I disagree with this statement

[August1991]

I wish to record my disagreement with the statement that I was required to check in order to make this post.

MapleLeafForum is a public forum. I have been posting here for many years. Why ask me to check this now?

[Greg]

What are you talking about?

[August1991]

To login and access the forum and post, I had to read a long form and then agree, or disagree.

I wish to state that I agreed - but under "duress".

=====

Greg,

MapleLeafForum works because people say stuff, freely.

It is wrong to ask posters (me, for example) to check boilerplate nonsense.

But I checked yes to your questions - and posted this fact to show that you're wrong.

 

Edited October 14, 2016 by August1991

[Charles Anthony]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

 - but under "duress".

I did not bother reading it.  I just clicked and moved on. 

Did I miss anything? 

[bcsapper]

The bit about the nuns and the rubber chicken gave me pause, but I agreed to it because I could wear a tutu.

[The_Squid]

If you don't agree, then delete your bookmark and move on to another part of the interwebs.....   

Edited October 14, 2016 by The_Squid

[August1991]

2 hours ago, Charles Anthony said:

I did not bother reading it.  I just clicked and moved on. 

Did I miss anything? 

Yes, you did. MLW is no longer responsible for anything you ever wrote here - and MLW has proof since it has all your postings.

If you posted something contrary to current "progressive/politically correct/Catholic/Islamic" thought, MLW disavows all responsibility.  You're on your own.

Edited October 14, 2016 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Of course they disavow all responsibility. Why should MLW and Greg specifically be legally accountable for your actions?

[dialamah]

6 hours ago, August1991 said:

Yes, you did. MLW is no longer responsible for anything you ever wrote here - and MLW has proof since it has all your postings.

If you posted something contrary to current "progressive/politically correct/Catholic/Islamic" thought, MLW disavows all responsibility.  You're on your own.

Is this what you are talking about?  

You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Maple Leaf Web with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s).

By participating in these forums, you grant us the right and licence to use, reproduce and display any submissions to the forum without compensation to you or any one else.

We at mapleleafweb.com also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a legal action arising from any message posted by you.

[?Impact]

Some of us might be into nuns and rubber chickens, at least if it is consensual. 

[bcsapper]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Some of us might be into nuns and rubber chickens, at least if it is consensual. 

Well sure, if you get to wear a tutu.

[bcsapper]

I would have hoped that MLW would never be held accountable for the postings it hosts. 

I can see a responsibility to remove certain things, given a length of time beyond which approval might be inferred by someone upset at a post, but if that's the case, I guess the agreement handles that.

Edited October 14, 2016 by bcsapper
typos

[August1991]

On 10/14/2016 at 8:52 AM, cybercoma said:

Of course they disavow all responsibility. Why should MLW and Greg specifically be legally accountable for your actions?

Cybercoma, you make a reasonable point. I should account for my actions and words. But what if someone claims that my actions and words were different? Should MLW be an arbiter? (This is your reasonable thinking.)

====

But in this 21st century, this is 2015 as our PM said (imitating but missing his father's reference), we are entering a new world where I fear saying/posting something "outrageous" that offends someone. MLW and Greg are protecting themselves against future human rights/civil rights/political correctness police.

This is the slippery slope that kills originality. 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Just now, August1991 said:

Cybercoma, you make a reasonable point. I should account for my actions and words. But what if someone claims that my actions and words were different? Should MLW be an arbitor? (This is your reasonable thinking.)

I'm unclear on what you mean here. GIve me an example of what you mean.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

Cybercoma, you make a reasonable point. I should account for my actions and words. But what if someone claims that my actions and words were different? Should MLW be an arbiter? (This is your reasonable thinking.)

 

Yes, if the owner(s) of MLW do not want to be a liable party in a defamation lawsuit.    Nothing in a user TOS acknowledgment would release MLW from the obligation to remove defamatory or illegal content immediately once made aware of its existence on the forum.

http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/if-you-know-about-it-youre-the-publisher-website-operator-liability-for-defamation

If this forum is found to exist in a U.S. jurisdiction instead, owners/operators may fare better.

[Scott Mayers]

On 10/13/2016 at 8:44 PM, August1991 said:

I wish to record my disagreement with the statement that I was required to check in order to make this post.

MapleLeafForum is a public forum. I have been posting here for many years. Why ask me to check this now?

I second this. What is troubling is that the supposed 'agreement' doesn't indicate WHAT the change was and to WHY. The wording too about what it NOT allowed raises concerns and to the absolute right of the site to discriminate IS a censorship that threatens my OWN right to copy protection. It also now hides the site from those NOT signing up which makes it an completely private forum. 

So, I only signed up now to state this disappointment and assert that I will  no longer come here. I discourage others too. Politics IS necessarily problematic because it involves real concerns that affect people. To dictate the terms going in to LIMIT what people are allowed to say, (from the 'agreement' taken by its wording, we cannot even discuss "sex issues". Is there some government intervention trying to force this site into complying with some censorship. Is the 'agreement' intended to both allow this site to take the Benefits of right to censor or even take ownership of content BUT also allow them to USE such information to give to governments as well? Is this not proof that you guys here are likely disappointed particularly with some specific personal biases? 

So good bye. 

[Greg]

On 2016-10-14 at 0:38 AM, August1991 said:

Yes, you did. MLW is no longer responsible for anything you ever wrote here - and MLW has proof since it has all your postings.

If you posted something contrary to current "progressive/politically correct/Catholic/Islamic" thought, MLW disavows all responsibility.  You're on your own.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.  

When the upgrade was complete, the original link to the forum Rules and Guidelines was removed (it was coded into the original theme - however when we upgraded we could no longer use the old theme; hence why this place looks different nowadays).

I then had to recreate the Rules and Guidelines and manually insert the link on this new version of the forums.  I used the same version as we had before, BUT I made a few slight revisions.  You can see the diff report here: https://www.diffchecker.com/NhLedBYK

You can see from the diff report that the old version referred to the current Prime Minister as Stephen Harper - which is obviously wrong.  I also made a few corrections to character, word and paragraph spacing and a few other insignificant issues.

Near the end, I changed the following:

We at mapleleafweb.com also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.

to

We at mapleleafweb.com also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a legal action arising from any message posted by you.

I did this because after some consideration I felt that revealing someones forum identity should only come from a legal action, not just a complaint. Therefore, I removed that from the new Rules and Guidelines.

So you see, I'm not some evil agent of the government plotting to censor or manipulate anyone.

We have always had this type of Terms of Service (in this case, called the Rules and Guidelines) and we will continue to use it in the future.  

Also, the reason why you were asked to accept this new version of the TOS/Rules and Guidelines is because whenever I make a change to this document, it's a good practice to make everyone aware that a change as been made.

On 2016-10-15 at 7:12 PM, August1991 said:

But in this 21st century, this is 2015 as our PM said (imitating but missing his father's reference), we are entering a new world where I fear saying/posting something "outrageous" that offends someone. MLW and Greg are protecting themselves against future human rights/civil rights/political correctness police.

This is the slippery slope that kills originality. 

There is no slippery slope here, it's the same TOS that has been used for nearly 16 years - the only difference is really cosmetic, and you can see those changes in the link above.

On 2016-10-15 at 8:51 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

Yes, if the owner(s) of MLW do not want to be a liable party in a defamation lawsuit.    Nothing in a user TOS acknowledgment would release MLW from the obligation to remove defamatory or illegal content immediately once made aware of its existence on the forum.

http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/if-you-know-about-it-youre-the-publisher-website-operator-liability-for-defamation

If this forum is found to exist in a U.S. jurisdiction instead, owners/operators may fare better.

The forum is located on a server in the US - however, legal action can be initiated on both sides of the border.  However, legal action can arise even if the TOS is perfect, so I don't really see the physical location of the server from being a huge determining factor.

On 2016-10-15 at 10:30 PM, Scott Mayers said:

I second this. What is troubling is that the supposed 'agreement' doesn't indicate WHAT the change was and to WHY. The wording too about what it NOT allowed raises concerns and to the absolute right of the site to discriminate IS a censorship that threatens my OWN right to copy protection. It also now hides the site from those NOT signing up which makes it an completely private forum. 

So, I only signed up now to state this disappointment and assert that I will  no longer come here. I discourage others too. Politics IS necessarily problematic because it involves real concerns that affect people. To dictate the terms going in to LIMIT what people are allowed to say, (from the 'agreement' taken by its wording, we cannot even discuss "sex issues". Is there some government intervention trying to force this site into complying with some censorship. Is the 'agreement' intended to both allow this site to take the Benefits of right to censor or even take ownership of content BUT also allow them to USE such information to give to governments as well? Is this not proof that you guys here are likely disappointed particularly with some specific personal biases? 

So good bye. 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

The forums are live to anyone that wants to view them. Registration just allows you to post and reply in the forums.

I've explained above what changes were made to the TOS.

You can discuss sex all you want, just so long as it isn't explicit. If you want to talk about explicit sex, go somewhere else.  That's not censorship, that's common decency, we have underage members who don't need to be reading these types of discussions.

And to the last few sentences in your reply... We're not censoring anyone, we're just trying to set the ground rules for respectful debate.  If you don't like the rules, then I guess it's a good thing you're leaving.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Greg said:

The forum is located on a server in the US - however, legal action can be initiated on both sides of the border.  However, legal action can arise even if the TOS is perfect, so I don't really see the physical location of the server from being a huge determining factor.

 

Right...I think we are saying the same thing.   The TOS does not indemnify MLW from defamation liability regardless of expressed agreements or acknowledgements by members.  

I also wanted to point out that there is a legal MLW responsibility to remove defamatory and/or illegal content once notified.   Some members may interpret this as "censorship" when clearly it is not.   Those who wish to defame can start their own forum and take their chances.

The physical location of the server can impact jurisdiction and liability.   I am not an expert on such matters, but current rulings would appear to make Canada more restrictive than the U.S.

http://www.blogherald.com/2011/07/29/why-where-you-host-your-site-matters-legally/

 

Quote

And to the last few sentences in your reply... We're not censoring anyone, we're just trying to set the ground rules for respectful debate.  If you don't like the rules, then I guess it's a good thing you're leaving.

 

Agreed...MLW is an enduring and well managed forum resource in an environment where many others have failed.   Must be doing something well.

[Greg]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Right...I think we are saying the same thing.   The TOS does not indemnify MLW from defamation liability regardless of expressed agreements or acknowledgements by members.  

The physical location of the server can impact jurisdiction and liability.   I am not an expert on such matters, but current rulings would appear to make Canada more restrictive than the U.S.

http://www.blogherald.com/2011/07/29/why-where-you-host-your-site-matters-legally/

Agreed, bush_cheney2004 - we're on the same page.

Thanks for the link, I'll take a closer look.

[Michael Hardner]

So it seems that the TOS has barely changed, but the placement of it front-and-centre caused people to notice it.

[?Impact]

I didn't see anything wrong with the terms of service for posting, and I agree with Greg that if it changes it should not be done silently. I was a bit worried if the site was not made available for casual anonymous viewing, and I hadn't tried that since the upgrade but Greg says that hasn't changed and (trust be verify) I just did and was able to view without signing in or accepting any TOS.

[Charles Anthony]

The only actions are postings.

On 15/10/2016 at 9:12 PM, August1991 said:

But what if someone claims that my actions and words were different? Should MLW be an arbiter? (This is your reasonable thinking.) 

Please clarify.

If you want to see the forum database history to confirm post content of any post, that is technically possible.

or

Are you asking should Greg (or mod staff) be expected to interpret posts? 

I would rather not be asked to interpret any member's post in the resolution of a dispute. 

[?Impact]

19 minutes ago, Charles Anthony said:

Are you asking should Greg (or mod staff) be expected to interpret posts? 

I view public forums like the soap box at the town square. The forum staff are not responsible for any content. If they see someone get up on the soapbox and become very offensive (yelling obscenities, point to people in the audience and making fun of them, etc.) then they may (in their judgement) yank that person from the soapbox but they are not responsible for what he says. If they are ever to get subsequently involved in a dispute, the most they should do is say if they saw the person there at the date/time and if they have any recorded footage of the incident then hand it over (hopefully they have their own standards as to when, like with a court order). They are not responsible for the content, or for interpreting it in any way.

[August1991]

On 10/15/2016 at 10:51 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

...the owner(s) of MLW do not want to be a liable party in a defamation lawsuit....

On 10/15/2016 at 9:13 PM, cybercoma said:

I'm unclear on what you mean here. GIve me an example of what you mean.

Fu***kkk.

Greg, I can't even easily reply to your post above.

 

There is no slippery slope here, it's the same TOS that has been used for nearly 16 years - the only difference is really cosmetic, and you can see those changes in the link above. 

If there is no slippery slope, then why ask me to click "Yes" to boiler plate nonsense? .

======

Before, MLW was a great, relaxing, easy, free, simple place to stop by, have a glass and use my laptop to say what I wanted to say (or easily respond to other anglophones from across Canada, the US or even Australia) about Canadian politics. (I had a place in French where I could do the same but for various reasons, it no longer exists).

If you stop into a bar, the bartender doesn't first ask you to sign a paper disavowing all responsibilty for anything you say. Yet, the bartender and other patrons learn (remember) who you are. We all know that anything said in public is not forgotten.   

MLW seems to be suffering a similar fate of my French forum. Too complicated, too many restrictions, missing the entire point. 

Enough. I think I am leaving MLW. The Internet is a work in progress.

Edited October 18, 2016 by August1991

[August1991]

Greg, Michael, Charles,Kimmy:

I just want a place to stop by and talk/comment. I know that my comments are public.

This current software misses the entire point.of the exercise. Please don't upgrade any further.

The previous software was far better.

Edited January 18, 2017 by August1991