Updated TOS Rumors

KnotRiley

Hi all,

I wanted to address the rumors about TOS changes. 

The TOS have not been changed since we last announced an update in January, 2015.  The warning process has not changed as well. We continue to follow the five warning process prior to banning a member as has been our practice.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding what is allowed and what is not on the boards. Profanity is allowed on the boards. However, once the profanity (including gifs) is directed in a harassing, abusive or taunting manner towards another member, The Knot or the Community as a whole, then the use of profanity becomes a violation of the TOS. We will evaluate the context of any use of profanity and follow our warning system in these situations.

We are working on creating clearer guidelines for the TOS, so there are fewer questions about what will cause a warning.

Please let @KnotHolly or myself know if you have any further questions.

KR

KatieinBkln

Listen, I know this won't be answered in any kind of honest or transparent way, but I know for a fact that people have been banned without the requisite 5 warnings.

I also know that the TOS has a provision allowing XO group to cut off access to the community basically whenever they want, so I'm not trying to pretend that the TOS is ironclad or that there's no possibility that a person could do something so egregious that they'd be banned without going through the usual procedure.

But I think it's disingenuous at best to claim that the process hasn't changed. I mean, sure, maybe it is still "5 warnings and you're out" technically speaking. But the line for "directed in a harassing, abusive or taunting manner towards another member, The Knot or the Community as a whole" certainly seems to have moved recently.

I look forward to the clearer guidelines. Because this place needs them. CC is a dead board today and that isn't fun for anyone.

FiancB

In the case of a signature GIF that may be taken as abrasive, how do you determine whether that is derogatory toward a specific person or not? Many people have sassy or angry looking GIFs. The Katie baby looks awfully judgey...

I know this might sound really snarky and like I'm being hypothetical but I'm really not. I would like an answer, please. 

KnotRiley

KatieinBkln said:

Listen, I know this won't be answered in any kind of honest or transparent way, but I know for a fact that people have been banned without the requisite 5 warnings.

I also know that the TOS has a provision allowing XO group to cut off access to the community basically whenever they want, so I'm not trying to pretend that the TOS is ironclad or that there's no possibility that a person could do something so egregious that they'd be banned without going through the usual procedure.

But I think it's disingenuous at best to claim that the process hasn't changed. I mean, sure, maybe it is still "5 warnings and you're out" technically speaking. But the line for "directed in a harassing, abusive or taunting manner towards another member, The Knot or the Community as a whole" certainly seems to have moved recently.

I look forward to the clearer guidelines. Because this place needs them. CC is a dead board today and that isn't fun for anyone.

We take bannings very seriously, and make sure that if it's happening, there are TOS violations that had to bring us to that point.

FiancB said:

In the case of a signature GIF that may be taken as abrasive, how do you determine whether that is derogatory toward a specific person or not? Many people have sassy or angry looking GIFs. The Katie baby looks awfully judgey...

I know this might sound really snarky and like I'm being hypothetical but I'm really not. I would like an answer, please. 

As stated above, we also look at the context to which the gif was posted, regardless of if it was in a signature or on a post. 

thespeshulestsnowflake

KnotRiley said:

KatieinBkln said:

Listen, I know this won't be answered in any kind of honest or transparent way, but I know for a fact that people have been banned without the requisite 5 warnings.

I also know that the TOS has a provision allowing XO group to cut off access to the community basically whenever they want, so I'm not trying to pretend that the TOS is ironclad or that there's no possibility that a person could do something so egregious that they'd be banned without going through the usual procedure.

But I think it's disingenuous at best to claim that the process hasn't changed. I mean, sure, maybe it is still "5 warnings and you're out" technically speaking. But the line for "directed in a harassing, abusive or taunting manner towards another member, The Knot or the Community as a whole" certainly seems to have moved recently.

I look forward to the clearer guidelines. Because this place needs them. CC is a dead board today and that isn't fun for anyone.

We take bannings very seriously, and make sure that if it's happening, there are TOS violations that had to bring us to that point.

FiancB said:

In the case of a signature GIF that may be taken as abrasive, how do you determine whether that is derogatory toward a specific person or not? Many people have sassy or angry looking GIFs. The Katie baby looks awfully judgey...

I know this might sound really snarky and like I'm being hypothetical but I'm really not. I would like an answer, please. 

As stated above, we also look at the context to which the gif was posted, regardless of if it was in a signature or on a post. 

How can you take a signature gif out of context? They are in every post a person does?

Unless you start banning signature gifs then they can't really be included in this.

KatieinBkln

KnotRiley said:

KatieinBkln said:

Listen, I know this won't be answered in any kind of honest or transparent way, but I know for a fact that people have been banned without the requisite 5 warnings.

I also know that the TOS has a provision allowing XO group to cut off access to the community basically whenever they want, so I'm not trying to pretend that the TOS is ironclad or that there's no possibility that a person could do something so egregious that they'd be banned without going through the usual procedure.

But I think it's disingenuous at best to claim that the process hasn't changed. I mean, sure, maybe it is still "5 warnings and you're out" technically speaking. But the line for "directed in a harassing, abusive or taunting manner towards another member, The Knot or the Community as a whole" certainly seems to have moved recently.

I look forward to the clearer guidelines. Because this place needs them. CC is a dead board today and that isn't fun for anyone.

We take bannings very seriously, and make sure that if it's happening, there are TOS violations that had to bring us to that point.

FiancB said:

In the case of a signature GIF that may be taken as abrasive, how do you determine whether that is derogatory toward a specific person or not? Many people have sassy or angry looking GIFs. The Katie baby looks awfully judgey...

I know this might sound really snarky and like I'm being hypothetical but I'm really not. I would like an answer, please. 

As stated above, we also look at the context to which the gif was posted, regardless of if it was in a signature or on a post. 

What on earth is the "context" of a signature gif? 

And if we're being clear here that we're talking about Ashley (we are)--does anyone think she would be so passive-aggressive as to put a response to a particular person in her signature, rather than just saying what was on her mind directly to them? Anybody? Bueller?

KnotRiley

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

thespeshulestsnowflake

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

That kind of makes sense, but is really subjective. I mean hypothetically, there could be a blowup thread that ends in warnings, but I see a gif I think is funny in it and change my signature. It could be perceived as me changing my signature in response to the thread even though it isn't. It would be silly for me to get a warning for that.

One of my main points is that I really wanted to make sure that people aren't going to get warnings because newbs think signatures are directed at them, when they clearly aren't.

climbingsingle

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

KatieinBkln

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

So the knotgods are mind-readers now? How on earth can you determine cause and effect in this scenario?

thespeshulestsnowflake

KatieinBkln said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

So the knotgods are mind-readers now? How on earth can you determine cause and effect in this scenario?

levioosa

climbingwife said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

I have. Remember bscrazybeans?

thespeshulestsnowflake

levioosa said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

I've been posting here for almost 2 years and I've never seen this happen. 

I have. Remember bscrazybeans?

I remember her, but did people actually change their signatures? I mean people reference crazies who have appeared, but usually in threads, not their signatures.

VulgarGirl

So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?

Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?

I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.

Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?

And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.

Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods?

ShesSoCold

I changed my sig due to a situation that happened on TK. I needed to set the record straight on who actually hugs manatees.

KnotHolly

thespeshulestsnowflake said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

That kind of makes sense, but is really subjective. I mean hypothetically, there could be a blowup thread that ends in warnings, but I see a gif I think is funny in it and change my signature. It could be perceived as me changing my signature in response to the thread even though it isn't. It would be silly for me to get a warning for that.

One of my main points is that I really wanted to make sure that people aren't going to get warnings because newbs think signatures are directed at them, when they clearly aren't.

There have been a number of cases where a new member has reported a member for their signature, thinking it was directed at them. In these cases, we simply explain to the new member what the signature is and that it is not directed at them, and no warnings are issued.  

VulgarGirl

I did change my sig (when it was everything is awesome) in response to an issue that happened in PMs on TK. 

And the current one is yes in regards to the bullshit currently going down. Where you can be banned for not thinking TK is the shit. Cause fuck that.

KatieinBkln

KnotHolly said:

thespeshulestsnowflake said:

KnotRiley said:

@thespeshulestsnowflake Many members use their signatures in response to certain situations that take place on the board, we observed a situation happen, a signature was changed because of said situation and it was in direct violation of our TOS. I would like to note, however, this was never what caused a banning, this caused a warning. Acts that followed the warning was what lead to TOS violations and eventual banning.

That kind of makes sense, but is really subjective. I mean hypothetically, there could be a blowup thread that ends in warnings, but I see a gif I think is funny in it and change my signature. It could be perceived as me changing my signature in response to the thread even though it isn't. It would be silly for me to get a warning for that.

One of my main points is that I really wanted to make sure that people aren't going to get warnings because newbs think signatures are directed at them, when they clearly aren't.

There have been a number of cases where a new member has reported a member for their signature, thinking it was directed at them. In these cases, we simply explain to the new member what the signature is and that it is not directed at them, and no warnings are issued.  

And when a non-newb who should know better reports a member because they have a persecution complex/don't know how to internet? What then?

The point I'm trying to make here is that I am deeply uncomfortable with a system that depends on having admins (who, as others have mentioned, clearly have other responsibilities apart from reading every single post on the chit-chat board so that they can get a true sense of context) make judgment calls about what kinds of sig gifs are "directed" at someone.

Unless you're a reg, you really can't know the entire context. Hell, even regs don't know every little thing that goes on. I post on like 3 boards, so if I happened to pop into one I don't see as often, but then changed my sig completely independently of that thread, someone in my non-regular board could theoretically take offense at my new sig. And then what?

It just reveals to me with total clarity that the only really clear thing to glean here is that the rules are what the admins want them to be. Which is TK's prerogative. But it does mean people aren't going to know what's allowed, and I predict a huge downturn in page views.

KnotRiley

MagicInk said:

So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?

Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?

I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.

Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?

And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.

Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods?

We consider posting middle finger gifs across threads contributing to a negative environment. We don't expect anyone on these boards to change how they respond to cash bars or anything like that. 

According to our TOS this is our definition of trolling:

"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.

However, this could be something we can work on making clearer in the guidelines I mentioned above.

Tech is trying to work on the login issues, unfortunately it is a larger issue than they anticipated, but they are working towards trying to fix it.

Ashley received all five warnings. Please feel free to let her know she can reach out to us at messgeboards@theknot.com if she would like us to resend them to her.

KatieinBkln

KnotRiley said:

MagicInk said:

So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?

Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?

I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.

Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?

And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.

Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods?

We consider posting middle finger gifs across threads contributing to a negative environment. We don't expect anyone on these boards to change how they respond to cash bars or anything like that. 

According to our TOS this is our definition of trolling:

"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.

However, this could be something we can work on making clearer in the guidelines I mentioned above.

Tech is trying to work on the login issues, unfortunately it is a larger issue than they anticipated, but they are working towards trying to fix it.

Ashley received all five warnings. Please feel free to let her know she can reach out to us at messgeboards@theknot.com if she would like us to resend them to her.

So: "Fuck that" sig gif=Okedoke

Middle finger sig gif=warned.

Got it. Makes All the Sense.

emmaaa

KnotRiley said:

MagicInk said:

So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?

Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?

I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.

Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?

And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.

Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods?

We consider posting middle finger gifs across threads contributing to a negative environment. We don't expect anyone on these boards to change how they respond to cash bars or anything like that. 

According to our TOS this is our definition of trolling:

"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.

However, this could be something we can work on making clearer in the guidelines I mentioned above.

Tech is trying to work on the login issues, unfortunately it is a larger issue than they anticipated, but they are working towards trying to fix it.

Ashley received all five warnings. Please feel free to let her know she can reach out to us at messgeboards@theknot.com if she would like us to resend them to her.

@KnotRiley I do think the definition of trolling should be better defined. Because according to that definition, whenever we post puppy gifs or kitten gifs on a thread that has gone crazy, that could be considered trolling.

esstee33

KnotRiley said: MagicInk said: So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?
Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?
I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.
Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?
And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.
Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods? We consider posting middle finger gifs across threads contributing to a negative environment. We don't expect anyone on these boards to change how they respond to cash bars or anything like that. 
According to our TOS this is our definition of trolling:"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.However, this could be something we can work on making clearer in the guidelines I mentioned above.
Tech is trying to work on the login issues, unfortunately it is a larger issue than they anticipated, but they are working towards trying to fix it.
Ashley received all five warnings. Please feel free to let her know she can reach out to us at messgeboards@theknot.com if she would like us to resend them to her.

******* Oh, of COURSE the boxes are fucked up. *******

OK, so then please explain how a bunch of mods posting polar bear gifs (which, obviously, aren't inflammatory in and of themselves but are absolutely "off-topic") in what is clearly an attempt to derail a thread and provoke another member isn't trolling, according to the mods in that thread? It seems like a pretty clear abuse of power that the mods are using inside jokes to gang up on members, no matter how seemingly innocuous the actual content of the image. For all the talk of the "mean girls" like Ashley, I'd like to know why the exact same behavior from mods is overlooked. 

VulgarGirl

KnotRiley said:

MagicInk said:

So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?

Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?

I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.

Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?

And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.

Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods?

We consider posting middle finger gifs across threads contributing to a negative environment. We don't expect anyone on these boards to change how they respond to cash bars or anything like that. 

According to our TOS this is our definition of trolling:

"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.

However, this could be something we can work on making clearer in the guidelines I mentioned above.

Tech is trying to work on the login issues, unfortunately it is a larger issue than they anticipated, but they are working towards trying to fix it.

Ashley received all five warnings. Please feel free to let her know she can reach out to us at messgeboards@theknot.com if she would like us to resend them to her.

I mean, I'm gonna get in trouble for this because it happened behind closed doors in PMs and what happens in PMs can't be discussed on the boards, but I was accused of "trolling" for regularly disagreeing with one user. By one of the admins. Who is not Riley. Not naming names.

Clearly there needs to be some kind of meeting where "trolling" actually gets explained to the employees. 

VulgarGirl

KatieinBkln said:

KnotRiley said:

MagicInk said:

So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?

Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?

I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.

Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?

And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.

Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods?

We consider posting middle finger gifs across threads contributing to a negative environment. We don't expect anyone on these boards to change how they respond to cash bars or anything like that. 

According to our TOS this is our definition of trolling:

"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.

However, this could be something we can work on making clearer in the guidelines I mentioned above.

Tech is trying to work on the login issues, unfortunately it is a larger issue than they anticipated, but they are working towards trying to fix it.

Ashley received all five warnings. Please feel free to let her know she can reach out to us at messgeboards@theknot.com if she would like us to resend them to her.

So: "Fuck that" sig gif=Okedoke

Middle finger sig gif=warned.

Got it. Makes All the Sense.

Well this week. Next week who the fuck knows.

KatieinBkln

esstee33 said:

KnotRiley said:

******* Oh, of COURSE the boxes are fucked up. *******

OK, so then please explain how a bunch of mods posting polar bear gifs (which, obviously, aren't inflammatory in and of themselves but are absolutely "off-topic") in what is clearly an attempt to derail a thread and provoke another member isn't trolling, according to the mods in that thread? It seems like a pretty clear abuse of power that the mods are using inside jokes to gang up on members, no matter how seemingly innocuous the actual content of the image. For all the talk of the "mean girls" like Ashley, I'd like to know why the exact same behavior from mods is overlooked. 

------BOX, FFS--------

Because having clear guidelines is something you do when you give a shit about respecting your members. I feel very little respect coming from TK as a whole at the moment. The lies and deliberate obfuscation, the condescending "explanations" as to why obviously hypocritical decisions were made...you don't straight up spout nonsense to people you respect. But you sure as hell can get away with it when you don't care if members stay or go. Which is evidently the case here.

esstee33

KatieinBkln said:

esstee33 said:

KnotRiley said:

******* Oh, of COURSE the boxes are fucked up. *******

OK, so then please explain how a bunch of mods posting polar bear gifs (which, obviously, aren't inflammatory in and of themselves but are absolutely "off-topic") in what is clearly an attempt to derail a thread and provoke another member isn't trolling, according to the mods in that thread? It seems like a pretty clear abuse of power that the mods are using inside jokes to gang up on members, no matter how seemingly innocuous the actual content of the image. For all the talk of the "mean girls" like Ashley, I'd like to know why the exact same behavior from mods is overlooked. 

------BOX, FFS--------

Because having clear guidelines is something you do when you give a shit about respecting your members. I feel very little respect coming from TK as a whole at the moment. The lies and deliberate obfuscation, the condescending "explanations" as to why obviously hypocritical decisions were made...you don't straight up spout nonsense to people you respect. But you sure as hell can get away with it when you don't care if members stay or go. Which is evidently the case here.

And therein lies the actual truth, which the admins are too chicken shit to actually admit: they don't respect us at all. We are dollar signs to them, nothing more. 

sophhabobopha

This is boring. I'm bored. Total non clarification.

KnotHolly

esstee33 said:

KnotRiley said:

MagicInk said:

So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?

Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?

I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.

Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?

And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.

Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods?

We consider posting middle finger gifs across threads contributing to a negative environment. We don't expect anyone on these boards to change how they respond to cash bars or anything like that. 

According to our TOS this is our definition of trolling:

"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.

However, this could be something we can work on making clearer in the guidelines I mentioned above.

Tech is trying to work on the login issues, unfortunately it is a larger issue than they anticipated, but they are working towards trying to fix it.

Ashley received all five warnings. Please feel free to let her know she can reach out to us at messgeboards@theknot.com if she would like us to resend them to her.

******* Oh, of COURSE the boxes are fucked up. *******

OK, so then please explain how a bunch of mods posting polar bear gifs (which, obviously, aren't inflammatory in and of themselves but are absolutely "off-topic") in what is clearly an attempt to derail a thread and provoke another member isn't trolling, according to the mods in that thread? It seems like a pretty clear abuse of power that the mods are using inside jokes to gang up on members, no matter how seemingly innocuous the actual content of the image. For all the talk of the "mean girls" like Ashley, I'd like to know why the exact same behavior from mods is overlooked. 

We have not warned for behavior like this in the past. For instance, we haven't warned for puppy and kitty gifs that show up often here. Like @emmaaa said, this definition should be made more clear and we will be sure to do that. 

esstee33

KnotHolly said:

esstee33 said:

KnotRiley said:

MagicInk said:

So what's the deal with this "contributing to a negative environment" bullshit?

Are we just supposed to blow smoke and kiss ass now? Is that what y'all are looking for?

I'm still not at all clear on how a sig gif can be a response to a "certain situation". I mean mine right now says "Fuck that". I could mean this in response to any "certain situation" or to life in general. I could mean "fuck that" in regards to XO group being completely unable to hire a competent IT department or actually address issues like grown ups.

Also...it seems some people (who work for TK) have trouble with what "trolling" actually is. What is XO group's official definition of trolling?

And is anyone ever going to fucking fix the goddamn logging fucking issues or what? Cause ASAP apparently stands for "whenever the fuck we feel like it" with the XO group.

Oh and why was someone (Ashley) banned after receiving only one warning? Cause she questioned the absolute authority of the TK gods?

We consider posting middle finger gifs across threads contributing to a negative environment. We don't expect anyone on these boards to change how they respond to cash bars or anything like that. 

According to our TOS this is our definition of trolling:

"Trolling" The Knot boards by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages with the intent of provoking members/disrupting normal discussion is not permitted and will lead to banning from the boards.

However, this could be something we can work on making clearer in the guidelines I mentioned above.

Tech is trying to work on the login issues, unfortunately it is a larger issue than they anticipated, but they are working towards trying to fix it.

Ashley received all five warnings. Please feel free to let her know she can reach out to us at messgeboards@theknot.com if she would like us to resend them to her.

******* Oh, of COURSE the boxes are fucked up. *******

OK, so then please explain how a bunch of mods posting polar bear gifs (which, obviously, aren't inflammatory in and of themselves but are absolutely "off-topic") in what is clearly an attempt to derail a thread and provoke another member isn't trolling, according to the mods in that thread? It seems like a pretty clear abuse of power that the mods are using inside jokes to gang up on members, no matter how seemingly innocuous the actual content of the image. For all the talk of the "mean girls" like Ashley, I'd like to know why the exact same behavior from mods is overlooked. 

We have not warned for behavior like this in the past. For instance, we haven't warned for puppy and kitty gifs that show up often here. Like @emmaaa said, this definition should be made more clear and we will be sure to do that.  *******************************

Except puppy and kitty gifs are not a deliberate provocation against any one member, and the polar bear gifs absolutely were. Not to mention the fact that the mod board was being used to PLAN to do this. Notice how only mods were posting them, and almost exclusively only mods liked those posts? 

AND she asked for a clarification, which was completely ignored. 

It was trolling, plain and simple. 

VulgarGirl

sophhabobopha said:

This is boring. I'm bored. Total non clarification.

I found you a new siggy gif. It is a direct response to this bullshit. You might get banned for it. After 5 warnings. That you don't see. Cause they ban you before you can see them. Cause bullshit.

VulgarGirl

@KnotHolly and @KnotRiley

You guys should REALLY go into politics. I've never seen anyone else so good at giving non-answers while claiming to answer shit.