Rephrasing case 313?

Phoenix Case Discussions
1

Should we rephrase the case :“User accounts can be terminated after having been in breach of the terms of service repeatedly” (Case 313: User accounts can be terminated after having been in breach of the terms of service repeatedly) ?

Its description is clear : “User accounts can only be terminated for having been in breach of the terms of service repeatedly”, but I’d say the title is ambiguous since it only says the service could terminate user accounts if they don’t respect ToS, not only if they do that.

I’d like to suggest rephrasing the case: “User accounts can only be terminated after having been in breach of the terms of service repeatedly”.
What are your thoughts on that?

2 Likes
2

I agree. Despite having to purge a lot of Points due to a more strict criteria, I’d say that it is worth it.

1 Like
3

Ok! I change it then. I will purge the points too.

2 Likes
5

We have rephrased Case 313 back to the old phrasing and adjusted the Description as well.

2 Likes
6

I don’t really understand why the new phrasing wasn’t enough clear, but anyway the description isn’t yet in accordance with the title: “meaning they cannot be terminated without a reason, but only for a limited number of reasons.”. I think we should readjust the description.
Besides, I declined a lot of points that didn’t fit to the updated case, so should I approve them back again?

2 Likes
8

Sorry for the late reply.

We’ve discussed this in a meeting that the phrasing containg only was that specific, a lot of other points would not fit and had to be put into another case, to be exact in one which does not exist.

The initial version of the case had an invalid description but was correct content and title wise.

So yes, we should approve those points again.

1 Like