Question Terms of Service Question

Art Andrews

Community Owner
Community Staff
Wait, there were PMs issued about this?
Yes. A mass PM was sent last night to all new and full members... taking it you didn't get one?

We also posted it in the announcements section and put it into an announcement on every forum of the site for anyone who missed it.
 

Node Nine

Active Member
Ah how does one agree to the TOS? I can't find an "I Agree" button...

Jeff
1. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
By registering or use of this site, you agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement and any modifications made to it in accordance with Section 17 below.
17. MODIFICATION
The Domain may amend this Agreement at any time. All amendments shall automatically be effective 30 days after they are initially posted on the site. Your use of the Service following the effective date of any modifications shall constitute your binding acceptance of those modifications. This Agreement may not be otherwise amended except in writing by a proven officer of the Domain. This Agreement was last modified on April 12, 2010.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Qui-Gonzalez

Master Member
Yes. A mass PM was sent last night to all new and full members... taking it you didn't get one?

We also posted it in the announcements section and put it into an announcement on every forum of the site for anyone who missed it.
Nope. Thankfully, I did check the "Announcements" section.
 

Art Andrews

Community Owner
Community Staff
Ah how does one agree to the TOS? I can't find an "I Agree" button...

Jeff
Jeff,
Yeah... we probably weren't as clear on that as we should have been as we have been asked by a few people how they "accept" the ToS. Node Nine nailed it though... just continue to be here and use the site! This is more of an automatic-in (within 30 days) if you don't email us and opt-out!
 

Art Andrews

Community Owner
Community Staff
Better yet why not simply make said clause less objectionable...

Now I left in modify, adapt as without it there can be no possible moderation of post content, and technically the attached image thumbnail feature would be in violation without the modify and adapt clause as well... I also removed the promotion and marketing use clause as I personally find it objectionable and unnecessary for a site like this... Basically if The RPF for some reason wants to use someone content for promotion and marketing, why not just asked them and make a mutual agreement for that content alone, it's a win win for both parties...
When thinking about "promoting and marketing" don't think "Ads in a magazine" but think more along the lines of social media; twitter, facebook, stumble upon.... we haven't even begun to utilize those resources, yet within the past 30 days they have brought us over 10k visits...

And again, don't want to sound like a broken record, but when you make a statement like "less objectionable" I would come back and ask, less objectionable to who? Out of the 6,000+ unique visitors we have each day (granted not every one is a member), only four people have raised a concern and they are only raising a concern because we pointed this out to them and it came across as something "new and different" not something that has been in place for years, and as I have shown above, this policy has been in place... not something new. At this point, you seem to be the only one who is strongly objecting to a policy that hasn't changed.
 

Too Much Garlic

Master Member
Yes. A mass PM was sent last night to all new and full members... taking it you didn't get one?
I didn't get one either, but I did have that pm issue recently, which we discussed, though haven't had any since, until perhaps now. Could be related!? Or maybe it's just slow reaching me considering the amount of members it's been sent to!? :confused
 

defstartrooper

Sr Member
I got the PM but i have to say i had no clue what changes had been made it's not like i'm constantly reading the TOS, beyond reading it at sign up i don't see why anyone would and without the old to compare to new i could see no way to know what the changes were.

So can i make a suggestion that in future announcements that any changes be outlined rather than an ambiguous message saying that the TOS has been updated ?
 

Darkknight0667

Sr Member
Out of the 6,000+ unique visitors we have each day (granted not every one is a member), only four people have raised a concern and they are only raising a concern because we pointed this out to them and it came across as something "new and different" not something that has been in place for years, and as I have shown above, this policy has been in place... not something new. At this point, you seem to be the only one who is strongly objecting to a policy that hasn't changed.
Sorry, Art, but that's a pretty poor argument. Have you considered that there are many more who are sitting at their computers nodding their heads in agreement with the few who have already spoken up? And, seeing that others have already raised the same concern, do not feel that it is necessary to chime in with the equivalent of a "me, too" post? Do you really want to see this thread flooded with a few hundred posts asking the same question? Wouldn't it be better to just address the issue that has been raised, rather than just dismiss it as being the view of only a few "troublemakers"?
 

exoray

Master Member
And again, don't want to sound like a broken record, but when you make a statement like "less objectionable" I would come back and ask, less objectionable to who?
A near identical ToS change was implemented in Facebook last year and it made national headlines and caused masssive negative blogging all over the Internet... So when I say less objectionable I mean just that, no one likes to sign away their rights on a whim... Facebook issued tons of damage control press releases after they implemented that change to calm their clients, as once a few spoke up more joined in and it became an avalanche...

Out of the 6,000+ unique visitors we have each day (granted not every one is a member), only four people have raised a concern
Sorry but it's proven human nature to be a follower, that is what the vast majority of people do... Just look at any 'rights' movement worldwide, it's always a small percentage of the effective population that first makes light of the situation and comes forward...

At this point, you seem to be the only one who is strongly objecting to a policy that hasn't changed.
You keep echoing that the policy hasn't changed, hasn't changed since when, the last silent revision? Granted whenever it was silently changed last time that line was tucked in there... Personally I gave up checking the ToS because it appeared to change every time I read it, hell a few years back it was abolished completely, then it turned to some psychology 101 behavioral modification experiment, then on to it's next incarnation... I personally don't know when that change to it was implemented but it hasn't always been there, it's certainly more new than old...
 

Art Andrews

Community Owner
Community Staff
A near identical ToS change was implemented in Facebook last year and it made national headlines and caused masssive negative blogging all over the Internet... So when I say less objectionable I mean just that, no one likes to sign away their rights on a whim... Facebook issued tons of damage control press releases after they implemented that change to calm their clients, as once a few spoke up more joined in and it became an avalanche...
While it is flattering to be compared to Facebook, Facebook we are not and the changes we made to the ToS are not even close to the type of issue Facebook brought on itself.

Sorry but it's proven human nature to be a follower, that is what the vast majority of people do...
While you may feel the need to degrade the vast majority of the members of this site as mere "followers" it has been my experience that the members of this site are quite the opposite; vocal, outspoken and quick to let their opinions be known. To me, their silence on this matter is deafening and the typical dissent from the typical people is par for the course and not surprising. A very small minority will try to twist this to prove their pet theories but the vast majority will take it for what it is; just another day on the board...

You keep echoing that the policy hasn't changed, hasn't changed since when, the last silent revision? Granted whenever it was silently changed last time that line was tucked in there... Personally I gave up checking the ToS because it appeared to change every time I read it, hell a few years back it was abolished completely, then it turned to some psychology 101 behavioral modification experiment, then on to it's next incarnation... I personally don't know when that change to it was implemented but it hasn't always been there, it's certainly more new than old...
As I have stated previously, I won't debate previous staff action. I appreciate your concern and as I have told you before, I appreciate your constructive criticism. However, if you want to try to twist the ToS into being "new" because you failed to keep up with it and find the current wording too objectionable, you know the email address to write.
 

Treadwell

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I'm just as guilty as everyone else of not thoroughly reading this kind of stuff. Hell, I was a mod for years and I have no idea when that language was put in. During? Before? :lol

However, the point that it is an old change is moot; it isn't as if there's a statute of limitations on asking a question, so there's no harm in discussing it anyhow. Anything wrong with at least entertaining the idea of removing it? What are its benefits to the RPF?
 

exoray

Master Member
the changes we made to the ToS are not even close to the type of issue Facebook brought on itself.
The RPF ToS

5. LICENSE GRANTED TO THE DOMAIN
You grant the Domain the world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt, distribute and publish any Content you Transmit through the Service, for the purposes of displaying such information on the Domain's sites and for the promotion and marketing of the Domain's services.
Facebook

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.
Yep not even close... :wacko
 

Art Andrews

Community Owner
Community Staff
Anything wrong with at least entertaining the idea of removing it? What are its benefits to the RPF?
Nothing wrong with "entertaining" it per se... just not interested in an academic debate that has very little true impact on the site (notice how much impact it has had in all the time it has been a part of the Terms...)

As I mentioned before, the primary benefit to the site is the ability to use content posted on the site to promote the site, especially in the age of social media where items of interest are pushed out via numerous forms... like the social bookmarks which are now found at the bottom of each thread.

It seems some people are trying to twist this into being some sort of "we are going to steal your IP and use it to our own benefit" when the truth is, we are only continuing to do more of what the site is here to do in the first place; show off and share projects and props that we think are cool and interesting to other people who would also find them cool and interesting. Nothing more. Nothing less.
 

Qui-Gonzalez

Master Member
I think the bugaboo comes in that this has never been done, Art. A lot of the members have been violating the TOS in some regards for nigh on a decade.

I think a good many members would much prefer you continue with the minimalist approach you have been following. The TOS that you have pointed to scares a few of the users who work for FX houses, or have licenses for this or that. Saying "Nothing more, nothing less" and having a TOS which is full of, what some would construe to be "shady language".

Sometimes, kicking up silt is bad.
 
Top