Timeline for A new (2018) update to our Terms of Service is here
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
77 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2018 at 15:19 | comment | added | curiousdannii | @TimPost I'd like to follow up on the attribution required link in the footer. I was told in the TL that it was deliberately removed from the TOS, would it be appropriate to make a new meta discussion so it doesn't get lost in all the answers here. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 12:21 | comment | added | user50049 | @ShadowWizard Believe it or not, you're part of a comparatively small group of people that actually care - to most, it only matters that I'm someone that can push buttons they can't, and in a support context. That's why it's not worth correcting folks that call us mods, because to many of them, the distinction is beyond trivial :) | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 12:18 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @TimPost well, this implies your role is to do moderation per-site stuff only, which doesn't cover your actual role on SE. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 11:57 | comment | added | user50049 | @ShadowWizard Technically, I am a moderator. I was elected on SO in 2013 and will always retain that status, even if I leave SE. But any employee can be referred to as Moderator (it even says so in their profile, and we avoid confusion by creating further distinction). Think of it this way: We have lots of moderators, some of 'em work here. On MSE, it's currently all of 'em that work here (though, that may change). | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 10:58 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @TheJavaNub Tim Post is not a moderator. | |
| May 21, 2018 at 17:14 | answer | added | NoSenseEtAl | timeline score: -3 | |
| May 15, 2018 at 14:57 | comment | added | Vikki | @E.P.: And it's hot on the heels of the current record-holder in that regard, despite the latter being two-and-a-third years old and this post being not even two weeks old. Somehow, I get the impression that the users here don't like arbitration clauses that much... | |
| May 14, 2018 at 20:50 | comment | added | Plqsmic | @EvanCarroll 1. This question is made by a moderator, and 2. they have a lot of other very good questions. | |
| May 11, 2018 at 18:13 | comment | added | Evan Carroll | How does this post not get you a question ban, but I get a question ban? | |
| May 10, 2018 at 20:28 | answer | added | Kasper van den Berg | timeline score: 9 | |
| May 10, 2018 at 15:24 | comment | added | Andras Deak -- Слава Україні | I suggest editing the question with a pointer to the update post just for posterity. I don't want to make the edit myself for fear of conflicting with author's intent. | |
| May 10, 2018 at 14:12 | history | edited | user50049 |
edited tags
|
|
| May 9, 2018 at 18:26 | comment | added | user50049 | Okay, electronic opt out stuff was cleared (GDPR makes everything about this harder when it comes to adding even one more byte of information about users that we store), I still need to get direct answers to a few more questions that, if I post a follow up still unable to answer, will likely have rotten fruit thrown at me. In related news, I think our lawyer might be plotting my demise, if anything happens to me his name is a. | |
| May 9, 2018 at 11:57 | comment | added | iBug says Reinstate Monica | I sincerely hope the result is that the Arbitration Clause is postponed/delayed/suspended/cancelled indefinitely. | |
| May 9, 2018 at 2:33 | comment | added | forest distrusts StackExchange | @TimPost I hope the update isn't just "don't worry about it, it's not as bad as you think!" but an announcement for actually changing the clause or limiting it to Teams/Jobs. | |
| May 8, 2018 at 22:13 | comment | added | user50049 | @MadScientist the update we're posting talks about way more than just the opt out, it was simply that part that prevented me from posting the update today. | |
| May 8, 2018 at 22:00 | comment | added | Mad Scientist | @TimPost the extremely inconvenient method of opting out is only a small part of the issue. Even if you fix that, there is still no convincing argument by SE why the arbitration clause is necessary in the first place. Not to speak of the confidentiality clause, or the asymmetry in still allowing SE to sue users for IP violations. The problem is much bigger than the opt-out clause, and so far SE hasn't addressed that part at all. | |
| May 8, 2018 at 21:47 | comment | added | E.P. | For those wondering: is this the first and only <featured> post with a negative score?. No, no it isn't, but it's damn close. | |
| May 8, 2018 at 20:42 | comment | added | user50049 | Folks I'm sorry for the delay, an update was going to be posted today but there was a last minute glitch on plans to simplify opt out. Don't worry about losing time, no clock is ticking yet, and I have a ton more info to post before lunch NYC tomorrow. We have listened, we have a lot to tell you, I just couldn't get everyone in one place to sign off on the next post in time for it to go out today. Don't worry! It'll be tomorrow for sure, and I hope we will all quickly get to a better place with this. | |
| May 8, 2018 at 20:16 | comment | added | NathanOliver | So, do I have 30 days to respond from 2018-05-02 or when you guys finally send the email? Are these new terms actually live? If you don't figure out a new way to opt out before 30 days from 2018-05-02 does that mean we can't even though yo are still working on the details? | |
| May 8, 2018 at 14:08 | comment | added | TylerH | @ray From the client's perspective who hired the lawyer, writing one-sided contracts that the other party has no choice in accepting is ideal. You want to have all the cards, don't you? | |
| May 8, 2018 at 6:07 | comment | added | code_dredd | @jhpratt The problem is lawyers, apparently, don't know how to deal with people; only with writing one-sided contracts that users have no choice in accepting... current score is -104; it should be lower. | |
| May 7, 2018 at 21:32 | comment | added | code_dredd | Arbitration clauses are as one-sided, abusive, and unfair as non-compete agreements people are required to "agree" to if they want to be employed... that's no choice at all. Earned another down vote. | |
| May 7, 2018 at 19:07 | comment | added | jhpratt | Still waiting on an email to opt out of arbitration. Not to mention the ridiculousness of the situation (hence the current -89 score). If I can sign up electronically, I should be able to opt out electronically. That's a requirement in the EU, so I'm not sure what the problem is. | |
| May 7, 2018 at 14:12 | comment | added | TylerH | @TimPost I haven't received an email yet, either, 5 days out... when the email comes, will it include instructions on how to opt-out via snail mail or will I have to dig through the updated ToS to find those? | |
| May 7, 2018 at 11:55 | comment | added | Lundin | @TheJavaNub Maybe they are from people who just want to use the sites without having their democratic rights revoked and without wading through 10 chapters of legal crap? | |
| May 7, 2018 at 11:24 | comment | added | Plqsmic | What's with the downvotes? | |
| May 7, 2018 at 3:00 | answer | added | Theodore R. Smith | timeline score: -3 | |
| May 6, 2018 at 20:24 | comment | added | Paŭlo Ebermann | I didn't get any email yet – so I guess the terms don't yet apply to me? | |
| May 5, 2018 at 12:43 | comment | added | poke | “This change is live as of late 2018-05-02” – Don’t you need to at least notify all users via email of this change? | |
| May 5, 2018 at 0:01 | answer | added | whatthefish | timeline score: 13 | |
| May 4, 2018 at 16:20 | answer | added | ccorn | timeline score: 16 | |
| May 4, 2018 at 13:38 | comment | added | TylerH | @TimPost Thanks for the updates and for listening to the community's concerns about the arbitration clause. Providing a specific place to discuss aspects of an announcement is how every announcement/blog post should go. | |
| May 4, 2018 at 13:20 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| May 4, 2018 at 13:09 | answer | added | Goose | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 4, 2018 at 1:01 | answer | added | Monica Cellio | timeline score: 17 | |
| May 4, 2018 at 0:48 | comment | added | forest distrusts StackExchange | @TimPost Thanks! I really hope there is a chance that the whole clause can be removed... Opting out within 30 days is not enough, especially for anonymous users. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 14:57 | history | edited | user50049 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 502 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2018 at 14:09 | comment | added | Joonas Ilmavirta | @TimPost Thanks for bringing it up with the relevant people and keeping us updated! | |
| May 3, 2018 at 14:07 | comment | added | user50049 | @JoonasIlmavirta I'm talking to everyone involved now. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 13:57 | comment | added | Joonas Ilmavirta | People are reacting strongly to the arbitration. Please listen to the community and either remove it or allow online opt-out. Please! | |
| May 3, 2018 at 13:56 | answer | added | Joonas Ilmavirta | timeline score: 25 | |
| May 3, 2018 at 13:15 | comment | added | George Cummins | Arbitration? I'm done. I'm clicking the logout button and not looking back. Shame on you, SO. For so, so many things. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 12:12 | history | edited | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog |
edited tags
|
|
| May 3, 2018 at 10:00 | history | edited | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
casing
|
| May 3, 2018 at 9:15 | answer | added | reneMod | timeline score: 19 | |
| May 3, 2018 at 7:24 | answer | added | Tschallacka | timeline score: 86 | |
| May 3, 2018 at 7:23 | comment | added | angussidney | Can you please add an option to opt-out of arbitration via email? Sending mail to the US is hard, expensive, and slow. I doubt that it would even make it to your offices in 30 days, given the speed of our mail service. I'm really disappointed in this change. | |
| May 3, 2018 at 7:02 | comment | added | Steven Mills | I sort of feel like I might need this plugin just to browse the net... tosdr.org | |
| May 3, 2018 at 6:26 | comment | added | Lundin | Since I'm not a native English-speaking lawyer, does this mean I have to stop using Stack Exchange now? | |
| May 3, 2018 at 4:20 | comment | added | TheLittleNaruto | @Jaydles Yeah makes sense. Will wait for the updates. Thanks :) | |
| May 3, 2018 at 2:37 | comment | added | Vikki | I don't see the need to make Teams pay-only at all... | |
| May 3, 2018 at 2:18 | answer | added | Vikki | timeline score: 217 | |
| May 3, 2018 at 0:08 | history | edited | Shog9Mod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
ToS changes now live
|
| May 2, 2018 at 23:45 | answer | added | curiousdannii | timeline score: 38 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 22:59 | answer | added | Sonic the Anonymous Hedgehog | timeline score: 29 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 22:54 | answer | added | curiousdannii | timeline score: 30 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 22:20 | answer | added | Thorsten S. | timeline score: 22 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 22:10 | comment | added | TemporalWolf | '[if you opt out] then you must litigate any disputes against us in accordance with the "Assignment and Jurisdiction" section below.' That section is above the quoted line. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 21:42 | answer | added | user2357112 | timeline score: 46 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 21:13 | comment | added | TylerH | @Pavel Typically it means by using the site you agree that, for any legal action or complaint you may file with the court system, you will handle it via an arbiter decided upon by the defendant rather than going to court. Trying to go to court anyway will typically get your case thrown out if you have agreed to arbitration. It's considered a bad practice, ethically (and some argue that it is not legal), but it's still very popular because it saves a LOT of time and money for companies that deal with legal action a lot. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 20:35 | comment | added | Carmax | termsfeed.com/blog/arbitration-clause-terms-conditions but I'm not 100% clear how this would apply to S.E. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 20:22 | comment | added | Pavel | What does Arbitration Clause mean? | |
| May 2, 2018 at 20:14 | answer | added | Monica Cellio | timeline score: 121 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 18:24 | comment | added | Machavity | Wait, the terms and conditions aren't just a morality test? | |
| May 2, 2018 at 18:22 | answer | added | DVK | timeline score: 16 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 18:00 | answer | added | zwol | timeline score: 437 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 17:47 | answer | added | user2357112 | timeline score: 167 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 17:45 | answer | added | TylerH | timeline score: 55 | |
| May 2, 2018 at 17:43 | comment | added | TylerH | Regarding Point #2... any more thoughts on meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/367027/blacklist-gdpr or my comment there? | |
| May 2, 2018 at 17:18 | comment | added | Jaydles StaffMod | @TheLittleNaruto not on launch day. We've learned from past efforts that it's better to focus on getting one use-case right first, and THEN trying to expand, and we wanted to focus on the paid product, but we are offering really cheap pricing for small teams, and will consider free licenses for non-profits or others that can't pay. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 17:12 | history | edited | JaydlesStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Our lawyers clarified that the explanation for the backround on arbitration here wasn't accurate. I don't fully KNOW the actual background yet, but wanted to correct the small error.
|
| May 2, 2018 at 16:57 | comment | added | TheLittleNaruto | Will there be a free version of Team as well ? May be with limited set of features. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 16:23 | history | edited | user50049 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 454 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2018 at 16:22 | comment | added | Monica Cellio | Thanks for the heads-up. Can we get a diff when it's up? I did read every word once; I'd like to be able to focus on the changes this time. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 16:19 | history | edited | user50049 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 454 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2018 at 16:04 | history | asked | user50049 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
