 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
 billybob
Location: MA / NH Border
Gender: Male
 |  |  | Double standard? (was: bah)
< on 1/17/2005 8:26 PM >
|  | | | So BPM gets canned for being a jerk, but MikeD doesnt even though he's a thief giving UE a horrible name? lame
[last edit 1/22/2005 1:46 PM by Ninjalicious - edited 1 times]
. . . an appalling spree of hate and murder that would shock the world . . . |
|
Capone
Location: London, Ontario
Gender: Male
UEL
| |  | Re: bah
<Reply # 1 on 1/17/2005 8:33 PM >
| | | | We've been through this so many times on these forums... Where do you draw the line? If Mike's banned for being a thief, should I not also be banned for admitting I took a pamphlet? Along with anyone else (and there's been a few) who've admitted taking anything from a site?
I mean not like I want to be banned, but you see where I'm going with this.
So there I was, in this creepy old hallway... |
|
billybob
Location: MA / NH Border
Gender: Male
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 2 on 1/17/2005 8:44 PM >
| | | | No, but if you admitted to stealing large amounts of artifacts from a place you live near just so you could sell them on ebay . . then yes, you should get kicked out.
. . . an appalling spree of hate and murder that would shock the world . . . |
|
ednothing
 
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 3 on 1/17/2005 8:52 PM >
| | | | Posted by billybob
No, but if you admitted to stealing large amounts of artifacts from a place you live near just so you could sell them on ebay . . then yes, you should get kicked out.
|
Posted by Avatar-X
First, I do apologize for initially banning Mike [Dijital]. It was while I was somewhat angry at having discovered the news, and I figured the section in our rules that forbids discussion of lawbreaking (ie, stealing).
Anyway, some other people and admins set me right on this point, making me realize that Mike had not broken any rules, so I undid the ban. Sorry for the temporary ban, it was not warrented.
That should end the ban issue. Let's forget about it.
|
|
|
Avatar-X
    
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 4 on 1/17/2005 9:01 PM >
| | | | BPM was banned for harassing me and UER with legal threats.
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
el nerdo
   
Chief UER Lackey
Gender: Male
What are you, from the Department of Know'm Sayin's? You takin' a Know'm census?
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 5 on 1/17/2005 9:53 PM >
| | | | Posted by Avatar-X
BPM was banned for harassing me and UER with legal threats.
-av
|
Is there a clause in the sign up agreement that indemnifies UER from legal actions, based on the postings of its members?
If there isn't, there should be.
|
|
Avatar-X
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 6 on 1/17/2005 10:23 PM >
| | | | Hmm.. this is a good idea. Would you like to help write the clause? I'm bad with legal mumbo-jumbo.
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
HauntedPA
Location: Anywhere and Everywhere
Gender: Female
What do you mean the rum is gone?!
| | Re: bah
<Reply # 7 on 1/17/2005 10:58 PM >
| | | | Something simple like "the views of members on UER do not necessarily reflect the owner or UER as a whole" should do the trick. Obviously with better writing skill than that.
|
|
MacGyver
Location: St Paul, Minnesota
Gender: Male
"Someone go find me a paperclip, a D-cell battery, and a cheese grater"
| | Re: bah
<Reply # 8 on 1/17/2005 11:12 PM >
| | | | Perhaps along the lines of this?
The views and opinions presented on this site do not neccesarily represent those of the administrator or community as a whole. UER.CA and it's administrators can not be held legally responsible for the content presented on this site.
Like a fiend with his dope / a drunkard his wine / a man will have lust for the lure of the mine
"If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent." |
|
Avatar-X
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 9 on 1/18/2005 12:00 AM >
| | | | Sounds good 
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
el nerdo
Chief UER Lackey
Gender: Male
What are you, from the Department of Know'm Sayin's? You takin' a Know'm census?
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 10 on 1/18/2005 12:31 AM >
| | | | Posted by Avatar-X
Sounds good
-av
|
I'll get you an iron clad clause that you can insert into the TOS.
You'll have to do something along the lines of what you did with the entry quiz, and make everyone click in agreement to it before being allowed access to the forums again.
Stand by.
|
|
'Dukes
Noble Donor
Gender: Male
At least someone llikes me
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 11 on 1/18/2005 1:18 AM >
| | | | Posted by billybob
So BPM gets canned for being a jerk, but MikeD doesnt even though he's a thief giving UE a horrible name? lame
|
The last time I checked, UER doesn't pretend to "represent" UE'rs in general. It's a forum for what is perceived to be UE, and the only thing that can get you banned is a)breaking the forum rules, or b) above and beyond the forum rules, initiating action which is "discomforting" the the owner of the site. In this case, UE ethics have nothing to do with the equation. It sounds like general harassment on a free website was the cause of the ban.
In Mike's case, he broke no forum rules, nor was a threat to the owner. If he stole a car, it doesn't really matter; he broke no forum rules, nor did he openly speak about stealing said car, resulting in zero liability to AV.
With that in mind, the members of this forum are also not expected to conform to any Exploring standards, only those set by the administrator as it pertains to conduct on the website. Some members have never done well...anything! It doesn't mean they improperly represent UER. They are forum members and will remain so unless they break the rules.
Some may argue that thievery is equivalent to exploring, as sometime trespass is involved, and that is also criminal (although to a lesser extent). Got you there too as far as liability is concerned, as UER.ca never defined the site publicly as "the forum for law breaking trespass". Then liability might be a problem but Av never defined exactly what the site was intended for. Even if Mike D had posted about the hypothetical "stolen car" the intent of the site was never defined as having that as it's purpose. Honestly, it's the members who contribute the most to the site, thereby freeing av of liability.
Even if this was called "GrandTheftAuto.ca" it really wouldn't matter if the purpose of the site was never deliniated. All this aside, any members judged to be a liability to the site can and will be banned; Ironically, forum quality is more of an issue than any legal repercussion. I've had my share of posts deleted; I won't hold it against anyone.
In summary; This is a free forum. There is no contractual arrangement to provide services and no consideration given (except donations which aren't included in legal consideration, unless a premium is offered in exchange for such consideration). I gave money, and didn't get a plush Av X animal, so I guess that's out the window. In short, the guy can eighty six anyone he wants to, especially one whom he feels is a threat, personally, legally, or otherwise.
'Dukes the long winded balloonhead.
[last edit 1/18/2005 1:20 AM by 'Dukes - edited 1 times]
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. |
|
el nerdo
Chief UER Lackey
Gender: Male
What are you, from the Department of Know'm Sayin's? You takin' a Know'm census?
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 12 on 1/18/2005 1:21 AM >
| | | | Posted by 'Dukes
In Mike's case, he broke no forum rules, nor was a threat to the owner. If he stole a car, it doesn't really matter; he broke no forum rules, nor did he openly speak about stealing said car, resulting in zero liability to AV.
With that in mind, the members of this forum are also not expected to conform to any Exploring standards, only those set by the administrator as it pertains to conduct on the website. Some members have never done well...anything! It doesn't mean they improperly represent UER. They are forum members and will remain so unless they break the rules.
|
You probably should read the site's Terms of Service.
You might be surprised at what you agreed to, then.
|
|
'Dukes
Noble Donor
Gender: Male
At least someone llikes me
| | | Re: bah
<Reply # 13 on 1/18/2005 1:33 AM >
| | | | Posted by el nerdo
You probably should read the site's Terms of Service.
You might be surprised at what you agreed to, then.
|
I really don't care about what's in the TOS; I haven't exchanged a single penny with Avatar X for the purpose of supplying any service of any kind; If I was banned for some reason tomorrow, I'd be disappointed, but I'd be out of luck legally. And why take legal action (or threaten it) if the administrator doesn't want you around anyway.
Besides, it's just a website, albeit one that has caused me (correction has allowed me to choose to wast a LOT of time viewing). It's not the end of the world.Av's been pretty considerate in the past; I'll bet that if Big Mike shot him an email an d said "Look, I was an unconscionable ball breaker in the past, I'm really sorry" and such that he would be readmitted.
I got your tour winner right here pussies, at least he'd crash out trying. |
|
Panic!
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Australia
Big drain driving
| | | Re: Double standard? (was: bah)
<Reply # 14 on 1/26/2005 3:24 AM >
| | | | Posted by MacGyver
Perhaps along the lines of this?
The views and opinions presented on this site do not neccesarily represent those of the administrator or community as a whole. UER.CA and it's administrators can not be held legally responsible for the content presented on this site.
|
Actually, having studied both Australian and US defamation law, UER.CA and its' administrators CAN be held legally accountable for the content presented on this site. Disclaimer or no disclaimer, terms of service or no terms of service do not matter. By failing to remove defamative comments by a 1st party to a second party and allowing them to remain visible to 3rd parties is in itself an act of defamation.
There was a very famous case here in Australia where in a Western Australian RSL club failed to remove a notice from a notice board that defamed one of its' members. The noticed had been placed there by a non-member. That member then successfully pressed a defamation case against the RSL club. It set a legal prescedence.
In the united States I understand legal precedence has been set by a case against AOL where AOL was held accountable for content posted to one of its' electronic bulletin boards. I think if you Google this you should find a few examples of ISPs, Hosts and other agencies being held accountable for things said on bulliten boards and discussion groups.
I'd at least research this before considering terms of service and so on. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but if you're going to do it, do it right. I'm also not trying to be a bush lawyer here. I have a year's Law study under my belt. Feel free to run some of UER.CA's legal issues by me (in private) and I'll see if I can help. I still have access to heaps of precedence cases and legal journals. Mind you this is not an offer open to everyone as I find law to be rather boring and mundane and would only look this stuff up once in a blue moon.
[last edit 1/26/2005 3:27 AM by Panic! - edited 1 times]
Live your life like it really makes a difference.
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
John Lennon was a wise man. All the world living together as one. |
|
Panic!
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Australia
Big drain driving
| | | Re: Double standard? (was: bah)
<Reply # 15 on 1/27/2005 7:59 AM >
| | | | After thinking of this last night I thought that I should add that UER.CA and hence AV have taken some positive steps recently to prevent concerns and issues regarding defamation cases.
Rule 11 which prohibits trolling and abuse of members should take care of this problem. It is much simpler to remove content that could potentially defame someone than to to deal with the consequences of leaving it.
The general legal defences for Defamation are:
1. The truth, eg, the statement about the person is true and can be proven to be true in a court of law.
2. It is also in the best interest of the public to know. Eg, if a business is taking payments for services and not rendering that service it is the public interest to know about it.
There is also a 3rd defence but I'm not 100% sure how it applies and I don't think any of us are members or parliament or congress anyway.
As long as rule 11 is adhered to and enforced you have nothing to worry about. That does mean of course that if people have an opinion about someone that in some cases they should consider not airing it in public.
Of course I find it *very* ironic even mentioning this in the light of that fact that I knowingly tresspass as a hobby. I guess though that I know that while I'm doing no harm, that I can still be picked up for tresspass and fined and so on. I firmly belive that what is morally right is not always what is legally right.
Live your life like it really makes a difference.
What have you done today to make you feel proud?
John Lennon was a wise man. All the world living together as one. |
|
Starman
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Gender: Male
| | Re: Double standard? (was: bah)
<Reply # 16 on 1/28/2005 5:08 AM >
| | | | Posted by billybob
So BPM gets canned for being a jerk, but MikeD doesnt even though he's a thief giving UE a horrible name? lame
|
umm......You're just nazi rob under a different name. and you've already been banned a bunch of times. Pot calling kettle what?
|
|
greywolf45
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Resident UER pain in the ass
| |  | | Re: Double standard? (was: bah)
<Reply # 17 on 2/2/2005 3:10 AM >
| | | | Posted by el nerdo
Is there a clause in the sign up agreement that indemnifies UER from legal actions, based on the postings of its members?
If there isn't, there should be.
|
Hey El Nerdo, I believe there is something about making a pain in the ass of your self, and causing problems for others somewhere in the sign-up section of UER. I could be wrong.
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends"
Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
greywolf45
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Male
Resident UER pain in the ass
| | | | Re: Double standard? (was: bah)
<Reply # 18 on 2/2/2005 3:16 AM >
| | | | Posted by Panic!
After thinking of this last night I thought that I should add that UER.CA and hence AV have taken some positive steps recently to prevent concerns and issues regarding defamation cases.
Rule 11 which prohibits trolling and abuse of members should take care of this problem. It is much simpler to remove content that could potentially defame someone than to to deal with the consequences of leaving it.
The general legal defences for Defamation are:
1. The truth, eg, the statement about the person is true and can be proven to be true in a court of law.
2. It is also in the best interest of the public to know. Eg, if a business is taking payments for services and not rendering that service it is the public interest to know about it.
There is also a 3rd defence but I'm not 100% sure how it applies and I don't think any of us are members or parliament or congress anyway.
As long as rule 11 is adhered to and enforced you have nothing to worry about. That does mean of course that if people have an opinion about someone that in some cases they should consider not airing it in public.
Of course I find it *very* ironic even mentioning this in the light of that fact that I knowingly tresspass as a hobby. I guess though that I know that while I'm doing no harm, that I can still be picked up for tresspass and fined and so on. I firmly belive that what is morally right is not always what is legally right.
|
I agree with your statement 100% Panic. If someone has some issues with anyone, they should have the decency to at least hash it out in a PM to that person, instead of in a public forum such as this one.
"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends"
Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
fedge
Location: Gaud Corners, Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
you blight up my life™®
| | | Re: Double standard? (was: bah)
<Reply # 19 on 2/2/2005 4:17 AM >
| | | | Or check this out - someone posting nasty stuff about another person on a website, then promoting that website on other websites - where does the responsibility end? The forum operator can't be responsible for content as he'd have to read every single post.
http://www.forumsd...iewtopic.php?t=329
18-odd Years Of UER-ing! |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 140 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741250906 pages have been generated.
|
|
