Understood, thanks! 

I had the same login error as mentioned by Embassy of Time in his thread.  I solved it (by refreshing the page) before I could make note of the details, but it was essentially an endless loop between signing in and being asked to accept the new terms. Accepting them took me back to the login page, which then wanted me to accept the new terms, and so on...

The technical issues of which there are many, the inability to use the site at all without javascript and the immense reduction of the signal/noise ratio that came with this update are not the dominating problems which makes me consider leaving the community in all seriousness.

The main issue with the site upgrade are the modified terms and conditions that you piggy-backed onto the update. Among these are several terms and conditions which, frankly, are barely acceptable if at all.

In particular, I find paragraph 3, paragraph 5.1, and the last sentence of 11.1 objectionable.

1 hour ago, samoth said:

The main issue with the site upgrade are the modified terms and conditions that you piggy-backed onto the update.

FWIW, these are the exact same terms that were on the previous site. No piggy-backing.

Only difference is notifying users that they have changed, which is going to happen as everyone logs in for the first time in the new setup.

They're different from the ones that the WayBackMachine shows for December 17, 2016 (and certainly different from the ones I agreed to in 2008 or so).

Be that as it may, little does it matter. I bid you farewell.

3 hours ago, formerly_known_as_samoth said:

The main issue with the site upgrade are the modified terms and conditions that you piggy-backed onto the update. Among these are several terms and conditions which, frankly, are barely acceptable if at all.

In particular, I find paragraph 3, paragraph 5.1, and the last sentence of 11.1 objectionable.

Although I'm in no position to change them, I'm curious what you dislike about those.

Paragraph 3 ("Your Responsibilities") agrees that you are legally able to agree to the agreement and you will comply with your local laws. It is somewhat boilerplate and nearly meaningless.  If you didn't have the ability to legally agree to the agreement before then it didn't matter and your account could be dumped. Now if you don't have the ability to legally agreement then the agreement still doesn't matter and your account could be dumped.

Paragraph 3 was indirectly in the older versions, but was scattered across multiple elements like "Age" and "Customer Obligations". 

Paragraph 5.1 (Payments / Fees) says they can change the fee structure for paid items and the site can add/modify/remove items.  We saw this recently with multiple tiers of GDNet+ at different costs. It looks like it also applies to Store items.   This was also in the older versions spread across the "Customer Obligations" and "Types of License - Payment".  While I'd personally love it if all my services have costs fixed in stone, the ability to change prices is important for the business side. What part do you object to?

Paragraph 11.1 (Choice of Law) is standard to be where the business is incorporated, and the ToS Venue has been in California for since 2005 (possibly earlier but in a different place on archive.org). I'm not sure what you're objecting to there. This is standard boilerplate, making it harder for someone to on a distant part of the globe and claiming the site violates the law of some distant location that the website owners never knew existed.  The clause means they're trying to follow the law where they are, and if you want to sue it needs to be about issues that matter where the web site is operated.  I'm really curious what is objectionable about this part of boilerplate, since it is standard in nearly every contract, license, and agreement.

If you object privately, I don't mean to interfere with that, that is between you and the staff. But since you mentioned them in the public discussion, I'm sincerely curious what you object to about them.

I just lost an hour writing a reply that got eaten by a "502 server error, retry in 30 seconds".

I don't mind waiting to press "submit", but I do mind loosing an hour work because the edit-scripts can't handle the case that a server may be unreachable for a while.

2 minutes ago, Alberth said:

I just lost an hour writing a reply that got eaten by a "502 server error, retry in 30 seconds".

I don't mind waiting to press "submit", but I do mind loosing an hour work because the edit-scripts can't handle the case that a server may be unreachable for a while.

Sorry! It was a critical server upgrade without much opportunity for warning. We're stable now.

Hello,

the new version can be disturbing at first glance...

Changing the nicknames back to what it was prior the upgrade is not easy. And despite of the fact that it tells that I already did it recently, the change happened anyway and fortunately

Most links in the menu don't work: Click on forums, then programming, the website is searching for a page, but doesn't change anything. To see all forums, we are obliged to click on Forums, then all forums. I guess it would have been best just to click on the main Forums menu just like for Blogs for example.

Reputation seems down (or maybe it work in another new way now).

Forum listing is not sorted anymore (maybe this was made on purpose).

Even when I don't have any ad blockers, I can see at the bottom of some pages a warning about me using blockers.

One other thing. Some reply number might be wrong. For example, I made a reply on this thread, but when listing it from its parent forum, it says 0 replies.

It would appear the new software doesn't handle spam very well...