Apr 2017
260 / 303
May 2017
Sep 2018
GoldenPlume
May '17

The amazingly crazy thing about this whole ordeal is we went through this very madness weeks ago when the revised ToS first came out and the website went from Tapastic to Tapas. No one really seemed to notice the changes then...

Talk about delayed response. Anyhow, we're essentially weeks into the future vs. most of the community right now and it's all good out here in Tomorrow Land.

Just breathe everyone.

If anything we just wish that staff would spend more time communicating prior to doing these huge changes to the website and stuff. People are putting 1000s of hours and $1000s into their webcomics and staff really needs to become more sensitive to how important these works are to us.

Guess when there's 30,000+ series it can get to the point of taking creators for granted . . . or something.

Really can't answer this one. Only staff can.

AnnaLandin
May '17

I can't speak for others, but I did not receive any notification of these changes having been made, and I have been in a mad deadline crunch on freelance work for the past couple of months, and have therefore not checked in regularly on the forums either. I had entirely missed this addition to the ToS.

It is entirely possible that whatever notification I was supposed to receive just never made it all the way to me, but the fact remains that it didn't. I can only assume I am not alone in this - and it is probably contributing to this delayed response to the change.

I am glad to see the clause has been removed, as I do not feel it belonged in the ToS to begin with. It is too broad, and I don't feel comfortable giving Tapas blanket consent to Right of Refusal to my work in that manner. First Right of Refusal is, in and of itself, not a horrible idea, but it is normally part of a contract negotiation and is something that a publishers pays the creator for, which is not what this was.

If Tapas wants to help creators, then there are better ways to go about it than this ToS-change. Creating a separate submissions-service, or restricting this type of clause to the Premium-content creators only would be good steps. And I agree that in general, Tapas needs to be better at communicating these things prior to the change being made.

I have not yet decided whether to keep my comics here or take them elsewhere, but this whole thing - the ToS-changes, the response from Tapas, etc., - has certainly made me consider my options.

elixiadragmire
May '17
heterodont

I get that, the problem is 90% of creators dont use the forums or even know it exists!

This clause is normally used in publishing house when signing a contract for 6 figures! Not in a TOS of a free services, thats the crux of the issue. Because of what the clause could possibly do, the price of using it is very high.
The spread of this wasnt just twitter either, I'm in a big FB group that basically encompasses the whole of the UK indie press, thats UK publishers, illustrators, writers and artists they more or less act as an union. They view of the clause wasn't glowing. Thats rather damaging on the whole and this is to people that use these types of contracts regularly.

as @annalandin said I personally I didnt recieve a notification regarding these changes also. For a clause this overreaching it should have been declared as plain as the nose on your face.

Now did I think Tapas WOULD of been IP grabbing? eh, well no not really but greater artist have been stung with less. Given the consistent shift in Tapas company goals (youtude of comics, short form over longform, everyone needs to do vertical scrolling, we do books now) its had to say that ignoring a breach in personally copyright (techincally a FROR does somewhat override your copyright to excerise use of the IP) may of biten lots of creators in the backside later if and when the company changes it corporate goals again or a publisher you pitch to doesnt like the idea of responding to that particular clause.
It could have been a paper tiger but that could have been ugly.

Now I know that tapas ... means well but can go about it the whole wrong way, (the road to hell is pathed with good intentions!) So I wasnt going to jump ship until I heard a response and the removal is fine with me, great even, since it kinda left me with a problem of self publishing (yes the clause covers that 'any right to excerise use') and I think a more open approach, an opt in approach would be best for the platform!

Now we just wait for the storm to die off and put the mess behind us

foducool
May '17
michaelson

I think the backlash came from how shady it sounded :/
Why tell people they are obligated to submit their work to you for negotiation in the first place?
If you're such a great and fair publisher, the authors should flock to you in the first place.

You probably should advertise your role as a publisher better towards your creators instead of doing that, remind them that you can help them with this and surely better than most of the other guys lol

I'm just a reader, but I'm kinda looking forward on how you'll spin that next time, because I doubt you'll leave it at that

popsiclestick
May '17
nolongerusetheforum

Look, my guy, as creators, we owe you nothing. We work our socks off to produce fresh new content for basically no compensation (unless you count the couple of pennies from ads/tips lmao).
If we didn't do that, there wouldn't be anything for readers TO read. I'm all for listening to both sides of the story but please first remove your entitled attitude towards the content produced on this site.
We're not being selfish. This is our content, that we sacrificed our time to create. We have every right to be suspicious of any shady looking clauses that may affect our rights regarding what we do with our own art.
I don't wanna be a salty sue, but please think about those who are producing the content you read, for free.

LordVincent
May '17

Tapas made multiple notifications of the ToS change, including a yellow banner at the top of the main page that stated ToS had been changed, asking everyone to read it through. They did not brush this under the rug.

They didn't intend to tell people this though, that was a miscommunication and a misunderstanding type of deal.
As I said, if they had malicious intent they would have been quick to strike the most popular comics with that part of the ToS BEFORE it got backlash, and they wouldn't have made a forum thread and a notification at the top of the site. They would have made a small notification somewhere at the bottom to use as an excuse. They never did this, which should be a sign to everyone that there was never malicious intent and we all need to calm down.

Devika
May '17
Yoon

Good morning everyone. I find that the core of this issue is still unaddressed, namely what exactly we're discussing here. Removing the TOS has taken away the sword dangling above our collective head, so I hope the discussion can be a bit calmer now, but questions remain.

So here I have some questions that if answered in non-legalese I think would clear up a lot smoke, because there are so many assumptions floating around right now. There are those seeing this as a safe bargaining chip, and there are those that see a potential threat to their IP, both based on wildly different interpretations of the loosely worded clause.

So here goes:

  1. Who was affected? Premium posters? Creators above a certain sub count? Every comic poster on the site?
  2. Under what circumstances were #1 affected? When selling rights to a third party? When self-publishing? When selling merchandise?
  3. What exactly did you want these people (#1) to do under these circumstances (#2)?
  4. Last, but perhaps the most important: ROFR or ROFO? You described a "right of first offer" (negotiate in good faith with tapas first) but titled it as "right of first refusal" (tapas gets the right to contracts first). There is a massive difference between these, and a lot of artists, especially on twitter, are alarmed because they assume it's, as the title implied, a ROFR, which is greatly restrictive. Those in favor of the TOS seem to go by the description, which leans towards a ROFO, which is much less restrictive as there is no obligation to enter a contract with tapas first. The dissonance between the title and description makes for a very wonky legal basis, and I think most people are very uncomfortable with that - as should tapas be, because it doesn't help them either!

Again, that the TOS have been deleted doesn't eliminate these questions, because it's not just about the clause itself, but tapas' intentions. Was it an IP grab, or a failure to write good TOS that everyone understands?

jmhenry
May '17
1
PotooGryphon

The sad truth is that mods aren't just like everyone else where the forums are concerned. You may not be directly connected to tapas, but you all still represent its community. When you guys act unprofessionally, it sticks out more and makes the community look bad.

^^^ This is exactly why Uzuki's comment, while his own, is still damaging to the site and the community in general. It's a bit of an uncomfortable truth, but for the average person, perception matters more than truth. It doesn't matter that mods are unpaid volunteers to people looking at this from the outside, all they see when they see a mod acting unprofessionally, is more reason to stay away from tapas. You guys have a greater impact on the site's/community's image than you realize.

LordVincent
May '17

The moderators do become a bit of a "face" for tapas in instances like this, yes. However I feel that they have been polite considering the levels of shit that has been thrown in this thread.
Each and every single individual on twitter is also responsible to, as adults, check facts and circumstances before spreading things assuming them to be truth. They are not doing this. That, in my opinion, makes them unprofessional and immature.

It's high school tactics. Taking things out of context, twisting them and spreading them as a blown up rumor is shit you'd expect to se teenagers doing. Not rational adults trying to be professional creators.

I understand that people had concerns. So did I when I first heard of this thing. But if you have concerns, the best course of action is to stop, think, consider the circumstances and facts in a reasonable manner, and NOT just air out all your assumptions on twitter. This would have been acceptable if what you were spreading were confirmed facts. It wasn't and still isn't. You are spreading false information and hurting tapas creators in the process.

I understand that you want to protect people who work hard on their comics, but by spreading false information you are hurting the exact people that you are trying to protect. This is why you need to factcheck and be patient before spreading rumors.

jmhenry
May '17
1

Unfortunately, not every adult is a philosopher, eager to think first and act later, as much as I'd like to see it. That's just the nature of human beings, there's an unfortunate tendency to react first.(like I said: Perception<<<< Truth )

Most folks posting on social media aren't worried about looking professional, especially if it's their personal account. Unlike forum mods, individual people only represent themselves, there's not much you can do about how they respond to things.

BubooSenchan
May '17

Also I would like for Tapastic to fix the front page in pc, as other creators and me say (it's a little too much)
I like @JohnVincent idea of:

fleetinginfinity
May '17
LordVincent

Notifications on the site are not enough when a large percentage of users only use Tapastic as a mirror. A major change like that to the Terms of Service deserved at least an e-mail, as that's the equivalent of written communication documenting the change in this digital age, and I checked, there was not one. So weeks ago when other people were worried about this, I didn't know. The moment someone showed it in a Facebook group yesterday was the first I heard about it.

I'm glad to see the clause is gone, but notifications on a site are not enough for a Terms of Service change.

azureXtwilight
May '17

I just think that in order to avoid a falling out like this, before they do something like this again and add more clauses, they should notify people before hands, see what the majority of users would react?

UzukiCheverie
May '17
1

Okay guys, the discussion is just completely off-topic now. A lot of us, myself included, haven't gotten a chance to stop, breathe, and collect our bearings since yesterday, so I'm gonna lock this thread for a bit so we can do just that. After a few hours, I'll open it again, and HOPEFULLY the second attempt will go smoother. For now though, there's really nothing left to discuss as the situation has been resolved; I don't want y'all to feel like I'm barring your voice, but we're sorta just mulling around in a circlejerk, which isn't good for anyone lol

Go on out there and enjoy your Friday <3

closed May 19, '17

michaelsonSenior Editor in Chief, here to help you
May '17
NanettesClouds

For now, we feel that we need to really reflect on the spirit of the clause and see what creators are comfortable with and until then we won't be implementing this offer.

We hope to expand the editorial and content team with new members that are more community focused. This will entail creating community events and more open dialogue in the future.

As for the transgressions during the Comic Panda iteration, almost all of that occurred prior to my arrival at the company. To the best of my knowledge, the first iteration of Comic Panda was never intended to be public facing. The site was under what is known as an alpha launch, which basically means that it was meant to test out the theory of the site and some of the basic functionality, kind of like a proof of product. To better populate the site and test with live data, I believe the content team at the time wrongfully used actual comics without permission. These were not monetized, and meant specifically to show early investors early concepts of the site.

Of course, all of those transgressions go against the ethos of Tapas, as we've always championed creators' rights and freedoms while publishing on the platform. And as you've mentioned, have performed DMCA, and other take downs on behalf of creators.

The staffers during that time are no longer with Tapas.

During the time in which the TOS was updated to include to the Right of First Refusal, the staff at no point enforced or sought out to enforce the clause to interfere with any creators.

Our original intent was to make competitive offers to creators or introduce them to our various partners to help, whether it was in regards to the production and distribution of merchandise, printing, etc.

I, unfortunately, cannot comment on the ROFR or ROFO clarification as I, personally, don't have the legalese to properly explain. But I will ask a fellow staffer to look into it and bring some clarification.

We will be revisiting our methodology in how we deploy our messaging in regards to TOS updates.

When the TOS was updated, we sent a desktop notification, front page ribbon (located above the spotlight section) which required dismissal, in-app pop-up as well as social media and forum posts. Of course, this does not guarantee the visibility of the TOS updates, so we will try out best to improve upon this.

We do small focus groups for our updates, but will hopefully expand this in the future.

There are a few comments that have derailed the discussion that I'll be archiving from this topic.

Please refrain from attacking one another, and please keep a cordial decorum.

I understand everyone's frustrations with the recent turn of events, and we promise that we are listening to everyone's feedback and are trying to make better and more informed decisions.

opened May 19, '17

donathinfrye
May '17
michaelson

Why would Tapas have inserted the Right of First Refusal clause into the Terms of Service, rather than reached out to creators that it was interested in making an offer to, or offer advice to?

For a lot of folks who have raised their voices on this issue, it's the inability to reconcile what you're saying with what logic and experience dictate that lingers. For me, at the very least, that's the unanswered question.

michaelsonSenior Editor in Chief, here to help you
May '17

We had hoped that this was a scalable solution to our over 23,000 creators.

Of course, as many have mentioned, a Right of First Refusal does not belong in the terms of service of an open publishing platform, especially at the start of the relationship with the creator.

NagashiKhan
May '17

Whoof, that's almost a scary thing to hear! But in a way it makes sense, there's nothing wrong with refection in the aim to improve.

For an honest question that first answer almost sounds defensive, which makes me think maybe you're short on patience? =P It's okay Michael, you don't have to stroke anyone's ego or candy coat things, be honest. Neither of these answers actually answers her questions,

which actually makes for more frustration. If the questions were answered directly, I assure you it'd have been more effective in assuaging concerns. ^^ We're artists with integrity Michael, we can handle the truth. =D However, you do answer her last question with an honest answer and that really makes me happy, even though that answer is "I don't know, I'll get someone to clarify for you". If you addressed all the questions this way, that'd be great. You guys have stated your intentions a good number of times, I don't think there's much confusion that that's your statement for intention. =P

Heck to the yes.

I can almost see you rolling your eyes typing this out, hahahaha! I saw the notification but I dismissed it because I trust Tapas, so I didn't think I needed to bother checking. But I do agree, for something like this, an email would be a much more effective manner of communication.

It's good to hear directly from a dev team member, man. Thanks for doing what you can to communicate. I hope you or someone else can more directly and clearly answer @Devika's questions though, because I really am still curious as to the precise answers to those- it's the details of this clause that made it the monster it was/is.

michaelsonSenior Editor in Chief, here to help you
May '17

Hm, I felt like I had answered the questions, maybe I'm misunderstanding the question? I tried to outline that no one was affected directly by the TOS updates in terms of enforcement and that our goal was not to affect sales to a third party, self-publishing, etc.

Could you clarify?

BubooSenchan
May '17

Something that kind of bother me is how the popular comics are now at the end, do someday they will return to be on the top?
I feel like tapas is forgetting the popular creators who have worked really hard to be where they are and have bring a lot of traffic to this amazing site.

NanettesClouds
May '17

from what I undrstand they shuffle the categories around every now and then, I think it's done randomly?

Also I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone ask for the popular comics to get more exposure :V

michaelsonSenior Editor in Chief, here to help you
May '17
BubooSenchan

We're still experimenting with the front page in terms of placement, but don't fret, we'll likely move POPULAR towards the top and re-shift TRENDING a couple of times in the near future to see how that impacts user behavior. We'll also be experimenting with the algorithms some more in order to get a more diverse mix of series to be displayed.

You'd be surprised by how many requests we get for that.

LordVincent
May '17
UzukiCheverie
May '17
1

No. Hiss. Bad.

2

lol

Margottoro was not directly referring to you or anyone else. They were not implying you don't work hard. It was a valid suggestion, that, according to Michael, has been made a lot:

Fact of the matter is, it's the popular comics that draw traffic into this site. Hell, I never would have found Tapastic (at least not as soon as I did) if it hadn't been for GamerCat outsourcing its views to its mirror here on Tapas. And I'm sure the people that draw those comics that happen to be popular miss seeing the Popular section at the top, just like how we miss seeing Fresh or Trending at the top.

This is about finding a balance that works, not making it a "Popular vs. unpopular" issue, because that's just a fight none of us are gonna win (and frankly I don't want to see us start). We all gotta compromise :stuck_out_tongue:

NagashiKhan
May '17
michaelson

Right, so what I mean by not a direct answer, I mean to say that she asked "Who was affected", and your response was "the staff at no point enforced... the clause to interfere with any creators". That doesn't tell me who would have been affected, it told me you didn't enforce anything. That's what I mean by "not answering it". Like, yeah I get what you're trying to say but the question "who?" was not answered. We still don't know who, exactly, was affected by the clause. Because the answer to that isn't "nobody", of course the clause affects someone, or else it wouldn't have been written and implemented in the ToS, which outlines the relations between user and owner, right?

The second question was basically "are we talking 3rd party? Self-publish? Merch?" and your response was "distribution of merch, printing, etc.", which doesn't define whether we're talking about one and/or all of the mentioned venues. But here, actually, you do answer that, so that clears that up, doesn't it? =P Thank you for that. It's just that the details were requested and the response didn't exactly define those details. Not a big deal, hahaha.

UzukiCheverie
May '17

I mean...

From the sounds of it, it sounds like their plan of action was as follows:

  1. Outline the clause in the ToS. Not to scare us, but because they're legally required to.

  2. Start reaching out to creators about offering financial help through competitive offers and partners that would help them find paid work THROUGH their work.

The first line I bolded is exactly what you're looking for - they didn't enforce the clause on anyone, so no creators were affected by this.

The second bolded line is what their intentions were. It's not like the whole dynamic of the website and our "rights" as users changed when they added that clause. Hell, we went two weeks without noticing it and literally nothing happened. Series were deleted during this time (I can only assume because new series are added and deleted every day), people tried the site and left, and nothing happened as a result of this clause. They had to add that clause because they're legally bound to add that clause. I highly doubt people would rather it not be outlined and just be done on a whim without anyone being notified. The update to the ToS was the notification of that. Meanwhile, people are behaving like the moment this clause was added, all their rights as a user was taken away, their mother was kidnapped, and their town was burned to the ground. Literally nothing happened in those two weeks to suggest our rights were actively being taken away.

joannekwan(ง ˙o˙)ว here to help~
May '17

What bothers me most about this whole ordeal is a lot of the creators leaving seem to have only based their decision on the shitstorm on twitter without coming to this forum first to see what's up, or waiting for news from the staff, or you know, actually e-mailing Tap about their concerns.

UzukiCheverie
May '17

Agreed. My notification feed has been flooded with wall posts from creators who are either a.) leaving, or b.) staying, but reluctantly staying (while also posting links to their other mirror sites at the same time). The real shitty part is that most of these creators are doing wall posts only, so the large population of app users aren't being notified and are basically just being left to scratch their heads when their favorite creators/series are suddenly wiped off the site. They aren't being properly warned, which, ironically, a lot of these creators are demanding Tapas to do every time they update their ToS terms.

NagashiKhan
May '17
UzukiCheverie

I don't think you understand the point of what was being asked. Nobody is concerned whether or not you could delete your comic under the clause, the clause literally included the fact that you are free to delete your content from the site if you don't agree. No one is confused about this, there is no need for clarification.

And, as I had already stated, it's not about who wasn't affected, it's about who was. You don't put in a clause in Terms of Service if it doesn't apply to anyone, that... literally means nothing. That'd be a meaningless and powerless clause. Of course it included someone, we want to know who exactly. That question still hasn't been answered: WHO. Still yet, no one is confused about their intentions, or rather their stated intentions. It has been clarified time and time again and it doesn't answer the actual question asked, but Michael did answer the question in his last post in response to me, so that's not even relevant now.

If you're still confused about what I was saying in regards to answering the actual question, please refer to the original post:

To clarify once and for all, the purpose of the questions is to define that which was broad and vague in the actual clause that everyone understands is no longer in effect. No one is assuming that their IP's were stolen, the concern is the precise function of the clause, which has yet to have been made perfectly, crystal clear. Now, they did say they were working on a public announcement regarding this, so actually I think these questions were asked FOR that announcement. It's not wrong for Michael to have attempted to answer them prior to the official announcement but I was simply saying that I don't think his answers are actual answers to the questions. It's like if @Devika asked a yes or no question and Michael answered with "I'm pretty sure the answer is maybe." That's not yes or no, it doesn't help clarify anything.

Now, that all being said, regarding the more important question - question #4- Michael already stated that he'd be requesting a team member more familiar with "legalese" to properly answer the question, so I think from this we'd likely get the direct answer for question #1 that's being sought. So I don't think any further attempts to answer are necessary from anyone who isn't employed by Tapas and qualified to answer the question.

Again, this isn't a big deal, no one's losing their heads. There are simply some of us who want to know exactly what the nature of the clause was. Everything's cool, no one's panicking. I mean, I'm not. And I don't think @Devika is either. Everything is groovy.

NagashiKhan
May '17

And, for anyone confused why there is a perceived dissonance in regards to intentions and actual wording, look up the term "Right of First Refusal". A quick google search should explain it well enough

UzukiCheverie
May '17
NagashiKhan

Apply does not always equal affected. Those words do not mean the same thing.

FOR EXAMPLE, here is an excerpt from Instagram's ToS:

We reserve the right to refuse access to the Service to anyone for any reason at any time.

Does that apply to everybody? Yes. Does this automatically happen to everybody? No. That's the difference between "apply" and "affect" in this case.

Tapas' ToS applies to everybody. But not necessarily everybody - if anyone at all - was affected by it. And we won't know if anyone was affected by it unless someone actually steps forward and claims it. So far, no one has. Were you actually, directly affected by this, @NagashiKhan? Outside of a moral standpoint and a "what if" thought process?

Additionally, a lot of these clauses are necessary for legal reasons. Businesses have their own legal representatives for this very reason - so they don't absentmindedly do something that might be considered illegal. Omitting or lying by omission could be classified as one of those things, so online digital services like Facebook, Tapas, Instagram, etc. are legally obligated to mention these things even if they don't affect everybody 100% of the time.

Apologies if I'm still not understanding the question.

Okay, but maybe that's as clear as they can be with us right now. Considering Michael even said:

So we either have to wait for someone who's qualified to speak further on the matter, or just accept the fact that companies can't exactly be 100% transparent all the time. So far, the explanations given so far have been reasonable, even if it's not what you were looking for down to the very last detail. At the very least, have some patience.

Googling legal terms is the same as googling health issues - they don't apply the same way to every single condition. We don't know what kind of legal setup they have with Tapas. Don't assume cancer just because you googled "mole on my butt." It's probably just a mole on your butt :stuck_out_tongue: If you're really concerned, go see an actual professional (in the case of the hypothetical hyperbole, wait for a qualified staff member to come here and tell us more and/or make an actual official announcement).

Again, sorry if the point of the question is just flying over my head. At this point, why should it matter who was "affected"? No one's stepped forward making such claims, and the clause is gone now, so any chances of anyone being affected are now gone.

Devika
May '17

Wow, the stuff going down while I'm sleeping! Thank you to everyone for looking at my questions, it feels good that they're being addressed, one way or the other. And @NagashiKhan is right, I was going for the nitty-gritty details, because we have so many different interpretations floating around but no official, clarifying word, and because if something like this does end up in court, looking at the details of what's written is exactly what the lawyers and judges will do.

Right now, I agree with both @NagashiKhan and @UzukiCheverie that there is little point in further discussing it until the person in charge of legal stuff at tapas makes a statement.

Hehe nope, I'm not! And yep, I'm all about the details. ;D

Thank you!

scullpanda
May '17

Honestly I'm worried about people still jumping ship due to the twitter storm and how in the long run thats going to affect the site --- the whole thing is quickly becoming more stressful as people perpetuate falsities on twitter and many take it for truth then jump ship taking this whole thing as battle cry for artists rights and being screwed over by the "cooperate man" ---I know I'm not a very popular or big creator on Tap but I love making my comics and this whole thing just worries me as others have gradually been getting meaner about the whole ordeal.

joannekwan(ง ˙o˙)ว here to help~
May '17

Artists in general are a salty people.
But I'd think the whole thing will blow over with time. Like I didn't even know Comic Panda lifted series without creator approval until a couple days ago.

If people think they can still retain and/or grow their audience outside of Tapas, then that's their business.
It's up to the people who stay with Tap to keep it as one of the better webcomic hosting platforms and make it better for everyone.

GoldenPlume
May '17

Going to try to look at the silver lining:

Staff mentioned somewhere in a recent post that they are looking at hiring a community manager. In order words a full time Forum, Tweeting, Facebook, podcasting staffer for creators to liaison with. That's a good thing that probably wouldn't have happened until a major "blow out" like this occurred.

They should hire this employee:

youtube.com/watch?v=Ak-Y56SfkS0

Ok, so a little corny but it's the first thing that came to mind and it gets the point across.

Tapas is like a toddler still, learning how to walk. It took a big step and went boom. That's just going to happen from time to time. The sad thing is that creators didn't even give the staff 24 hours to respond when the poo hit the fan. On the other hand, staff should have addressed this weeks ago when it was called into question, instead of waiting for the storm to form.

LordVincent
May '17

They also spread falsities and out of context trash about specific members.

They also group attacked any member that requested for people to give staff those 24 hours and trash talked them on other places. Not all of it is visible here of course since the mods have done and are doing what they can to prevent it, but I have heard from silent watchers of this drama that there's a lot of gossip going on behind people's backs.

I'm mostly avoiding this discussion right now for a certain reason, but I thought I would add this. Going back to lurking in the corner.