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.
Question Terms of Service Question
- Thread starter Joe Campbell
- Start date
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
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
Nope. Thankfully, I did check the "Announcements" section.
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!
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.
Lord Abaddon
Sr Member
Yes, I got one this morning.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
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 ?
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
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
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...
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...
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...
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.
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...
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.
Darkknight0667
Sr Member
Thanks. We'll consider it once we get past the irony of your post.lol
lol:rolleyes 
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?
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
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.
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.
