The Terms of Use, the Privacy Policy and the Code of Conduct all change in this release. You will be asked to accept the new versions once, the next time you sign in or post.
The previous release turned on "if something of yours is acted on, you are told why". That machinery only ever covered posts and comments. Anyone whose account was locked, or whose ability to post was suspended, was told nothing. This release fills in the other half.
Restrictions on an account
- A notice arrives when an account is locked or posting is suspended. It says what happened, whether it was treated as breaking the house rules or as unlawful, whether it followed somebody's report, when it lifts, and where to contest it.
- A banner appears at the top of every page except the access-restriction page itself while a restriction is in force. Before, you found out by trying to post and being refused.
- ⭐"Permanent" is now written as permanent. A permanent restriction used to carry a date one hundred years out, and the screen said "until 2126". That replaced a knowable fact with a wrong number — and it is the number you would weigh when deciding whether to contest. The screen now writes permanent as permanent, and puts a time only on a time-limited restriction. ⚠The stored record still carries a far-off date: emptying that column would mean a single missed read site silently lifting a permanent restriction.
- Internal short names no longer reach the screen. A reason not in the dictionary used to be printed as-is. That is an identifier, not a reason.
Appeals
- ⭐An appeal is now counted per person, not per connection. The rule read "one appeal per restriction", but what was actually enforced was one appeal per connection point per day. If somebody else behind the same router appealed first, your appeal was rejected for the rest of the day. It is now keyed on who is contesting what.
- An answer comes back. Which of three outcomes it was — upheld, reduced, lifted — and the reasoning: as a notice if you are signed in, or written by hand to the address you left if you appealed as a guest. Any address you left is deleted the moment the answer is sent.
Notices
- ⭐"Read" no longer deletes a notice. For a post or a comment, the statement of reasons exists only in that list, so the button used to tidy the list was destroying the only copy of why you were restricted — the very thing you need in order to contest it. "Read" now marks; deleting is a separate button.
- Unread notices sort to the top.
- The T-marked comment strip at the top of a board reordered for the same reason. It was written to put recently revived comments first; comments never revived were taking the front, so the sort was doing nothing.
Reports
- A name field (optional). A notice of illegality asks who is giving it, as the European regulation requires.
- ⭐Reports of unlawful content, and copyright reports, can be filed by someone who is restricted. A locked account that came across unlawful material used to find the form closed. Rate limits and the confirmation box are unchanged.
- Both the receipt and the decision now say what you can do next. The Terms said both did; the receipt said nothing. The notice was changed to match the document rather than the other way round. The decision also names the court and out-of-court routes.
- An "unlawful" call with no legal ground given is handled as a house-rules breach instead. Telling someone their post was unlawful, without naming a law, asserts illegality.
- When a post is removed, every other member who commented on it is told — the Policy promised this, but the code that sent it existed only on the path where the author deletes.
Your downloadable copy
- Missing columns are in it now — notice bodies and read times, the address and name left on a report, the contact and answer on an appeal, a post's English title and body and edit time, and more.
- ⭐A check now keeps the copy from narrowing again. Add a column to one of six tables — posts, comments, reports, appeals, notices, direct messages — and it must either appear in the export or carry a one-line reason for its absence.
Old records
- A nightly sweep now actually deletes what the Policy says is deleted: audit-log entries after three years, closed reports and appeals after ninety days, notices after three years.
In the documents
- ⭐The claim of a statutory ground for sensitive material is gone. Korean law opens two doors and neither is open here. Rather than name a ground that does not exist, the Policy states that, and states instead what is not done: nothing is classified, nothing is extracted, and nothing is judged on that basis.
- A department that does not exist is gone. The last release named a "personal data protection unit". The statutory items are listed as the law words them, and the sentence declining to claim compliance is back.
- A demand to suspend processing gets an answer that can be kept. Future copies and copies already made are treated separately; the second are refused on the ground the statute lists, with that ground and the way to contest it sent within ten days.
- ⭐Korean consumers are no longer split by where they live. Korean law governs, so its standard-terms act reaches everyone. The European directive carries the same proviso.
- Removal from search listings is split into what happens by itself and what has to be done by hand.
- Unmeasurable phrases like "most Members" are gone. What happens when individual notice does not reach you is now the method the Enforcement Decree names: thirty days posted on the site.
- The repeat-infringer policy and the identity of whoever reported are now separate. The first is a record of a judgement made here; the second belongs to the reporter and goes as soon as they are answered.
- Counter-notification is described for copyright reports, with the elements US law requires and the ten-to-fourteen business days. "This cannot be undone" is gone from the notice.
- The Code told channel moderators they "see reports". It now names the three things they actually see.
⚠One thing is still open. A ninety-day delete-refusal lock on the off-site copy delays an erasure request by up to ninety-one days. This release fixed the sentence — no invented legal exception, and the period stated as what is not met. Shortening the period itself lowers a defence protecting the backups, so it is left as a separate decision.