Subject:
|
Re: Let’s be inclusive, and not exclusive. (was Re: My point.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 14:19:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4829 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.terms, Scott Arthur writes:
> > 1. Does one have to read the terms / agree to the terms / be a member / to
> > post feedback?
>
> What do you think?
>
> > 2. Does line "here is your chance to share some thoughts privately" at least
> > imply the communication is private?
>
> You could infer that.
I think it's a pretty strong implication that when you say "privately" that
the contents won't normally be revealed...
>
> > 3. Does the "(optional)" tag on two of the boxes imply anonymity?
>
> That would be a stretch.
I'm not sure I agree, actually... Again, it's a pretty strong implication.
I think (despite some comments by others that LUGNET has too many disclaimers,
etc, more than LEGO itself does in some cases) that you should crisp this up.
If what you meant is that the contributor can post feedback anonymously, and
you really really won't know who it was, but you reserve the right to make the
feedback public, then change "private" to "anonymous" and disclaim your right
to publicise it.
If the person's identity isn't really hidden from you (perhaps via technical
mechanisms, or perhaps only if the person is logged in, or whatever, I haven't
viewed the source of the page to even see what the field labels are and make
guesses) then don't imply anonymity.
Whatever reasons Scott might have for spotting these sorts of things aside, he
*is* rather good at it, sometimes. This is one of those times, you have a
documentation hole here. We all still love you, of course, but fix it. IMHO.
Else we'll be debating what the controlling legal authority was and what the
meaning of the word "is" was.
Anonymous/private/both feedback mechanisms have to be crystal clear or else
they don't get used. One fix, of course, is to remove this mechanism
completely. That may be best, I can't say what your intent in having it was in
the first place.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
