to make the overall work of running the archive more effective. That's just the nature of the org. In many of the changes to AO3, the process has been that someone, somewhere, has asked for something---and in any case, there are always people happy to let us know just how much they hate whatever has changed. It's agreed that it will happen, input is gathered from relevant committees, and then the tech folks figure out how to make it happen. This was just entirely more in public view than some of the other work.
        This is the price of greater transparency, for all of us.
        As for project management and transparent updates, we're steadily working on improving those things. Fandom memory is short on some aspects, and long on others. Two years ago, there was a lot of discussion and a lot of revelations about how burnt out volunteers were, and how lacking we were in some basic, commonsense practices. Some of those problems have been fixed, some are being worked on, and some are future steps for which we're just not ready. There have been internal and external constraints to how quickly we've been able to move and implement changes to our fundamental organizational structure, and to be frank, there are places where there are serious questions of just who is leading and who is accountable, and how to navigate those tensions, along with just plain figuring out how to coordinate information flow.
        Something that continues to amaze me is that users, members, random passersby have more access and more ability to access staff, volunteers, and board members of this organization than any other I know. We are as naked about our work as we can be, as we each have the ability to be, without sacrificing the need to make decisions and maintain some confidentiality in the organization.
        ~sanders, otw board member & treasurer
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        adifferntanon (Guest) Sun 30 Jun 2013 08:46PM UTC
        
        I think your second point is very true. I asked about the timeframe in a comment replying to the original post, and my question was entirely ignored by staff. I can understand if they don't know but it would be nice if they were to acknowledge it in some way.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        sanders Sun 30 Jun 2013 08:56PM UTC
        
        Thank you for pointing out the first. I'll go back and edit to make that clear. It's easy to forget when it feels like I work in such a small fishbowl with so many eyes on every move and every decision I'm part of.
        Filters actually did take time to implement and develop, and I'm sure you remember like I do the span of time where they were taken down to be redesigned. And even when filters were initially rolled out, they carried bugs that had to be resolved, like the distinction between AND/OR that never quite worked right for me. Work types is likely going to be the same way.
        I have thought about this from the other side, but honestly not for a while. It's still astonishing to me to see the levels of work that go into making this site function, and I'm looking at it as a definitively non-tech person (I deal with finances). I forget that not everyone is getting the behind the scenes view because this has become a fundamental part of my days. The bottomline lesson I've learned, and would pass on, is that sites like ours really don't happen over night or by magic, and it's actually a slow process relative to internet time (where even a day can feel like an eternity). Features can take months from design to implementation, or longer, depending on who has the time to work on it and the scope of the feature itself. Sometimes they can take years because there are simply other pieces of basic functionality that have to be built out first.
        I can only give a timeframe for work types now, and it's one that's extremely tenative, mind, because a meeting was held last month that began tossing out ideas on how aspects of it would work. I'm wary of having even said that much because if August comes and goes without progress because other things catch fire---a not uncommon occurrence for nearly all of our committees and people---we'll be excoriated for it, no matter how naked we are in explaining where we stand in that moment.
        My request for patience isn't a way of saying 'how dare you'. I welcome the questions, the majority of us do, but it's also an issue of having the time and energy to respond, and also just plain having the answers, because sometimes we don't. It's incredibly hard to wade into a post where I've been, by virtue of being on the board, called an idiot, accused of letting power go to my head (What power? Seriously?), and generally encountered some pretty demoralizing comments. All for making a decision that some people don't agree with, that some love, and some couldn't give a hoot about, and because the people I work with have human limitations in how much work they can accomplish. I don't blame my colleagues for not engaging when they don't have to; getting called names and being bullied for giving the 'wrong' answers wasn't really something any of us signed on for. We're in a real damned if we do, damned if we don't position, and expected to just take it.
        Imagine how much easier it would be to get volunteers in thankless positions, giving countless hours, to engage in meaningful conversation if everyone could take a deep breath and remember there are real live people on both sides.
        
        Last Edited Sun 30 Jun 2013 09:27PM UTC
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        (4 more comments in this thread)
salty_catfish Mon 01 Jul 2013 12:11AM UTC

I don't like that you want put the burden of categorizing works that aren't fanfiction on the users who post them. They already need to wrestle more with hosting, the submission interface (which doesn't even tell you what you can embed and how to do it) and now they also need to be better acquainted with the TOS (and remember which tags are the right ones since people use many different words for the same work types) than those who only submit fanfiction and can rely on what the interface tells them. But despite the one-dimensional posting format the works are still called 'works' and it is counter-intuitive for you to declare that the default is 'fan fiction'. I think if you want to introduce mandatory medium tagging you should
a) include a separate field for that since using additional tags for it is not the least bit intuitive - those tags have been introduced as completely optional for a long time now
b) have all works be tagged - from a user POV I don't understand why only the filtering for and filtering out of non-fic should be wanted when it is equally possible that someone might want to filter for or filter out fanfic. (Example: If I search for 'meta' and 'art'/'fanart'/'drawing'/etc a lot of fic gets pulled up in my searches that I can't filter out except with awkward workarounds like sorting for word count.)
All put together the proposed changes would result in a situation where handling non-fic requires so much more energy, time and attention from non-fic posters and consumers that to me it would clash with your welcoming text on the front page and your diversity statement.
Since the tagging would just be another workaround in my opinion this should just not be included into the TOS at all and the energy should be directed to developing categories. I agree with the concerns others voiced about policing what is appropriate nonfiction and what isn't.

Last Edited Mon 01 Jul 2013 10:38AM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
busaikko Mon 01 Jul 2013 10:01AM UTC

Okay. I am not a coder at all. But it seems to me that the stopgap we need is to change the "Post New Works" page so that instead of everyone having to type in their own Work Type, we need standardized checkboxes (not radio button because, of course, some have art, fic, and podfic; etc.). The tags would still be recorded as Additional Tags, but because they would be generated by checkboxes, they would be consistent across all Works -- with minimal effort.
It would look like:
Work Type: [_] Fanfic, [_] Fanvid, [_] Graphic Novel, [_] Fandom Meta, [_] Podfic, [_] Visual Art (for other Work Types such as Textile Arts, please enter as freeform below)
It could be generated by a bit of code that would look sort of like this (based off current Post New page, and remember: not coder!) if adding work_type is feasible; if not, just toss in with Additional Tags:
{dt class="type"}
{label for="work_type"}Type of Work {a href="/help/type-help.html" aria-controls="#modal" class="help symbol question modal" title="Work Type help"}{span class="symbol question"}{span}?{/span}{/span}{/a}{/label}
{/dt}
{dd class="type" title="type"}
This is where the code would diverge from Relationships, which I am cribbing off. I want it to ask people to choose *one of 6 freeform tags* -- they don't have to! But the checkbox will be a lot easier than remembering exactly what freeform tags exist ("Start typing for suggestions!" is not very helpful when at some point Work Types will be sorted out based on common tags.)
{fieldset class="type"}
{label for="work_type_string_AAAA"}{input type="checkbox"}Fanfic{/label}
{label for="work_type_string_BBBB"}{input type="checkbox"}Fanvid{/label}
{label for="work_type_string_CCCC"}{input type="checkbox"}Graphic Novel{/label}
{label for="work_type_string_CCCC"}{input type="checkbox"}Fandom Meta{/label}
{label for="work_type_string_DDDD"}{input type="checkbox"}Podfic{/label}
{label for="work_type_string_EEEE"}{input type="checkbox"}Visual Art{/label}
{/fieldset}
{/dd}

Comment Actions
- Thread
heartsinger Wed 03 Jul 2013 05:19AM UTC

The FAQ section still uses gendered language in several places.
Thank you, volunteers and Board members, for putting so much into this.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. rivkat Mon 08 Jul 2013 02:26AM UTC
  
  Hey, do you remember the examples you mean? My searches aren't turning anything up but I may be looking for the wrong things.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. heartsinger Mon 08 Jul 2013 03:15AM UTC
    
    Upon reexamination, I found problems in the following places:
    ToS:
    Section IV, Part A, Clause 2
    Section V, Part D, Clause 1
    Section V, Part A, Clause 1
    FAQ:
    What happens if someone who's a friend of someone on the abuse team is involved in a complaint?
    What sort of information do I need to provide for my fanworks?
    What do I do once I've chosen someone?
    What if my fannish next-of-kin decides s/he's tired of being my fannish next-of-kin?
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. rivkat Mon 08 Jul 2013 03:59AM UTC
      
      Thank you!
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
Shadytail Mon 22 Jul 2013 07:15AM UTC

Really happy to see singular they. On the other hand, in three out of the four cases where the subject changed, the verb didn't. They are:
1.) Section IV.F p. 12
2.) Section V, Open Doors ToS D.2 p. 20
3.) Section V, Open Doors ToS D.6 p. 21
By the iron laws of the internet, I'm sure this message will contain errors as well. Is there usually a copy-editing stage after public comment on ToS revisions?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. OTW_Communications (Official) Tue 06 Aug 2013 01:03PM UTC
  
  Hi there!
  A belated thanks for those catches. We do copy edit before we change the TOS (and again when the actual coding is done) but inevitably things slip through anyway!
  Lucy
  AD&T / Communications / Support
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Andrea Rivera (Guest) Mon 05 Aug 2013 10:35PM UTC

Why is the website on 'Beta' and why doent it let you join without an 'invite'? Is there any way to join without an invite?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. OTW_Communications (Official) Tue 06 Aug 2013 01:02PM UTC
  
  Hi there,
  The Archive is in Beta because we are still actively developing major features. While we're in Beta, features may change dramatically, important features may break periodically, and we'll still generally be working out kinks in the site. We will drop the 'Beta' tag when we're satisfied that core features - including things like our Systems architecture (servers and other behind the scenes things) - are complete and as as stable as possible.
  The main reason we use invitations for account creation is to help us manage the growth of the site. In busy periods, issuing invitations ensures we don't have an unmanageable number of people signing up at one go (which would crash the site). It's not possible to create an account without an invitation, but it's easy to get one! Simply add your email address to our invitations queue. Everyone who requests an invitation is granted one (it's a waiting list, not a screening process) and currently wait times are less than a day. If you have requested an invitation and it doesn't turn up by the estimated time (you'll be told when to expect your invitation when you sign up), then contact Support: sometimes ISPs reject invitations as spam and they never even show up in your junk mail.
  We hope this helps!
  All the best,
  Lucy
  AD&T / Communications / Support
  
  Last Edited Tue 06 Aug 2013 01:26PM UTC
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread

AO3 News