Comment on Proposed Content Policy ToS and FAQ changes

  1. 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

    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

      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