# Someone explain this, and someone explain it -now-



## Accountability (Aug 31, 2011)

This is taken straight from the code on the FA mainsite:



> <script type="text/javascript">         var vglnk = { api_url: '//api.viglink.com/api', key: '65d956b58785ef9fd27b896d25c9e1ba' };          (function(d, t) {             var s = d.createElement(t); s.type = 'text/javascript'; s.async = true;             s.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? vglnk.api_url : '//cdn.viglink.com/api') + '/vglnk.js';             var r = d.getElementsByTagName(t)[0]; r.parentNode.insertBefore(s, r);         }(document, 'script'));     </script>



According to the website of Viglink:


> *How It Works*
> 
> If one of your users clicks through to a product or service and buys       something, you earn a commission. You only pay us a share of what you       earn.
> *Powerful Analytics*
> ...



This is a direct, *blatant* violation of the FurAffinity Terms of Service. I quote:


> Fur Affinity does not engage in active data collection of its  users. Your personal information will not be resold or distributed  except within the Fur Affinity network (main site, forums).



Tracking where people go when they leave the site (using a third party, no less) is *without a doubt* active data collection.



EDIT: Not disclosing this is apparently a violation of federal law.


> Most users do not notice on their own although we highly recommend  you disclose it. VigLink does not change the user experience one bit. No  links are inserted or removed on the page, there are no  double-underlines or pop-ups, and mousing over a link looks "clean."
> 
> *The US Federal Trade Commission requires that you disclose use of affiliate links.* More information and tools are available.



Yeah. _*Ya dun goof'd.*_
[video=youtube;SYxvVe9y5NQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYxvVe9y5NQ[/video]


----------



## Draconas (Aug 31, 2011)

So dumbed down version, FA tracks you after leaving it or something?


----------



## moriko (Aug 31, 2011)

dumbed down version: FA states it doesn't track where you go when leaving FA, nor even actively collect data within FA, but is apparently doing the first, which apparently is against Federal law if you state you are not doing it.


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 31, 2011)

inb4 "That was just one staff member's mistake. We didn't know and we're taking care of it."


----------



## Seas (Aug 31, 2011)

Time to register free domains with offensive titles to generate _interesting_ entries in the site logs.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Seas said:


> Time to register free domains with offensive titles to generate _interesting_ entries in the site logs.


Www.Neeristhegabenofthefurryfandom.com ?


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Aug 31, 2011)

Could this be a serious legal issue for fA? (Honest question)


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Aug 31, 2011)

Well, this is quite something...weird.


----------



## OssumPawesome (Aug 31, 2011)

Okay, so I think I get it. But...

Explain to me as if I were a 5 year old.


----------



## moriko (Aug 31, 2011)

Friend that offers you to play games with him using his games told you he totally wouldn't take your lunch when you aren't looking. Teachers say taking other kids lunches is bad and will get you in trouble! Friend totally takes your lunch. Actually I'm not sure that's good....

Older than 5 version: You eat at a store that tells you they don't keep track of what your commonly chosen food is, does it without telling you and sells this info to other places you shop at. It's considered illegal for them to do such without telling you.


----------



## Stratelier (Aug 31, 2011)

Aren't browsing habits generally _not_ personally-identifying information?


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 31, 2011)

Odd piece of code I noticed in their (huge) .js script



> innerHTML=(h.feedback&&!k.gave_feedback?'<span id="feedback"><span class="give">*Rate this link*: <a class="feedback up" title="*This link is good!*">â†‘</a><a class="feedback down" title="*This link is not so good.*">â†“</a><a class="feedback" title="*I\'m not sure.*">?</a></span><span class="gave">Thanks!</span></span>':"")+'*Link added by <a href="http://www.viglink.com/?vgtag=lii">VigLink</a>*';



Which seems to contradict



> VigLink does not change the user experience one bit. No links are inserted or removed on the page, there are no double-underlines or pop-ups, and mousing over a link looks "clean."



Anyway. I'm wondering if it tracks _individual_ users, or just users as a whole. 

So when is someone going to tell us what's going on?


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

We need to update the Terms of Service to reflect the changes, as well as the clause there. I'm working on a minor update to that right now, and this was just added as a small test. The initial test of Viglink was done as a trial after they contacted us.

Any user can opt out of Viglink, and the information on how to do so is here:
http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-00617/16/What-is-Viglink.html


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> We need to update the Terms of Service to reflect the changes, as well as the clause there. I'm working on a minor update to that right now, and this was just added as a small test. The initial test of Viglink was done as a trial after they contacted us.
> 
> Any user can opt out of Viglink, and the information on how to do so is here:
> http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-00617/16/What-is-Viglink.html


now heres the part where you have to OPENLY state to ALL USERS that we have this to allow them to know and thus opt out


----------



## Lobar (Aug 31, 2011)

How does updating the ToS not immediately come to mind as a necessary prerequisite step for implementing such a service to any degree, even just a "small test"?


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Lobar said:


> How does updating the ToS not immediately come to mind as a necessary prerequisite step for implementing such a service to any degree, even just a "small test"?


only when they have common sense running


----------



## Jashwa (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Any user can opt out of Viglink, and the information on how to do so is here:
> http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-00617/16/What-is-Viglink.html


It'd be nice if you would tell people that you're going to track their data and let them opt out if they choose BEFORE you start doing it and not just after you get found out.


----------



## Kishu (Aug 31, 2011)

Not cool, law dictates you tell people about this kind of thing, and not only after you get busted.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

Kishu said:


> Not cool, law dictates you tell people about this kind of thing, and not only after you get busted.


We had an update to the TOS that was not pushed live yet, but one we had planned to today along with some other small changes on the site. Anybody can opt out from the service at any time, and the TOS was updated to reflect that, as well as a news post.


----------



## BRN (Aug 31, 2011)

I like FA because things like this happen


----------



## Deo (Aug 31, 2011)

Okay, Neer, you've told us now after we had to ask. Even though Federal Law states that you are supposed to make users aware of such tracking and third parties before/during your entire use of them. A step forward is that you told the forums, good. Now why have you not put up a memo or awareness banner on the main site where this is affecting the bulk of your users? Who are_ still_ illegally uninformed?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> We had an update to the TOS that was not pushed live yet, but one we had planned to today along with some other small changes on the site. Anybody can opt out from the service at any time, and the TOS was updated to reflect that, as well as a news post.



I think the question people would like answered is this: Why didn't you do the TOS and news post thing BEFORE installing the get-rich-quick scheme?


----------



## Tiger In A Tie (Aug 31, 2011)

How long has Viglink been in use on the site before anyone found out?


----------



## Lobar (Aug 31, 2011)

The minimum ethical standard of disclosure for any change to a website that affects user privacy should be an _advance_ notice of the change that details the exact nature of that change.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

AshleyAshes said:


> I think the question people would like answered is this: Why didn't you do the TOS and news post thing BEFORE installing the get-rich-quick scheme?


It's no "get rich quick" scheme. It basically just utilizes affiliate programs that sites like Amazon already offer, and other sites.



Tiger In A Tie said:


> How long has Viglink been in use on the site before anyone found out?


It's been in testing for about five days.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> We had an update to the TOS that was not pushed live yet, but one we had planned to today along with some other small changes on the site. Anybody can opt out from the service at any time, and the TOS was updated to reflect that, as well as a news post.


Doesnt change that you have to tell your userbase first instead of hoping no one would notice and just silently update the TOS.
Also no, silently updating the TOS isnt telling us


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The minimum ethical standard of disclosure for any change to a website that affects user privacy should be an _advance_ notice of the change that details the exact nature of that change.


You are completely right in this, and the order in which this was handled was not done correctly.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> You are completely right in this, and the order in which this was handled was not done correctly.



So, what happened to FA's new age of transparency?


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> You are completely right in this, and the order in which this was handled was not done correctly.


 
Will we see any public apology, or punishment of the people who messed up the order? This is a big deal, and it greatly affects the users.

Hell, I've always been a defensive proponent of FA, but this makes even me question the trustworthiness of the staff and the site, if this'd go unchecked for five days straight.


----------



## MandertehPander (Aug 31, 2011)

So, how are you going to apologize for THIS one, Dragoneer?
Free FA:U reg?
Copy-Pasted e-mail to every active member of the site?
Nothing at all?


----------



## BRN (Aug 31, 2011)

I get the feeling it's just me who sees this as a non-event


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> You are completely right in this, and the order in which this was handled was not done correctly.


and oddly enough if no one noticed you wouldnt have done nothing


----------



## Onnes (Aug 31, 2011)

SIX said:


> I get the feeling it's just me who sees this as a non-event



The only part of this that surprises me is that tracking and affiliate programs weren't already covered in the ToS.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 31, 2011)

Gar-Yulong said:


> This is a big deal, and it greatly affects the users.



_How?_


----------



## LizardKing (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> It's been in testing for about five days.



_Five days?_ 

So how long after you noticed this thread did it take to update the ToS and make a post on the FA front page? 5 minutes? 10? Why was it left until someone discovered it?  You can't just leave things in place until it gets noticed and _then_ deal with it, you end up doing the same amount of work _and_ have to deal with the fallout _and_ give users yet another reason to be distrusting. Do yourself a favour and make sure everything is in place straight away; it'll give you far less work to deal with later on, if anything at all.


----------



## Accountability (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> It's no "get rich quick" scheme. It basically just utilizes affiliate programs that sites like Amazon already offer, and other sites.
> 
> It's been in testing for about five days.



5 days?! You've had this thing going for 5 days without any sort of public announcement? You can't tell me you didn't think this would eventually cause problems.

soniamdissapoint.jpg

Furthermore, why continue to try to profit from FA without actually trying to profit from FA? Multiple times it's come up and people have said they'd be willing to pay for add-ons to their account as long as what we have now stays. It seems to me, at least, that the most effective way to bring in income would be to do these things, instead of resorting to questionable affiliate programs. And don't tell me there's not enough people on the coding team to do this, because we all know what's going on there.



Xenke said:


> _How?_


The ToS is a legally binding document. FA has failed to uphold their end of it. Certainly there is a lawyer somewhere in the US who would take up the case if someone bothered to pursue it. I don't know what you'd get out of it, though... boxes of server RAM? Dragoneer's commissions? Certainly not much...


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 31, 2011)

You would think that, when doing things like this, you'd inform the users first.  "We are going to do a thing" and then do it, rather than doing a thing, having people notice and get upset, and then saying "oh yeah, we did a thing, we were gonna tell you later."

And that's not even getting into exactly what this thing even is: slipping in moneymaking middleman scripts to get yourself product referrals.  How did this approach seem like a good idea, especially considering the long history of exactly how these things play out?  How long will it take to learn this lesson that, no matter what it is you're doing, it's always going to be found out and always going to be worse when it is found out?  Like the site's suggestions on notification says, people would be a lot more understanding if you'd said something before doing it, and that's even less important than the legal aspects.

This runs afoul of ethics and courtesy, and seems to also violate the law.  I don't know what's worse, if this played out because of impulsiveness and not planning things through, or if this was actually discussed in detail before going ahead- it's like the Furocity "merger" thread where something was announced, everyone got the wrong impression because of poor wording, few details on what it actually entailed were being answered (if you are in talks for a year you should have at least some general details of what it means), and then it disappeared.

These "bright ideas" need to stop, or at least should be run by someone who can recognize fundamental problems that don't seem to occur to those involved in planning/implementation.  Lord knows everyone in this thread is already saying "TELL THE USERS BEFORE YOU PUT THIS INTO PLACE;" how is something that *PATENTLY OBVIOUS* overlooked?


----------



## BRN (Aug 31, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The only part of this that surprises me is that tracking and affiliate programs weren't already covered in the ToS.



Nah, it's not that I'm not surprised - even though I'm not surprised. It's just that this thread, the whole thing, seems like furry drama. The last five days of my FA experience were no different to the last ten. 

Besides, Viglist or wtc this whole thread is about... the only thing it would discover from me is either that I block tracking cookies or that I visit Pokemon-related websites. Y'know, like... big deal.


----------



## MandertehPander (Aug 31, 2011)

I wonder if he even RAN this by Gavin before doing it. I'll have to ask him~


----------



## moriko (Aug 31, 2011)

*PLEASE READ: EVEN if you opt out at viglink's website. If you clear your cookies, it will automatically Opt you back in. The Opt out feature only works for those with the opt out cookie. So anyone that clears their temporary internet files or cookies once in a while will need to revisit that opt out link.
*_
This seemed important, so I made it bigger. Hope you don't mind -Corto_


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Oh what the hell.

Why do you guys keep trying to slip things under the radar without telling us first. Every single time you try it explodes in your face. I think my signature is evidence of this.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 31, 2011)

SIX said:
			
		

> I get the feeling it's just me who sees this as a non-event



It's not really a non-event. It sounds like the FA TOS said they won't track you. Then they started tracking people, or at least adding something else that tracks you, against their TOS. Only after breaking that deal they change the TOS.

I guess this is why they've been delaying the Code of Conduct. Probably says something about not violating your own TOS.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 31, 2011)

you seriously thought it was a good idea not to tell anyone about this...? there are people who are really cautious about things like this and you just put it in without anyone knowing about it... not cool!

handling such a huge community is a big responsibility and you need to make your community feel at home. it really doesnt help if you piss on everyones legs like this!


----------



## Draconas (Aug 31, 2011)

Google is already up my ass, Fa is trying to do the same so I personally don't care what's tracked about me


----------



## kayfox (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> It's no "get rich quick" scheme. It basically just utilizes affiliate programs that sites like Amazon already offer, and other sites.
> 
> It's been in testing for about five days.


 
Isnt this one of those things that rewrites urls to places like Amazon to remove other affiliate IDs and replace it with their own?

LiveJournal is doing this, and it does crazy shit like scrolling to the bottom of the page when the service is broken and occasionally rendering the whole page inoperable when it shits all over the DOM.


----------



## AshleyAshes (Aug 31, 2011)

> Any funding generated will go towards coding efforts



Hey uhm... Since when does FA need to pay for coding?  Does this mean there are staff on a payroll?


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

AshleyAshes said:


> Hey uhm... Since when does FA need to pay for coding?  Does this mean there are staff on a payroll?



Hahahahhaa

hahahahahahaahahahahahahahaha


----------



## ygdrassil (Aug 31, 2011)

guys Dragoneer has the ability to do this stuff. he can basically do whatever he likes-- it's his site. if you don't like what you see as underhanded ways of making money off the userbase, he doesn't have to listen to you. if something as small as this is so upsetting you should just go to another site.

and jesus if you're so serious about this being a federal offense, just report him to the appropriate people or whatever.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Aug 31, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> You would think that, when doing things like this, you'd inform the users first.  "We are going to do a thing" and then do it, rather than doing a thing, having people notice and get upset, and then saying "oh yeah, we did a thing, we were gonna tell you later."
> 
> And that's not even getting into exactly what this thing even is: slipping in moneymaking middleman scripts to get yourself product referrals.  How did this approach seem like a good idea, especially considering the long history of exactly how these things play out?  How long will it take to learn this lesson that, no matter what it is you're doing, it's always going to be found out and always going to be worse when it is found out?  Like the site's suggestions on notification says, people would be a lot more understanding if you'd said something before doing it, and that's even less important than the legal aspects.
> 
> ...



No it's okay they were going to but someone messed up the order and pfftthahahahahahahahahaha I couldn't even finish that defensive sentence.



So yeah, Neer, are we gonna see any reason why you didn't tell everyone first, and is the person responsible going to get fired or yelled at or banned or what? This is hideously unprofessional -and- skeezy.


----------



## Acorn (Aug 31, 2011)

SIX said:


> Nah, it's not that I'm not surprised - even though I'm not surprised. It's just that this thread, the whole thing, seems like furry drama. The last five days of my FA experience were no different to the last ten.
> 
> Besides, Viglist or wtc this whole thread is about... the only thing it would discover from me is either that I block tracking cookies or that I visit Pokemon-related websites. Y'know, like... big deal.



I think it's the people who visit bestiality and porn sites that are the most concerned. They don't want the world knowing their dirty little secrets.


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 31, 2011)

ygdrassil said:


> guys Dragoneer has the ability to do this stuff. he can basically do whatever he likes-- it's his site. if you don't like what you see as underhanded ways of making money off the userbase, he doesn't have to listen to you. if something as small as this is so upsetting you should just go to another site.
> 
> and jesus if you're so serious about this being a federal offense, just report him to the appropriate people or whatever.



in this case he cant do whatever he wants. if he did there would be no one left in this community!


----------



## reaux (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> It's been in testing for about five days.



so you've been breaking the law for about 5 days.  and you're OK with that.


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 31, 2011)

ygdrassil said:


> guys Dragoneer has the ability to do this stuff. he can basically do whatever he likes-- it's his site. if you don't like what you see as underhanded ways of making money off the userbase, he doesn't have to listen to you. if something as small as this is so upsetting you should just go to another site.
> 
> and jesus if you're so serious about this being a federal offense, just report him to the appropriate people or whatever.


 
thanks for registering to post this i hope we see many more quality posts like this one you are a champion of posting

posts

(mlyp snark aside this argument has been done to death and is stupid- nothing new is added and nobody is even contesting that this isn't HIS SITE TO DO WHATEVER WITH, it's a false line of reasoning)


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> and oddly enough if no one noticed you wouldnt have done nothing


This is just not true at all, sorry. I rather like NOT violating the law if at all possible (speeding aside - I do admit the speed limit and I have a hard time agreeing when driving).


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> This is just not true at all, sorry. I rather like NOT violating the law if at all possible (speeding aside - I do admit the speed limit and I have a hard time agreeing when driving).



Okay nobody cares about your driving habits will you just actually give a proper explanation here.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> This is just not true at all, sorry. I rather like NOT violating the law if at all possible (speeding aside - I do admit the speed limit and I have a hard time agreeing when driving).





			
				Gar-Yulong said:
			
		

> Will we see any public apology, or punishment of the people who messed up the order? This is a big deal, and it greatly affects the users.



Just uh, tryin' to keep things on track here.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

MandertehPander said:


> I wonder if he even RAN this by Gavin before doing it. I'll have to ask him~


Yes, I did. I ran it by Gavin and the site coders to get their opinion on it, and we decided to test it to see if it was worthwhile.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, I did. I ran it by Gavin and the site coders to get their opinion on it, and we decided to test it to see if it was worthwhile.



So can we take this as "We all messed up and didn't think this through"? A public apology'd be nice.


----------



## Widontknow (Aug 31, 2011)

Well now there is an explanation on the main site.  No apology, but I don't expect one.  All I can say is noscript FTW?


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, I did. I ran it by Gavin and the site coders to get their opinion on it, and we decided to test it to see if it was worthwhile.



Really?  He didn't say, even for a moment, "this is something we should announce before implementing"?  I'm kind of at a loss as to how this step of user notification was missed, especially since it involves hidden monetization of a free service- people didn't know until someone looked over the source and spoke up.  Ad banners are one thing, this is entirely different.  It's hard to believe not one person stepped up in favor of informing prior to implementation.


----------



## MandertehPander (Aug 31, 2011)

Gar-Yulong said:


> So can we take this as "We all messed up and didn't think this through"? A public apology'd be nice.


 Are you kidding me? XD


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

MandertehPander said:


> Are you kidding me? XD



Give the benefit of the doubt.

When it's obvious that they refuse to apologize for their fuckup, then you tear them a second hole to match the first.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

Gar-Yulong said:


> So can we take this as "We all messed up and didn't think this through"? A public apology'd be nice.


Yes, that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'll poke Gavin, and draft up something later. The only reason this "slipped through" is because we wanted to test the service to see if it was worthwhile first and foremost. Advertising covers a good chunk of the site, but I am constantly hit with small payments needed here and there to cover unexpected FA expenses. This comes out of my paycheck, and I can't continue to keep losing money every month to keep the site running.

Viglink does NOT make it readily apparent regarding the FTC requirements. I found that out last night, and while Viglink did contact us to work this out, they created the account for us and gave us a brief run down. The FTC was missed at first. I wanted to run changes by Gavin before updating the TOS and some other pages before just updating the TOS without consulting him.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'll poke Gavin, and draft up something later. The only reason this "slipped through" is because we wanted to test the service to see if it was worthwhile first and foremost. Advertising covers a good chunk of the site, but I am constantly hit with small payments needed here and there to cover unexpected FA expenses. This comes out of my paycheck, and I can't continue to keep losing money every month to keep the site running.
> 
> Viglink does NOT make it readily apparent regarding the FTC requirements. I found that out last night, and while Viglink did contact us to work this out, they created the account for us and gave us a brief run down. The FTC was missed at first. I wanted to run changes by Gavin before updating the TOS and some other pages before just updating the TOS without consulting him.



I stopped at 'draft later'.

Later is not now.


----------



## MandertehPander (Aug 31, 2011)

He never gave a real formal public apology about threatening his admins, let alone Yiffy leaks (Copy and pasted "I'm sorry ):" ) doesn't work. I have no faith he'll do the same for this.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> *Viglink does NOT make it readily apparent regarding the FTC requirements.*



you mean like how you don't make your own crap readily apparent.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Neer this sites life is its users...
please dont be the Gaben of the Furry fandom, this site is already in that status as it is
Your update for FA is now no longer being compared to Duke Nukem forever as that game came out...its now suffereing from "Half-Life 2:ep 3" syndrome. I'm just now waiting for you to now start talking about everything else and no longer talk about the Update every few months or so...just dont become like Capcom.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'll poke Gavin, and draft up something later. The only reason this "slipped through" is because we wanted to test the service to see if it was worthwhile first and foremost. Advertising covers a good chunk of the site, but I am constantly hit with small payments needed here and there to cover unexpected FA expenses. This comes out of my paycheck, and I can't continue to keep losing money every month to keep the site running.
> 
> Viglink does NOT make it readily apparent regarding the FTC requirements. I found that out last night, and while Viglink did contact us to work this out, they created the account for us and gave us a brief run down. The FTC was missed at first. I wanted to run changes by Gavin before updating the TOS and some other pages before just updating the TOS without consulting him.



No, no, no, no, no drafts.

Why do you need to make a draft? Make a new news post, say "We're sorry for not notifying all users about Viglink the moment we decided to put it in testing." and there you go. Is it that hard?

So it didn't 'slip through', instead you just sort of stuffed it in there and expected nobody to notice until you  actually announced this thing.


----------



## Iovis (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'll poke Gavin, and draft up something later. The only reason this "slipped through" is because we wanted to test the service to see if it was worthwhile first and foremost. Advertising covers a good chunk of the site, but I am constantly hit with small payments needed here and there to cover unexpected FA expenses. This comes out of my paycheck, and I can't continue to keep losing money every month to keep the site running.
> 
> *Viglink does NOT make it readily apparent regarding the FTC requirements.* I found that out last night, and while Viglink did contact us to work this out, they created the account for us and gave us a brief run down. The FTC was missed at first. I wanted to run changes by Gavin before updating the TOS and some other pages before just updating the TOS without consulting him.



Wait... what? You didn't even bother reading the FAQ first to see what they actually do? Sean... I just lot a lot of respect for you. Do some goddamn research before you go out and "test" something. *facepalm*


----------



## CaptainCool (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'll poke Gavin, and draft up something later. The only reason this "slipped through" is because we wanted to test the service to see if it was worthwhile first and foremost. Advertising covers a good chunk of the site, but I am constantly hit with small payments needed here and there to cover unexpected FA expenses. This comes out of my paycheck, and I can't continue to keep losing money every month to keep the site running.
> 
> Viglink does NOT make it readily apparent regarding the FTC requirements. I found that out last night, and while Viglink did contact us to work this out, they created the account for us and gave us a brief run down. The FTC was missed at first. I wanted to run changes by Gavin before updating the TOS and some other pages before just updating the TOS without consulting him.



the problem i see here is that even a test should have been announced. especially if it ran for 5 days...
you havent given us the chance to opt out of this for 5 days! why not? what is the reason the test wasnt announced? and when DID you plan to tell us about this?
many people on the internet dont want to expose this sort of information. and by not announcing this you have left us completely exposed.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Hey Dragoneer instead of making excuses to point fingers at maybe you should just say 'I dun doof'd' and it'd be over with. Not 'We', not 'Viglink', not it not being apparent, or it being hidden somewhere, or nobody contacting you from viglink, or none of your admins telling you.

This should be common sense. Every time you come up with a new excuse, people poke holes in it. Throwing up another one just makes it worse.


----------



## ygdrassil (Aug 31, 2011)

CaptainCool said:


> in this case he cant do whatever he wants. if he did there would be no one left in this community!



he's been doing whatever he's wanted to do with his site ever since he's owned it. he has the ability to do whatever he wants and he keeps doing it. the community is still here.

I mean people keep complaining and yet people keep staying. talk is cheap and is obviously very easily ignored. when someone is in a seat of power like his, he doesn't have to answer to people or words-- he only needs to answer to statistics.

words don't mean shit when you have the resolve to ignore them.


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, that's fine. I have no problem with that. I'll poke Gavin, and draft up something later. The only reason this "slipped through" is because we wanted to test the service to see if it was worthwhile first and foremost. Advertising covers a good chunk of the site, but I am constantly hit with small payments needed here and there to cover unexpected FA expenses. This comes out of my paycheck, and I can't continue to keep losing money every month to keep the site running.
> 
> Viglink does NOT make it readily apparent regarding the FTC requirements. I found that out last night, and while Viglink did contact us to work this out, they created the account for us and gave us a brief run down. The FTC was missed at first. I wanted to run changes by Gavin before updating the TOS and some other pages before just updating the TOS without consulting him.



How did it slip through if it was a process that was initiated by someone (whether you or someone else), run by others such as Gavin for thoughts and ideas, approved by you (since you own the site, nobody on staff would go over your head), and ultimately implemented?

That wasn't something that, whoopsie daisy, just happened, it was a conscious process that at every step had ample opportunity for consideration.  It was a deliberate set of actions that were signed off on, and ultimately you are responsible for these actions.  It's your site, you went ahead and did this, please take responsibility.  Unless you're admitting that things "just happen" that you have no control over and that FA is a loose organization of unfiltered impulse.  This isn't "mistakes were made" or "something slipped through the cracks," because slipping through the cracks implies that there is a set of standards or a process in place intended to catch these things.

People wouldn't be up in arms if it had just been mentioned beforehand; the coverup is always worse than the crime, even when the crime isn't a crime and is something people would otherwise support.  An apology and some ownership should be the very first step taken here, but you're delegating any and all blame away to undefined nothingness.  Please step up.


----------



## Iovis (Aug 31, 2011)

ygdrassil said:


> he has the ability to do whatever he wants


nope.avi

If he had the ability to do whatever he wanted he could post child porn without consequences. Oh... wait...


----------



## ygdrassil (Aug 31, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> thanks for registering to post this i hope we see many more quality posts like this one you are a champion of posting



n e trophy


----------



## amazing-bong-hits (Aug 31, 2011)

Anyone else notice dragoneer posted a journal yesterday linking to a wacom tablet

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2673260/

I bet he's going to be posting a whole lot of journals with links to products now

I don't trust FA at all now. The admins thought they could sneak this past us.


----------



## VanillaDoggo (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer, I know you want to have a good community/admin relationship, but.. it might be in your best interest to just ignore these whiny retards.. begging for apologies and screaming "NOW NOW NOW"? .. you're talking to 8 years olds, man. They'll keep coming to the site regardless.. but responding to their childishness just creates more screencaps and quotes for people to nitpick over on lulz.net and these very forums.. we both know that none of them know what they're talking about, and aren't even considering the situation from a logical point of view - they aren't even attempting to look at it through YOUR eyes.. they haven't evolved beyond child logic. Direct your troll-fire at me, whimps, not the guy supporting a site you get to use for free.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Guys lets just calm the fuck down for a minute
Neer understand that he once again screwed up, thus did the usual inform the rest of the users knowing that only the small community of the Forums would know this feature existed longer while to the rest will think it only started now.

The point is he made a announcement on the main site informing folks now, the point some of us was pushing across that he should of done in the start but better late than never right?



cause we all know what usually happens with never, right Neer? You get your userbase trusting you less and less as a leader of this site. >[


----------



## ygdrassil (Aug 31, 2011)

Iovis said:


> nope.avi
> 
> If he had the ability to do whatever he wanted he could post child porn without consequences. Oh... wait...



yes, he has the ability to even do that. however, the consequences of said actions are so incredibly harsh that he would be an idiot to actually want to do that. having the ability to do something is disjoint from accepting the consequences of one's actions by said abilities.

life is about accepting and handling consequences for one's actions. what are the consequences for what he's been doing? a bunch of angry posts that he can easily ignore? sounds easy. you guys are being walked all over and taking it like a bunch of porn stars.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

Iovis said:


> Wait... what? You didn't even bother reading the FAQ first to see what they actually do? Sean... I just lot a lot of respect for you. Do some goddamn research before you go out and "test" something. *facepalm*


You do know the FTC requirements are for websites that personally endorse products, right? This applies to blogs and other sites which personally recommend products to get people to buy them while making a profit off of them.

"The Commission is revising Section 255.5 to make it clear that the duty to disclose material connections between advertisers and endorsers may depend on the particular medium used to disseminate that endorsement."

We are neither endorsing a product, nor have material connections to them. So the FTC thing isn't apparent. We need to inform users that yes, this service does anonymously track links (little else), but we're in violation of the FTC policies as a third party because we're not endorsing something directly. It racks non-identifiable information only.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 31, 2011)

Jeezus this thread. It's went from "talk about this issue" to "lololol harass about ERRYTING"

And:



amazing-bong-hits said:


> Anyone else notice dragoneer posted a journal yesterday linking to a wacom tablet
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2673260/
> 
> ...



Oh, you mean that thing that EVERYONE has been talking about recently? Jeez, imagine that, 'Neer can like cool things too.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Aug 31, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:
			
		

> Neer understand that he once again screwed up, thus did the usual inform  the rest of the users knowing that only the small community of the  Forums would know this feature existed longer while to the rest will  think it only started now.



Not totally. I've made a newsbyte linking to this thread on Flayrah's main page (http://www.flayrah.com/) and Khyberkitsune has posted about it on the furry reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/furry/comments/k09sq/looks_like_fa_is_allowing_a_company_to_do_active/).


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

amazing-bong-hits said:


> Anyone else notice dragoneer posted a journal yesterday linking to a wacom tablet
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2673260/
> 
> ...


You're trying way too hard. I am an artist, and that's something that does personally interest me. Further, there is no affiliate sales for that, and the damn thing isn't even for sale yet. I couldn't profit off that personally if I wanted to.

And hey, I also posted about it to Facebook, too. Why? It's interesting. It's something original and unique.


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 31, 2011)

maybe you should stop explaining and rationalizing and saying that a proposal to draft up an announcement to announce an announcement about how SOMEHOW this monetizing plan didn't pan out in the court of public opinion and just..

say "whoops i fucked up i'm sorry guys please forgive me and let's try to work things out from here"

the more you say things like "well the ftc thing doesn't apply to us because x y z" the more it seems like you're trying to redirect and bury this without owning up to what happened or understanding why people might be upset


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> maybe you should stop explaining and rationalizing and saying that a proposal to draft up an announcement to announce an announcement about how SOMEHOW this monetizing plan didn't pan out in the court of public opinion and just..
> 
> say "whoops i fucked up i'm sorry guys please forgive me and let's try to work things out from here"
> 
> the more you say things like "well the ftc thing doesn't apply to us because x y z" the more it seems like you're trying to redirect and bury this without owning up to what happened or understanding why people might be upset



I'm going to just quote this every couple pages.

Just so, you know, it has a higher chance of not being blatantly ignored.

Dunno, maybe in my signature, too.


----------



## Arcturus (Aug 31, 2011)

Seeing as you seem to dislike having to spend money on FurAffinity, let me say this now:

Dragoneer, are you willing to sell FurAffinity? I'm certain that I could raise the money to purchase it from you, at a fair price.

This is just the latest line in what I think is a bad direction for FA to go in and, as FA is so very important to the furry community, I have to point out when I feel it could be doing others or itself harm.

So what would you sell FA for, Dragoneer? And don't give me a some reply like 'lol a hundred million dollars' or 'well we'd never make that kind of thing public'.

How much, Dragoneer. Tell us how much, how much we (we being people who would like to see FA go in a better direction) would have to pay in order to be able to fix the things we think our wrong.

And post it in this thread, so all can see.


----------



## lowlow64 (Aug 31, 2011)

This shit surprises you? I'm sure FA has more sneaky shit going on too.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> maybe you should stop explaining and rationalizing and saying that a proposal to draft up an announcement to announce an announcement about how SOMEHOW this monetizing plan didn't pan out in the court of public opinion and just..
> 
> say "whoops i fucked up i'm sorry guys please forgive me and let's try to work things out from here"
> 
> the more you say things like "well the ftc thing doesn't apply to us because x y z" the more it seems like you're trying to redirect and bury this without owning up to what happened or understanding why people might be upset


And you're right, we should have alerted people to this sooner. I admit that, and it should have gone better. It was overlooked while we were still performing research, and were testing out the functionality to make sure this thing didn't bring down the site or cause further problems. In doing so, we should have announced what was going on, and that it anonymously recorded the data. It didn't happen. A lot was going on this week, and it just didn't happen like it should have.


----------



## Acorn (Aug 31, 2011)

Arcturus said:


> Seeing as you seem to dislike having to spend money on FurAffinity, let me say this now:
> 
> Dragoneer, are you willing to sell FurAffinity? I'm certain that I could raise the money to purchase it from you, at a fair price.
> 
> ...



FUCK NO. You are a million times more childish than Dragoneer could ever be.

Fuck off. If you bought the site, I would leave and I would hope others follow suit.


----------



## ygdrassil (Aug 31, 2011)

lowlow64 said:


> This shit surprises you? I'm sure FA has more sneaky shit going on too.



who remembers when things were randomly redirecting to new.maximum.md? probably no one, because when it was brought up it was ignored. hey, what's the TLD for .md again? hey, who's from .md again?


----------



## MandertehPander (Aug 31, 2011)

You're still missing three words there, 'Neer.

Here's a hint, the first word is "I".


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

Arcturus said:


> Dragoneer, are you willing to sell FurAffinity? I'm certain that I could raise the money to purchase it from you, at a fair price.


Ahh, yes, says the guy hosting illegally obtained notes and stolen private/personal information from FA.

You want to buy FA after you've openly and admittedly raped FA user's private information? Ha. That's a good one. I needed that laugh.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 31, 2011)

I am going to warn everyone that if you don't keep this thread on topic and it spirals into lets bring up every single thing that I might be upset about this thread will be closed.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Ahh, yes, says the guy hosting illegally obtained notes and stolen private/personal information from FA.
> 
> You want to buy FA after you've openly and admittedly raped FA user's private information? Ha. That's a good one. I needed that laugh.



Pot calling kettle black. Hahahah. 8I 'You did something illegal no.' while in your own thread about doing somthing illegal.


----------



## amazing-bong-hits (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> You're trying way too hard. I am an artist, and that's something that does personally interest me. Further, there is no affiliate sales for that, and the damn thing isn't even for sale yet. I couldn't profit off that personally if I wanted to.
> 
> And hey, I also posted about it to Facebook, too. Why? It's interesting. It's something original and unique.



You're not trying hard enough! you didn't tell us for 5 days, you just thought you could sneak this past us.  you had 5 days: running it past other people, contacting vigilink etc  and you didn't bother to update the tos or tell any of us and now you  just make BS excuses and say it wasn't your fault and get butthurt  because it blew up in your face.

now your all "it was overlooked while we were researching" that is absolute BS. How could you have FORGET to tell people you were doing this!?

Your excuses are just making you look worse and worse and worse.


----------



## Corto (Aug 31, 2011)

stihl said:


> smooth and creamy avocados


Strike one.


----------



## Gar-Yulong (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> And you're right, we should have alerted people to this sooner. I admit that, and it should have gone better. It was overlooked while we were still performing research, and were testing out the functionality to make sure this thing didn't bring down the site or cause further problems. In doing so, we should have announced what was going on, and that it anonymously recorded the data. It didn't happen. A lot was going on this week, and it just didn't happen like it should have.




Let's all stay on topic, because Neer didn't say the magic phrase just yet.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Gar-Yulong said:


> Let's all stay on topic, because Neer didn't say the magic phrase just yet.



The two magic words that may get the thing on the right track.


----------



## GeneralBaz (Aug 31, 2011)

Arcturus? Owning FA?

Yeah like I'd stick around. Fuck NO. He's a name-stealing, immature, shit-eating idiot.

Dragoneer, please, just apologise personally. There was a fuck up, it happens. Happens a lot here, but oh well.


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> And you're right, we should have alerted people to this sooner. I admit that, and it should have gone better. It was overlooked while we were still performing research, and were testing out the functionality to make sure this thing didn't bring down the site or cause further problems. In doing so, we should have announced what was going on, and that it anonymously recorded the data. It didn't happen. A lot was going on this week, and it just didn't happen like it should have.



I don't buy that.  Overlooked?  If you were doing research you would have seen stuff like "why notify users" or "FTC compliance" in the FAQs which you later said you never noticed or saw.  Alerted sooner?  I'd give benefit of the doubt on that if it was a couple of days at most, but it's a 'couple days' shy of a week- it had been in place, it had been operating, and I'd bet a dozen donuts that if nobody had noticed and publicized this, two weeks out nothing would have been mentioned.  It would then be filed under "ticket closed, not a problem" and forgotten forever- after all, if nobody noticed or got upset, there's no reason to suddenly mention it and then get people upset since up until that point it had not been mentioned at the beginning.  Any way you spin it, there's trouble with a program like this when it's not announced _at the outset_.  Not 'soon after testing is implemented,' but before.  Usually testing of stuff like this is announced, opted into, and/or not run on a production system.

If you are implying that too much was happening this week to actually notify the userbase of this program or any changes that might (read: have and would) occur, then how in the hell did you find the time to sign up for and integrate this affiliate program into FA?


----------



## Iovis (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> You do know the FTC requirements are for websites that personally endorse products, right? This applies to blogs and other sites which personally recommend products to get people to buy them while making a profit off of them.
> 
> "The Commission is revising Section 255.5 to make it clear that the duty to disclose material connections between advertisers and endorsers may depend on the particular medium used to disseminate that endorsement."
> 
> We are neither endorsing a product, nor have material connections to them. So the FTC thing isn't apparent. We need to inform users that yes, this service does anonymously track links (little else), but we're in violation of the FTC policies as a third party because we're not endorsing something directly. It racks non-identifiable information only.


1 + 1 =/= cheesecake




> [h=3]VigLink for Bloggers and Site Owners[/h]
> [h=4]Will my users notice? Should I disclose it?[/h] Most users do not notice on their own although we highly recommend you disclose it. VigLink does not change the user experience one bit. No links are inserted or removed on the page, there are no double-underlines or pop-ups, and mousing over a link looks "clean."
> The US Federal Trade Commission requires that you disclose use of affiliate links. More information and tools are available.
> Even if you are not subject to FTC jurisdiction, we strongly recommend you disclose. Our customers have found that readers are completely understanding if they are informed and can be upset if they are surprised. Informing your users will give those who desire it the opportunity to permanently opt-out. Although VigLink is unintrusive, it is easily detectable by savvy users.



Here is the important part:



> *The US Federal Trade Commission requires that you disclose use of affiliate links. More information and tools are available.*




It links right to their own version of FTC Policies For Dummies page which says, and I quote: "The Federal Trade Commission requires that you disclose to your readers       when you endorse a product or *service* and have a "material connection" to       the seller.  *If you're using affiliated links, with or without VigLink, you       have that connection*."

Read the bolded words. How is that not readily apparent?


----------



## Xenke (Aug 31, 2011)

"'Neer, APOLOGIZE TO US NOW FOR THAT THING WE DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE!!!1!!!"



Dragoneer said:


> Yes, I did.* I ran it by Gavin and the site coders* to get their opinion on it, and *we decided* to test it to see if it was worthwhile.



Why don't y'all want an apology from everyone involved?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 31, 2011)

amazing-bong-hits said:


> You're not trying hard enough! you didn't tell us for 5 days, you just thought you could sneak this past us.  you had 5 days: running it past other people, contacting vigilink etc  and you didn't bother to update the tos or tell any of us and now you  just make BS excuses and say it wasn't your fault and get butthurt  because it blew up in your face.
> 
> now your all "it was overlooked while we were researching" that is absolute BS. How could you have FORGET to tell people you were doing this!?
> 
> Your excuses are just making you look worse and worse and worse.



I'm curious. Were you paying attention to the weather over the weekend? For a lot of people including many of our admins the for-most thing on the top of their mind was safety and ensuring they were prepared. It did not help matters that during our time of testing people were hitting the site with DDOS attacks. We admit that we should have told people sooner but it is not unreasonable that our minds were elsewhere between preparing for what was thought to be a bad storm on it's way, and trying to get the site up combating the DDOS that hit. I'm not trying to offer excuses just asking for you to put yourself in our shoes.


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> The two magic words that may get the thing on the right track.


Yes, I fucked up, and this was not handled as well as it could have been. I was more focused on trying to take care of the DDOS and other issues (my entire family's from Vermont -- figure that one out on your own) and things got off track. It was handled poorly, and we did not follow through where we should have. The ball got dropped on this, and I apologize for that. 

Viglink is not malicious, and it anonymously tracks links with no personally identifiable information. I would not now, nor ever, sell FA use's information, emails or other information. I am imperfect, but I do care about this community and want to see it improve.


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> "'Neer, APOLOGIZE TO US NOW FOR THAT THING WE DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE!!!1!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't y'all want an apology from everyone involved?



Because Dragoneer's the owner of the site and ultimately this is his decision and responsibility- kind of the two way street of being a visible owner of an organization.  You get to be the head dude in charge of things and make the decisions, sure, but that also means you take the responsibility of what happens.  That's leadership.


----------



## Acorn (Aug 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> "'Neer, APOLOGIZE TO US NOW FOR THAT THING WE DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE!!!1!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't y'all want an apology from everyone involved?



Because to most of these mooks it's only ever Dragoneer's fault, and apparently he's the only one who will ever be held culpable. Just like he gets blamed for the shitty behavior of other admins.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, I fucked up, and this was not handled as well as it could have been. I was more focused on trying to take care of the DDOS and other issues (my entire family's from Vermont -- figure that one out on your own) and things got off track. It was handled poorly, and we did not follow through where we should have. The ball got dropped on this, and I apologize for that.
> 
> Viglink is not malicious, and it anonymously tracks links with no personally identifiable information. I would not now, nor ever, sell FA use's information, emails or other information. I am imperfect, but I do care about this community and want to see it improve.



'Yes I fucked up' is four words.

>:I

I don't care if it is or is not malicious, there is just this fancy thing called *FEDERAL LAW*, see.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 31, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Because Dragoneer's the owner of the site and ultimately this is his decision and responsibility- kind of the two way street of being a visible owner of an organization.  You get to be the head dude in charge of things and make the decisions, sure, but that also means you take the responsibility of what happens.  That's leadership.



*co-owner


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> *co-owner



oh no i messed with a pedantic texan
fuck, my life is ruined........


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, I fucked up, and this was not handled as well as it could have been. I was more focused on trying to take care of the DDOS and other issues (my entire family's from Vermont -- figure that one out on your own) and things got off track. It was handled poorly, and we did not follow through where we should have. The ball got dropped on this, and I apologize for that.
> 
> Viglink is not malicious, and it anonymously tracks links with no personally identifiable information. I would not now, nor ever, sell FA use's information, emails or other information. I am imperfect, but I do care about this community and want to see it improve.


Then I request in the future, stop and think on things instead of just acting


----------



## Widontknow (Aug 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> *co-owner



You're right.  I, personally, want 2 apologies.  They should be on a nice embossed stationary and carried personally by the entire administrative team.  Is that too much to ask for?

Derp.  I suppose so.

Well maybe a quick "I'm sorry" will do for me.  That said, I make no promises for the rest of the rabid hoard.  Prepare for  ALL CAPS RAGE!


----------



## ygdrassil (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> 'Yes I fucked up' is four words.
> 
> >:I
> 
> I don't care if it's malicious, there is this fancy thing called *FEDERAL LAW*, see.



pornography, in the purest technical sense, falls short of protections under the first amendment and, again, in the purest technical sense, is against the law.

very rarely do you ever see the feds enforce against pornography shops. it happens when someone in the porn industry pisses off the feds. but porn makes so much money and pays so much taxes that the feds ultimately don't give a shit-- they just kind of deal with it.

you're essentially asking someone who's already breaking the law by hosting this site to not break the law _only in this instance_. why should he listen to your judgment?


----------



## Dragoneer (Aug 31, 2011)

Crysix Fousen said:


> Then I request in the future, stop and think on things instead of just acting


We discussed this with staff and got feedback before even considering it. We wanted to test it, and everything went to shit. DDOS, line card in the router failing and everything else going on. Nothing went to plan at all.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

ygdrassil said:


> pornography, in the purest technical sense, falls short of protections under the first amendment and, again, in the purest technical sense, is against the law.
> 
> very rarely do you ever see the feds enforce against pornography shops. it happens when someone in the porn industry pisses off the feds. but porn makes so much money and pays so much taxes that the feds ultimately don't give a shit-- they just kind of deal with it.
> 
> you're essentially asking someone who's already breaking the law by hosting this site to not break the law _only in this instance_. why should he listen to your judgment?



leave britney alone blah blah white knight blah blah sorry what

Continuing on.

'Yeah I fucked up' is not an apology.

How is it that two words are so difficult to type.


----------



## Xenke (Aug 31, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> oh no i messed with a pedantic texan
> fuck, my life is ruined........



Oh no, it's ok, I understand. 

'Neer makes a much better scapegoat, who cares about the other guy?


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Oh no, it's ok, I understand.
> 
> 'Neer makes a much better scapegoat, who cares about the other guy?



Company gets in trouble for bad business practises, not that I'm calling FA a company, but it's usually the boss who has to take responsibility. Not arresting the whole company.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> We discussed this with staff and got feedback before even considering it. We wanted to test it, and everything went to shit. DDOS, line card in the router failing and everything else going on. Nothing went to plan at all.


common sense would say to still stop and re-review due to events then proceed as planned originally...


----------



## Corto (Aug 31, 2011)

ygdrassil said:


> pornography, in the purest technical sense, falls short of protections under the first amendment and, again, in the purest technical sense, is against the law.
> 
> very rarely do you ever see the feds enforce against pornography shops. it happens when someone in the porn industry pisses off the feds. but porn makes so much money and pays so much taxes that the feds ultimately don't give a shit-- they just kind of deal with it.
> 
> you're essentially asking someone who's already breaking the law by hosting this site to not break the law _only in this instance_. why should he listen to your judgment?


Yeah sorry but I'm not buying this. I'm by no means an expert in the US laws and judicial system, but can you find the rules that state this? Because I can't believe porn is illegal.


----------



## MandertehPander (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> leave britney alone blah blah white knight blah blah sorry what
> 
> Continuing on.
> 
> ...


Not to defend 'neer, but:
"The ball got dropped on this, and I apologize for that."


----------



## Xenke (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> Company gets in trouble for bad business practises, not that I'm calling FA a company, but it's usually the boss who has to take responsibility. Not arresting the whole company.



*bosses. :|

Y'all are missing my point.


----------



## Liardy (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> leave britney alone blah blah white knight blah blah sorry what
> 
> Continuing on.
> 
> ...





Dragoneer said:


> The ball got dropped on this, and *I apologize* for that.



Uhh?


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

MandertehPander said:


> Not to defend 'neer, but:
> "The ball got dropped on this, and I apologize for that."



That is a forum post.

99% of the site does not know what this place is due to the lack of porn.

EDIT: Here let me define a little more.

FA main site, front page. 'I messed up sorry, more info in future' was the main idea.


----------



## MandertehPander (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> That is a forum post.
> 
> 99% of the site does not know what this place is due to the lack of porn.


 Oh I agree that there needs to be an admin notice posted on the top of the website for everyone to see. But why piss off the entire nest when you just piss off a few bees? :3c


----------



## Liardy (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> That is a forum post.
> 
> 99% of the site does not know what this place is due to the lack of porn.



Then you aren't asking for "two words", and his post about "fucking up" has no reason to be quoted by you?

You're asking for a public apology, say that instead of "How is it that two words are so difficult to type."


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Liardy said:


> Then you aren't asking for "two words", and his post about "fucking up" has no reason to be quoted by you?
> 
> You're asking for a public apology, say that instead of "How is it that two words are so difficult to type."



http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...plain-it-now?p=2672133&viewfull=1#post2672133

Here you go I corrected my apparent crime to humanity.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> *bosses. :|
> 
> Y'all are missing my point.


nope, we are telling neer due the fact hes here to take all of our hate "ALL.OF.IT."


----------



## Swampwulf (Aug 31, 2011)

Dragoneer said:


> Viglink is not malicious, and it anonymously tracks links with no personally identifiable information.



So, this is why Vigilink has a section in their privacy policy titled '*Use of Personally Identifiable Information*'?


----------



## Liardy (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> http://forums.furaffinity.net/threa...plain-it-now?p=2672133&viewfull=1#post2672133
> 
> Here you go I corrected my apparent crime to humanity.



That's better.

I'm simply saying there is no reason to pull apart every single post he makes, if you aren't wanting an answer in said posts.


----------



## Bobskunk (Aug 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Oh no, it's ok, I understand.
> 
> 'Neer makes a much better scapegoat, who cares about the other guy?



Okay, how about this: because they're both ultimately responsible for this decision and that either one of them could have either put forth the idea of informing the users of this program, whether "just testing" or fully implemented, _or_ hanging back until they can better understand the legal implications and userbase reaction, Dragoneer AND Gavin own this.  Out of habit and/or visibility (or possibly like myself, unaware that Gavin has equal responsibility now,) people are focusing entirely on his involvement.

tbh I forgot that "merger" even turned into a thing beyond the mangled initial announcement, and now that i'm aware that 'neer and gavin are co-owners they both should have thought this through more.  My impression from that whole thing was Dragoneer remained solely in charge and that just understaff and advice are shared- after reading up a bit more, I realize that I was mistaken and that you were correct.  It's not solely Dragoneer's problem, here.

anyway yeah saying "I fucked up" is part of it- we know what happened, that's why there's a thread.  Just apologize and stop rationalizing.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

Liardy said:


> That's better.
> 
> I'm simply saying there is no reason to pull apart every single post he makes, if you aren't wanting an answer in said posts.



Nah it's mostly being annoyed that he's taking time to pull excuses out his butt instead of working on this socalled draft.

Also classes don't start until the 6th, I need some drama to stave off the boredom here.


----------



## ygdrassil (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> leave britney alone blah blah white knight blah blah sorry what
> 
> Continuing on.
> 
> ...



you think I'm trying to defend this guy? I'm trying to help you to understand that he doesn't have to listen to you. at all. and he doesn't listen to you. you keep getting blue in the face over everything he does and screaming your head off. what's his response? "we're working on it." "we'll get to it later." then you forget and the cycle starts over again. welcome to FurAffinity.

again and again he does underhanded shit. again and again you people yell at him for it. the cycle keeps happening over and over again. you're so caught up in venting your emotions that you're not doing anything that will actually get him to change. I mean, shit, I'm doing the same thing now-- I'm typing at brick-walls that don't want to change their actions because they're having too much fun typing at the Internet and pretending that they actually fucking matter in the grand scheme of things. I'm frustrated that you guys are so frustrated that you're not doing anything useful. now I have to be a hypocrite and do the exact same useless shit to try and get you to understand what you lot are doing and not doing.

he's not going to apologize. he's going to say "mistakes were made." in fact, he already said it. you keep whining and nothing changes. if you care enough about the site to see it be changed and to see these actions that you're so upset over no longer occur, attack his bottom line. if you're so upset over his actions, attack his bottom line. *all that matters is the bottom line.* words don't.


----------



## moriko (Aug 31, 2011)

To try and keep on topic, and this has possibly been brought up or thought about. Is it common to have an internal copy of a website, not open to the outside to test code changes for problems? I understand that certain connections needed to be made out/inbound, but I would think it would have come up before. I'm glad you came out and apologized and plan to rectify the situation and I hope this situation will bring about ideas about how to avoid something similar happening in the future.

I also apologize if this had already been done and passed an internal test, and was in the testing phase on the live server, which obviously should have waited till the TOS was ready for release.


----------



## Liardy (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> Nah it's mostly being annoyed that he's taking time to pull excuses out his butt instead of working on this socalled draft.
> 
> Also classes don't start until the 6th, I need some drama to stave off the boredom here.



To be fair, I post of forums while working(Or playing SC2...I should stop that) a lot, because it helps me think of what to say.

Reading a page of posts and throwing a paragraph out there doesn't take much time.


----------



## DarkMettaur (Aug 31, 2011)

ygdrassil said:


> you think I'm trying to defend this guy? I'm trying to help you to understand that he doesn't have to listen to you. at all. and he doesn't listen to you. you keep getting blue in the face over everything he does and screaming your head off. what's his response? "we're working on it." "we'll get to it later." then you forget and the cycle starts over again. welcome to FurAffinity.
> 
> again and again he does underhanded shit. again and again you people yell at him for it. the cycle keeps happening over and over again. you're so caught up in venting your emotions that you're not doing anything that will actually get him to change. I mean, shit, I'm doing the same thing now-- I'm typing at brick-walls that don't want to change their actions because they're having too much fun typing at the Internet and pretending that they actually fucking matter in the grand scheme of things. I'm frustrated that you guys are so frustrated that you're not doing anything useful. now I have to be a hypocrite and do the exact same useless shit to try and get you to understand what you lot are doing and not doing.
> 
> he's not going to apologize. he's going to say "mistakes were made." in fact, he already said it. you keep whining and nothing changes. if you care enough about the site to see it be changed and to see these actions that you're so upset over no longer occur, attack his bottom line. if you're so upset over his actions, attack his bottom line. *all that matters is the bottom line.* words don't.



Okay I'm sorry here.

blah blah grey knight blah blah lawful neutral



Bobskunk said:


> maybe you should stop explaining and rationalizing and saying that a proposal to draft up an announcement to announce an announcement about how SOMEHOW this monetizing plan didn't pan out in the court of public opinion and just..
> 
> say "whoops i fucked up i'm sorry guys please forgive me and let's try to work things out from here"
> 
> the more you say things like "well the ftc thing doesn't apply to us because x y z" the more it seems like you're trying to redirect and bury this without owning up to what happened or understanding why people might be upset



I also promised to re-quote this a couple pages back because it sums up the whole thread p.much.

Anyway. To tl;dr it all.

People are pissed, it was five days without notice. (Wtf.) This is against laws. People are allowed to be pissed at law-breaking.
Dragoneer flails and tries to dodge around claiming hurricane + DDOS even though it would take five seconds to alert everyone to the opt-out link and what this was.
People get mad at excuses.
Other people try to stay neutral and get annoying.
I make a billion posts that say the same thing.
All most the people want: Mainsite apology.


----------



## Kiha (Aug 31, 2011)

So let me get this straight, Neer:

This thing went live _five days ago_, nobody was told despite it being _against the law_, because "Oh we were just _testing_ it."

Nobody says a word about it until a user happens to spot it in the site's coding and demands an answer, and then suddenly it's "Oh we were going to update the TOS _today_." That seems... Convenient.

And then people keep pushing the fact that it was _illegal_ not to tell anybody, and it's "Oh we only found out about that _last night._"

On top of the fact that you supposedly went to the coding team about it and _not one of them spotted the FTC requirements, or thought "Hey we should tell the users before we try this"_, this whole thing just sounds way too convenient to me and I'm just not buying any of this. :/


----------



## Liardy (Aug 31, 2011)

DarkMettaur said:


> Other people try to stay neutral and get annoying.
> 
> All most the people want: Mainsite apology.



Being neutral is only annoying to those who are not.

But a mainsite apology is, apparently, on the way.(Or so I gather reading Dragoneer. I could be wrong)


----------



## Trpdwarf (Aug 31, 2011)

This thread was started with someone wanting an explanation. That explanation was given. We apologized for what happened and we admitted what we did wrong. This thread no longer serves much of a further purpose and is quickly devolving into something less than useful. As such this thread is now going to be closed.


----------

