Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Simon J.A. Simpson on March 19, 2013, 06:18:19 pm
-
Where do I find the ‘Terms of Service’ for the Lula forums ?
-
Logout and then hit the Register link.
It is what all Members agree to on Registering :D
-
Hi Chris.
Many thanks.
May I make a request and a suggestion.
Suggestion
Could we have a copy of the Terms of Service posted at the first level of the Forum for all to see and access easily.
Request
The Terms of Service state:
“The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.”
I assume you mean that you will reveal the identity of the person being complained about, not the complainer. If you mean the former (revealing the identity of the person being complained about) may I ask that this sentence be re-worded to make this clearer (see below). If you mean the latter may I ask Michael to reconsider. If I made a complaint about someone, particularly someone who was ranting on the forum, I would not want my identity to be revealed to them under any circumstances ! I'm sure you understand !
How about:
“In the event of a formal complaint about your use of the forum, or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum, the owners reserve the right to reveal your identity or any other related information collected on this service.” ?
-
I have posted the Forum Registration Agreement. Thanks for the suggestion.
The Terms stand as written.
-
Hi Chris.
For the term:
“The owners of this forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any other related information collected on this service) in the event of a formal complaint or legal action arising from any situation caused by your use of this forum.”
Can you please clarify whether this means the identity of the person being complained about will be ‘revealed’, or the complainer, or both. This very important so I would be grateful if you would make this clear.
-
I am no lawyer but FWIW, my reading of that phrase is that it refers to both - not that we have ever had to do that. It's simply easier to ban the user and move on...
-
Hi Chris.
This may seem to you like hair splitting as I'm not sure you are understanding the importance of what I am saying.
If I were to complain to the moderator about someone who has had a rant on the forum or who has abused me, and my name is then passed to them, or you publish my complaint along with my name on the forum (as your current term appears to allow you to do), you expose me to abuse from the abuser/ranter and possibly other, less well balanced, forum members. I would not want this. Nor, I believe, would anyone.
I believe that Michael must guarantee this basic level of confidentiality and protection for forum members. He is taking a very big risk if he does not.
-
^^FWIW It’s a very good idea to hand any public facing contract such as a site’s TOS over to an attorney for review and revision. Anything short of that opens a problematic door, especially as a site grows and people challenge the TOS.
-
It's really about having the confidence to post to the forum without fear of being bullied (and, in my opinion, there has been some of this in the past) and that, should it be necessary to complain about abuse on the forum, that one's anonymity is respected – as a necessity. This does not appear to be the case from what the Terms of Service say – as qualified by Chris Sanderson (Administrator).
-
I believe that Michael must guarantee this basic level of confidentiality and protection for forum members. He is taking a very big risk if he does not.
Hi Simon,
Michael must do nothing, it's his site, his rules apply. What risk are you talking about?
All that is stated is that he reserves the right to reveal an identity, e.g. if forced by legal procedures. It doesn't say that names will routinely be published. Frankly, I find it bit offensive to even suggest that Michael would want to abuse his rights and create problems for others.
Cheers,
Bart
-
All that is stated is that he reserves the right to reveal an identity, e.g. if forced by legal procedures...
As I read it, that is precisely the point.
Look folks, this privately-owned forum is run by normal human beings with decent intention, with reasonably open minds and 'normal' levels of tolerance and common sense - we are highly unlikely to reveal the identity of the complainant to the person who is being complained about - unless there is a compelling reason.
The current Terms stand.
And oh, by the way:
This is a Forum with all levels and kinds of open participation - some to my or your taste and some not, some with which we might agree and a lot with which we do not - such is the nature of an open Forum.
The right that Michael & I firmly uphold is that of silencing (by removing the right to post) or throwing out, those of our guests who are rude, intolerant, abusive or whose Signal to Noise ratio is intolerable.
-
This may seem to you like hair splitting as I'm not sure you are understanding the importance of what I am saying.
If I were to complain to the moderator about someone who has had a rant on the forum or who has abused me, and my name is then passed to them, or you publish my complaint along with my name on the forum (as your current term appears to allow you to do), you expose me to abuse from the abuser/ranter and possibly other, less well balanced, forum members. I would not want this. Nor, I believe, would anyone.
And I'm pretty sure you don't understand the significance of your suggestion. The practice of secret condemnation, with the accused kept in ignorance of the identity of his accuser, should be kept in the dustbin of totalitarian history, where it belongs.
Jeremy
-
Chris.
Many thanks for your reply. I am very happy with what you have said; and the outcome.
All is now clear.
I am only sorry that others seem to have misunderstood my intention. I certainly have no intention to offend nor inclinations towards totalitarianism. Quite the opposite !
I believe this topic can now be closed.
-
Agreed!