Small updates to the Community Guidelines

[tiwane]

I can’t comment on specific users, even if I know who they are. If you want to email details to help@inaturalist.org I’d be happy to look into this specific case.

@lotteryd

In case it’s related: As a large-scale id’er myself, should I be worried if I had used some “ad hoc” DQA workarounds in prior years? Do y’all reach out to the offenders during suspension actions to get their side of things? Thanks for advice!

Worried? I don’t think so. Again, this is mostly for retributive cases. I think most people should be warned before they’re suspended for something like this, but sometimes it’s obvious that what’s being done is purely about revenge or sowing chaos.

[lotteryd]

Thanks for the reassurance, that’s what I had hoped! :)

[arboretum_amy]

@tiwane

We’ve noticed instances (and anecdotally they seem to have become more common) where people intentionally add false IDs or DQA votes to make observations casual, obscured, or just to mess with the observer or Community ID - usually in retribution for some real or perceived wrong, or just to troll. Since this clearly unwelcome behavior wasn’t addressed directly in the Community Guidelines, we added it.

As for enforcment - like most things it often comes down to a judgement call, but scale should be a determining factor. If it happens a few times from a new user, it might be worth a warning. If it’s at a large scale or is bullying, it might be worth an immediate suspension.

Today I came across an observation where a user, recently suspended, still had active DQA votes. It seems like if altering the DQA is an offense that could cause suspension, you would want suspension to trigger vote removal.

[tiwane]

@arboretum_amy

It seems like if altering the DQA is an offense that could cause suspension, you would want suspension to trigger vote removal.

Happy to look into this specific situation if you email help@inaturalist.org.