READ & HEED: Our New Forum's Terms & Rules

[stu neville]

So, no more dead beaver porn?

Nope. Nor live beaver porn.

 

[ChasFink]

NOTICE: What follows is just a tangential observation of the language in the TOS. I'm not criticizing, complaining, or panicking over this. I know what you mean, and it's fine. But...

Is there another way to describe the "adult" part of "adult or objectionable content"? That use of the word "adult" (i.e. describing pornography and the like) always irks me - there are plenty of things that are properly suitable for adults that are not in any way pornographic: politics, quantum physics, ethics, income taxes, etc. (Also, most of the plots of pornography are ridiculously juvenile.) Notice that in this one thread stu neville said "a lot of threads contain adult themes" and EnolaGaia follows up in the next post with "The new terms...explicitly prohibit adult or objectionable content'." Kind of confusing.

Again, I know what you mean and I'm not trying to cause a stir. I'm just sayin'.

 

[stu neville]

Again, I know what you mean and I'm not trying to cause a stir.

Good. That's settled then.

 

[Yithian]

NOTICE: What follows is just a tangential observation of the language in the TOS. I'm not criticizing, complaining, or panicking over this. I know what you mean, and it's fine. But...

Is there another way to describe the "adult" part of "adult or objectionable content"? That use of the word "adult" (i.e. describing pornography and the like) always irks me - there are plenty of things that are properly suitable for adults that are not in any way pornographic: politics, quantum physics, ethics, income taxes, etc. (Also, most of the plots of pornography are ridiculously juvenile.) Notice that in this one thread stu neville said "a lot of threads contain adult themes" and EnolaGaia follows up in the next post with "The new terms...explicitly prohibit adult or objectionable content'." Kind of confusing.

Again, I know what you mean and I'm not trying to cause a stir. I'm just sayin'.

The TOS was adapted from a standard issue one. What it lacks in elegance (which is quite a lot), it may well make up for in legality. 'Adult' content tends to mean 'explicit' and quibbling over that won't help us if we are forced to argue with an ISP or worse.

We've only changed what we felt we had to.

 

[ChasFink]

Of course I also have a problem with that use of "explicit" (most of the stuff here is not implicit) - but I do understand.

Please, allow me:

Good. That's settled then.

:agree:

 

[Yithian]

Of course I also have a problem with that use of "explicit" (most of the stuff here is not implicit)

 

[McAvennie]

That wasn't what we were initially aiming for...

 

[Mikefule]

... serves solely to promote a particular agenda..

That's a possibly gray area.

A site promoting, say, model steam locomotives, is promoting an agenda. It appears that I could not point someone here who has expressed an interest in the above to a site on steam.

The whole expression used is, "...or serves solely to promote a particular political, religious, or commercial interest or agenda." Without a comma after "interest", the correct reading is as I'm sure was intended: "interest or agenda" is a catch all that applies to the three words, "political, religious, commercial".

So, common sense:

Don't post anything that "serves solely to promote" any of the following

a) A political interest or agenda, which might reasonably be interpreted to mean party political campaigning and also promoting the political interests or campaigns of any group, charity, country, etc. Basically, no political soap boxing or lobbying. GOOD.

b) A religious interest or agenda. Reasonably this must include not only an agenda in favour of a particular religious group, but also an agenda against a particular religious group, or against religion in general. So, no evangelising or proselytising. GOOD. I'm sure that the caveat of "serves solely to promote" is sufficient to allow fair comment, robust debate, and brief expressions of personal conviction in the course of a longer post.

c) A commercial interest or agenda agenda. So, basically, no advertising. GOOD.

I am not a lawyer, but I spent 35 yers in various legal departments and was used to reading and interpreting contracts in contentious circumstances. I am entirely happy with the terms as set out. They are common sense, set down in legal language, and I am confident that they will allow us all the flexibility we need for robust debate about controversial and sensitive subjects whilst protecting us all from trolls, spammers and others who aren't really here for the debate.

Similarly with the "copyright" stuff. Unpacked, it says that the originator (forum member) retains copyright, so they can publish the same item elsewhere, or even sell it elsewhere if they want. However, the Service is entitled to quote, republish (etc.) directly in connection with the forum's legitimate activities. At the simplest level, this allows User B to quote User A's post when responding to it, or to borrow a pithy phrase (I hope, with attribution) for a forum signature. It does not allow the Service (forum) to collect your posts and publish them in a book.

And a PM is a Private Message. It is not something that you "submit, upload, or otherwise make available to the Service." It is a private message sent from User A to User B via the service. No worries there.

The only slight grey area for me is linking to copyright content. Posting URLs to Wiki, newspapers, and similar sites, is standard forum behaviour.

If it is attributed and is in context, then I cannot see Wiki or anyone else complaining about the free traffic it generates for them.

However, if you upload copyright music or written material to some sort of sharing site and then post a link to it in order to generate income for yourself, or to assist a forum user in avoiding paying for that information, that would be unacceptable.

I think you've done a good job with this. Thank you.

 

[EnolaGaia]

My deepest thanks, Mike ...

That's an out-STAND-ing review and analysis. I say this not because you gave it good marks, but rather because you've quite perceptively grasped and explained why it was crafted the way it was - especially with regard to specificity on some points versus generality on others.

It's all about the 'hooks' and the 'wiggle room', as I presume you know from experience. You need to maximize the specific 'hooks' (items of explicit reference onto which conditions or implications are prescribed) without crimping your 'wiggle room' (flexibility to deal with grey-area or novel situations).

Sometimes phrasing makes all the difference, and what goes unsaid can be as important as what's laid out in gruesome detail.

You're right about the grey-ness with regard to referencing or quoting material copyrighted to parties outside the forum. This has been a concern for a long time, especially given the general trend toward laziness in posting effort - e.g., simply copying and pasting the entirety of someone else's content rather than providing a synopsis and a link to the source.

This problem doesn't magically disappear just because we're moving to a server base in the USA, where 'fair use' provides some measure of protection.

 

[OneWingedBird]

You also agree not to use the Service to submit or link to any Content that contains adult or objectionable content

Well that's the Weird Sex thread down the shitter.

 

[Bigphoot2]

Well that's the Weird Sex thread down the shitter.

And most of Swifty's jokes

 

[INT21]

..And most of Swifty's jokes ..

So at least some good will come from this.

INT21

 

[INT21]

...and set a minimum age limit of 18 for registered membership...

How do you know that someone is 18+, and isn't just saying they are ?

INT21.

 

[EnolaGaia]

Well that's the Weird Sex thread down the shitter.

No, not necessarily ... The Weird Sex thread was permitted to start and continue under the prior terms, which contained the very same prohibition in the same exact words.

 

[Nemo]

TY all for trying to explain the copyright stuff, to me. (I'm still confused/stupid though)

 

[EnolaGaia]

...and set a minimum age limit of 18 for registered membership...
How do you know that someone is 18+, and isn't just saying they are ?
INT21.

We don't, we can't, and that's the problem - the same problem we face if we were setting the bar at 16 or 13 (the lowest age at which any jurisdiction prescribes an age boundary with legal requirements and risks).

We could either get draconian about 'adult' content so as to support memberships for minors, or we could set an 'adult' age limit and leave minors' access and potential legal-fallout-inducing exposure to lurkers and liars for whom we accept no legal responsibility.

We chose the latter, and by doing so we effectively maintained the status quo.

If we'd elected to accommodate minors we'd have been forced to 'sanitize' the forum and remain liable for its 'sanitization'.

 

[ChasFink]

Well that's the Weird Sex thread down the shitter.

And the ability to use the word "shitter".

No, not necessarily ... The Weird Sex thread was permitted to start and continue under the prior terms, which contained the very same prohibition in the same exact words.

Oh, thank God!

Shitter.

:dpoo: