Terms of Service Revision

[tod evans]

i`ve had things explained to me thusly; it`s keith-n-aarons sandbox and if i want to play in it then i abide by their rules.....pretty simple. to me it shows concern that aaron has agreed to revise the tos so it better suits the forum as it currently stands, my understanding of the forum membership is that we consist of folks from all walks of life, both sexes, from 9-95 years old....so whats wrong with trying to keep the content of posts or links benign enough so that aunt mary and her 6y/o can contribute as well as those of us who are somewhat more abrasive? personally i could care less about e-bay links one way or the other but advertising gets my goat, if a manufacturer or importer wants to pony up with the cash there`s allready a forum for them to join as such. .02 tod

[Stu Ablett in Tokyo Japan]

FYI

Attachment 45900

Hey, I missed it for about 6 months before some one showed it to me

Cheers!

[Mark Rios]

This was a continuation of pm between Aarnon and myself. Congratulating him on his just thinking about changing that philosophy is about all the slack he will get from me, for now. Simply questioning the value of other forums as being suitable/not suitable for SMC members is the definition of a dictatorship mentality. In our pms I accused him of trying to be the "Mommy" for the (adult) members of SMC. Sorry if that bothers anyone, it is as how I see it.

Frank, a lot of us (most?) see it and understand it as being concerned with the type of content we, young and old, get when we click on a link. SMC doesn't allow certain types of content in it's house. And to assure that it isn't associated with that type of content, it doesn't allow linking to someplace where it may be present.

Personally, I don't see any need to make NEW policy. I have read the TOS and I feel that there is only a need for clarity. I have been rudely accused of asking for a "legal brief" on a cetain issue. Well, as stupid as the accusation is, there IS a concern here for "legal clarification". Keith wrote this in his last post,

Don't Forget!!!!!

Our TOS must address certain legal issues. Without key parts of the TOS SMC would immediately cease to exist. A couple of sentences won't cover our backside in a legal challenge.

So while I don't believe the issue that I was asking for clarification on is, necessarily, a legal one, there IS a need for clarification of certain terms, phrases and concepts SO THAT THERE IS CLARITY IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE ARE ASKED/MADE TO ABIDE BY, here in this place that some of us pay money to so that it can be maintanied. That way, if a disagreement comes up, there is a clear, concise place to go to for any dispute resolution, instead of relying on the capricious TOS interpretation of any mod that may be having a bad day or a fight with his/her spouse. Sometimes "Black and White" is a good thing. If there are rules, "Black and White" are THE thing. It sounds, to me, that Aaron is going to help us with that. Thanks to Aaron.

[Matt Warfield]

I agree with the limit on advertising. If advertising dollars aren't needed, then there's no need to have it and ultimately have this site become what the advertisers want. Just say no!

Ebay auction links - not necessary. Item # is perfectly functional.

For information in other forums, I see it both ways. But, would you send your kid across the prison floor to get the dictionary? There's a reason why the SMC was started - to get away from that behavior. Why invite it in to this sanctuary?

One thing I'm a little torn about is when someone finds an awesome deal at the borg or where ever. Technically, it's commercial in nature. But it's also to good not to pass that information on to the greater population. PM's don't really fit that role and it would create a grey area in the overall TOS.

Just my chunk of a dime's worth.

Matt

[Ian Abraham]

I have a simple suggestion, Why not just ad a "Notify a moderator" button? Then allow links to other forums (and maybe loosen up on some of the others rules). Let the readers notify you if there is a problem. I have moderated on other forums and this worked extremely well. I was always amazed at how fast people would report posts that violated the rules. All the mods got the email and it was quickly taken care of. Very simple solution.

There is one, top right of each post.

But I agree, it's use should be encouraged. No need for the moderators the check every link, just the questionable ones that members report.

The blatant adverts, the unsavoury sites and general spam can be cleaned up pretty easy and when a forum is kept 'clean and tidy' it tends to stay that way.

My suggestion, work on the 'spirit' of the forum. We dont want adverts and stuff thats not 'family safe', OK let that be the basic principle. The TOS must also contain "In the opinion of the moderators". Some things will be judgement calls on their part as to where the line in the sand stands. It's fair enough to discuss where that line is, but in the end it's their decision.

Cheers

Ian

[Glenn Clabo]

Frank,
Me thinks you protest too much. Here's a guy asking for our input and you have the cojones to say this is "totaly repugnant dictatorship mentality". Look up the words in that and tell us all how he fits. Holy smack you went beyond overboard on this one!

This a very good woodworking forum set up by great people who only wanted a calm...respectful place for all kinds of people who were tired of the crap that is flying around our lives. To say something like that is way over the top!

p.s. Sorry...but this has been a very long week with some VERY real problems. Why in the world are we having such a hard time seeing that some just want to make waves in the creek that has been a wonderful place for so long?

[Matt Warfield]

Aaron,

Given the legality concerns, is SMC in need of any funds for a legal review of the TOS after revision?

Thanks,

Matt

[Mark Rios]

Frank,
Me thinks you protest too much. Here's a guy asking for our input and you have the cojones to say this is "totaly repugnant dictatorship mentality". Holy smack you went beyond overboard on this one!

This a woodworking forum set up by good people who only wanted a calm...respectful place for people who were tired of the crap that is flying around our lives. To say something like that is way over the top!

OOooooooooohhhhhhhh......Glenn said "crap". TOS....TOS.....

(just teasin, of course)

[Lee DeRaud]

Frank, a lot of us (most?) see it and understand it as being concerned with the type of content we, young and old, get when we click on a link. SMC doesn't allow certain types of content in it's house. And to assure that it isn't associated with that type of content, it doesn't allow linking to someplace where it may be present.

I fully understand that concern and support the intent behind it. What I have trouble with is the assumption that such content will exist in certain types of sites and not others. That may be a reasonable assumption, but I find it ironic that the general class of forbidden sites includes other moderated woodworking forums, some (most?) of which share members with SMC.

[Dan Oliphant]

I've been reading all of the threads on the TOS issues as they have evolved. Up until this point I wasn't going to comment because I don't see a problem with the TOS as written.
As some of you know, I had some concerns/issues, that I voiced back when we became member supported. After the debate had run it's course, my position was the minority, therefor I could continue to whine about it and annoy others unnecessarly or I could just get over it and continue to participate as an active member/contributor. My other option was to move on.
As Tod mentioned, this is Keiths' and Aarons' sand box that we all enjoy playing in.

Fine tuning the TOS is fine if truly needed, but to rewrite them for a minority of members (Just because they are vocal) is counter productive.

I do not find Kens' mod approach as offensive or dictatorial or heavy handed. For one, I am glad to see someone in his position not trying to be PC or pandering to anyone. He is not a machine, therefor some mistakes or inconsistancies are to be expected.

[Steve Clardy]

I see we are straying away from the main objective here.

The main objective is to give AARON ideas about what, how to change, modify the TOS.

I really do not want to see this one go up in flames.

[Jeff Horton]

Hey, I missed it for about 6 months before some one showed it to me

Cheers!

I will be darned! Thanks Stu.

I would say the graphic needs to be changed. Wonder how many other people didn't know it was there?

[Cecil Arnold]

Okay, my .02. I don't like advertising. I think links to other WW sites should be allowed, and encourage members to report to moderators when these links are, or approach, crossing over the "line," wherever that may be. So far as e-bay just posting the number should be acceptable, IMHO.

I do not like seeing entire threads deleted. I think a moderator who decides a thread has gone too far (and/or is in violation of the TOS) should consider finding a stopping point in the thread, locking it at that point and deleting the remainder of the offending content.

I also thing that PM discussions with moderators should remain private and if one or the other party decides he or she must make it a public issue, the entire exchange should be made public, not just a cherry picked message or two.

SMC is a nice place that most of us enjoy visiting on a regular basis. We all agreed to the TOS when we signed up. Like any document it may be time to make some changes, which Aaron has agreed to do, and I applaud him for making the effort and know he won't be able to please everyone.

My BA is in communications and I can assure you that writing clear, concise statements, while attempting to comply with legal requirements, is not an easy thing. I just hope Keith and Aaron don't get fed up with some of the childishness and decide to shut the creek down.

[Keith Outten]

I agreed that our Terms Of Service needed a tune-up, I don't agree that we need to be adjusting our policies. Clarification of the rules is in order here and I don't expect we will change any of the core ideas that have served us well.

In order to maintain the atmosphere that SMC is known for we need to stay true to our original plan. Should we allow serious changes the Creek would then become a different place altogether, this is not going to happen. SawMill Creek is different then most woodworking forums, by design. It was our intention to use Badger Pond as a model for our Community and that plan has worked well. The core group of woodworkers who were here in the beginning are still Members of SMC and their input has always been the guage I have used to measure our success.

Our goal here is to "clarify" the rules not change them. A few have suggested that our TOS is unclear concerning several points. Clarification of the rules is in order and Aaron and I have agreed to make an effort to address the text not the content.

As with the US Constitution it would take a majority of our Members to ratify any changes to our existing rules.

If anyone would like to be helpfull take any section of our TOS, rewrite it and post your proposal here in this thread where we can all review your suggestion. Remember, you can't change the intent of the rules but you can help us by making our rules more clear and concise. As Cecil has suggested it isn't an easy job.

Those of you who have determined that our TOS is vague and incomprehensible should not have a problem using your advanced skills to help us correct the problem areas.

.

[Matt Warfield]

I see we are straying away from the main objective here.

The main objective is to give AARON ideas about what, how to change, modify the TOS.

I really do not want to see this one go up in flames.

Thanks Steve. I was hoping the focus could remain at least in this thread. After all, the flowers are blooming and I just took out the trash and the daughter went to bed. Now where was I....