man i hate laws. and rules, and all that shit. i wont try to get in trouble on porpoise. and i wont get caught.

that zuckerberg, hes worth eleventy billion dollars.

dick avide < see what i did there.. he's probably worth a few quid. at least couple of special brews.

featheredfish wrote:
Actually they aren't from a freely available template. They are in fact documents I had drawn up for a project which was born out of a similar scenario with moderation over at DIF. The site in question was and still is monopolising on a competitive ladder, which I used to take part in. For technical reasons the project is dormant but given the right ammunition shall be brought back to life. My intention was to offer a non-commercial alternative where members had a voice in the running of their ladder. The site I was opposing is a commercial site with a free membership option with reduced privileges. Given that the intentions here were and are ethically much the same I suggested that we could use them here. With some minor alterations to suit this environment and community. If you would like to see the dormant project I can provide you with access to it if you PM me a request. Hopefully you will get a feel for what the intended goal of the site was/is and may yet be.

One thing to bear in mind here is that 'We' refers to for the most part the wider community, but the buck has to stop somewhere, in which case the 'We' becomes the management of the site. Having said that there is a very real possibility that a contributor may wish to present material which is against the general views and principles of our community. In which case we may need to refuse it's inclusion, or edit out the offending elements contained with in the material. The intention is to get the community to decide on the action and for the management to act on that decision. There could also be a situation where we need to act first and ask questions later. For example if someone posted some highly questionable material which could damage our communities reputation. We would need to act and remove it from public view.

The primary aim of this clause is to allow us to use various contributions in different areas. For example if someone posts in a thread a news worthy article we would like the freedom to republish that data in the front page or maybe within a blog. There could also be a situation in the future where we could access a wider audience if something were put in print, such as flyers or news paper contributions or any other media that is available. It also protects the community and the management team from unfair copyright claims.

If you could suggest alternative wording which addresses your concerns while addressing ours we are happy to put that proposal out there to the wider community. This isn't written in stone at this point, and it is also subject to change at a latter date should the community wish there to be an amendment after it has been adopted.

The primary aim here is to establish self responsibility for what and how members contribute. Copyright infringements need to be considered by the community as a whole. It should be the responsibility of the author to make sure the material they produce complies with any copyrights that may be in effect, with respect to the material they wish to publish. As this site is geared to sharing knowledge and education on a non profit basis copyright shouldn't be a major issue. Having said that there is a real possibility that our status could be challenged. There for we need to take precautions against any such actions.

The other points relating to this I have covered in an earlier answer. But in simple terms we need the flexibility to reuse content in different areas of the site, as and when that need arises.

As Novum has pointed out our vision is not simply a forum, but something far wider in scope, which will allow us to publish valuable and educational information in the hope of reaching the widest audience possible. We would like the Sanctum Zone to become a serious resource of information for anyone interested in the subjects we get involved in. There for the terms have been written in such away that they cover many possibilities.

I guess the next stage would be to draw up some kind of constitution for the community. Given the fact that this project is only about two weeks old, and the initial site was created around two months ago, without a thought for where we are at now. It's hard to get everything in place with a stable footing in such a short time scale, with limited funds and man power.

I can assure you that from my communications with Diamonsgeezer and Novum I'm confident that that we share the same goals and principles. I think it's safe for me to say that we all want a community to form that we ourselves would want to be apart of, were it done by someone else.

DG has already been put to the test as some members here can attest to. He stood his ground on behalf of the community at his own personal expense. The reason he did that was because he was doing the right thing and sticking to his values, and the values many of us here also hold. He has also single handedly funded the project to enable us to get this far.

I think your comments are extremely well placed and you're quite right to raise these issues. With that sort of attitude in our community things are set to be well managed and governed my the community at large, through active participation.

I have just finished installing a new system for email polling, where our members will receive emails on subjects such as this, and with the click of a mouse cast their vote back here on the website.

We really do have the intention of making this project a real community effort. All we are doing is trying to provide the community with the tools to make that happen.

I would like to say that I haven't consulted either Diamondgeezer or Novum prior to making this post, although I have read Novums previous reply. The three of us speak as individuals with a shared dream and a common goal.

Sorry for the long reply and I hope it helps you and others form an opinion. I can't stress enough that if you would like changes please table your motion, it would actually makes our lives easier.

@ Psketti, your absolutely right most people sign stuff and never read the contract and I can assure you people sign up to terms such as these with far worse potential consequences every day. I'm one of those sad people that likes to read things before I sign, and I fully appreciate the fact that people here have actually made an effort to read the terms proposed. If more of us did that in our daily lives, maybe much of the BS we all endure everyday would never have come to pass!

As for the illegal activity we couldn't condone it and we would also need to comply with requests for official bodies, where we didn't have grounds to refuse. That doesn't mean we would roll over and submit to those requests.

That's my fortune spent.

Oh do I have to read that stuff?

I never read it I kind of skim read on occasion...

I'll have a look through it...at some point. Stuff like that gives me a headache.

I particularly love this line in your T&C's

You must not rely on any statement we have published on sanctumzone.co.uk without first taking specialist professional advice


I see why you need them though just in case the

Hopefully you'll only get good people here but you do need to cover your backs just in case

Couple of spelling mistakes - oh yes I went there other then that it all sounds reasonable to be fair - the community guidelines which get a huge bravo from me:)

thoreau wrote:

sorry thoreau

thoreau wrote:
Hi thoreau,

Would you be kind enough to indicate what those mistakes are and where please? I can't spell to save my life and I really don't fancy reading it all yet one more time, looking for something which will doubtless allude me again.

Cheers,

PS Glad the Guide lines meet your approval.

With regards to that reproducing submissions bit. Would that apply if someone uploaded a song they wrote or a short story say? Would one have effectively granted permission for admin to do as they wilt with it?

I guess that could be open to abuse under those circumstances. No rights are removed from the original copyright holder by the way. I think you will need to expand on that notion. If you have alternative wording which allows the content to be hosted here and protect the community from the dangers of copyright wrangles, while also allowing the content to be used in relation to the community and it's activities it can be considered by everyone.

I find it difficult to take in long articles on screen - it hurts my eyes! But it all looks fair and reasonable so far - I understand that these things are necessary. I'll have a closer look a bit later!

Mandy

irrepressible wrote:
Lmfao I just knew that would end up happening

Paragraph one line three - In inclusion?

1.0.1 (ii) line one - household is all one word

2.0.1 line one - has been
2.0.1 line three - may be
2.0.1 line three - from
5.0.1 para 2 line one - note

is all I have seen so far - sorry for the pernickertiness - I read legal statements all day for mistakes so it's second nature

As long as it says no nazi bastards then I'm happy with it.

andyh wrote: What about grammar nazis?

I'm retired though...

thoreau wrote:
Done and far less dramatic than I thought it was going to be.

Thanks for picking those out and it's not in the least pernickerty given the purpose of the text. Does it get now?

Frog wrote:
Great post froggy and you've covered everything that needed to be covered.

And I'll also take this moment to vouch for what you've said about diamond because he very much stood his ground and made a decision that considered us all as a collective rather than put himself first... we might not have even been this far had he not

Good stuff you all

psketti wrote:
Couldnt agree more with the above ^^

batou wrote:
If this was GLP forums something like that would happen automatically everytime you spelled it right.

May I first of all reiterate once more that I have absolutely no reservations about the intentions or character of the current team on sanctumzone.co.uk. If I did I would be gone by now. It's a big internet out there.
I also fully accept the need to cover the site from potential litigation.

Any comments or observations I offer are in the spirit of constructive criticism. nothing else. I want to see more communities like this one on the web.

My concerns about the passages I highlighted was the view from the other side of the fence, the contributors, and the potential those portions create for the abuse of submitted content with the right of originator to dissent or deny pre-conceded.

As a relative noob to most here, perhaps I should give a little sketch background.

*I have real-world experience of these issues, having spent 20+ years as a Community Arts Centre manager (Voluntary sector). I resigned that position, (at significant financial cost), because I could not/would not participate and have my accrued trust used in selling, what in my opinion, was an exploitative charade of a building project to amalgamate a number of arts projects into one, under a single roof with unaffordable access charges to the local community and favourable rates corporate hire policy, and a number of local job losses.

Naturally, over those years we had to produce promotional/awareness material and naturally that would include examples of participants work to illustrate what we did. Each and every time the participant was approached and asked permission. Not only did that save us any legal hassles or ill-will, it increased trust because we had shown them respect and courtesy If the producer was unwilling that would be regretful but their output would not be used.

That project was council funded and locally managed registered charity. The committee members composition and attitudes could therefor change quite radically at times and policies could be interpreted in very different ways as a consequence.
People move on, some stomp off in a strop, other get caught up in family life or work commitments and regretfully have to cut back or cease their involvement. The same can happen here easily. It is that scenario which must be guarded against when terms talk of perpetuity.

*Melanae can attest to my statement here.

If I may also be so bold, I think one problem is that you are attempting to draft a sweeping TOS to cover a broad range of functions and facilities,(much of which are undefined or emerging at the moment).

It may be a worthwhile exercise to break down those areas and determine which TOS is appropriate or essential to each component accordingly.

e.g.
1: If I were to submit an article I would reasonably expect to have a discussion about editing or amendments with an 'editor' about content, presentation and supportive evidence and either acceding to their wishes or pulling an article. I would be mightily pissed however if that same article/content was edited and/or re-written retrospectively without consultation.

2: If I were posting on the discussion boards I would not be anticipating being held to journalistic standards and constraints. (thankfully!). I would however fully accept the requirement for civil discourse.


I hope this is taken in the manner which it is intended. I'm not being critical of people here, I'm being critical of potential.

Sorry for the long ramble, I hope some of it made sense.

I appreciate that your comments have been made as constructive criticisms, and that your views are not directed at any individual/s. I had tried to make my understanding of that clear in one of the paragraphs within my reply to your post.

The terms allow for additional agreements/terms to be introduced to cover new areas and features of the site as it develops. At this stage it would be difficult to cover what is essentially an unknown variable. Obviously the one common denominator could be that of published material, although that may not always be the case, for example if the community were to stage an event it wouldn't be covered by the publishing aspect. Although there could be material published in support of the event or issue the event was in support of which draws on published content.

We as in the people directly involved in the management, are obliged to be responsible and as part of that we are required to have certain policies in place. Due to the hasty development and launch of the site this issue was left unattended. Part of the reasoning behind that decision was to allow for community involvement in the way things here were and are set up.

To my mind there is no easy solution to the issues you raise, short of a formal constitution and formation of a society or group.

Do you have alternative wording, which would allow those sections to offer the general community and site protection from possible issued in the future, which also minimise/mitigates your concerns for individual contributors?