By Laws and Terms of Use Changes - Input Needed

[princer7]

The BOD would appreciate hearing your input on changes needed to the By Laws and Terms of Use. There are some areas that contradict, need revision, or have gaps that need to be filled in. There may also be need for new content.

I hope this can remain constructive without degrading into something else. To keep this on track, please refrain from criticism about anyone or dredge up issues (past, current, or rumors). Let's all try and keep an open mind and our views neutral.

Your suggestions are important to all of us. Thank you.

[princer7]

Here is the link to the By Laws and Terms of Use. Please be sure to quote the area you refer to so it can be clearly reviewed.

By Laws:
http://www.maast.org/forums/showthre...d=1#post381049

Terms of Use:
http://www.maast.org/forums/showthre...d=1#post381052

[recoiljpr]

Okay, i'm not a lawyer, so if I misunderstand some of this, please feel free to set me straight.

In the Terms of Use the only thing that bothers me is #12.

12. Reservation of Rights.
We reserve all of our rights, including but not limited to any and all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and any other proprietary right that we may have in our web site, its content, and the goods and services that may be provided.

What bothers me is that point reads to me like MAAST is saying it has a right to all of the content on the site. In other words say I post the results of a study or test that I am running on a system. By posting that information on MAAST, 12 reads to me like you then retain the rights to the content. This would also include any and all pictures we post. So by my understanding of 12, you would take rights of a picture the minute it's posted. This seems to me a lot like the facebook fiasco where facebook was retaiing rights to peoples pictures, etc. Granted, i'm not a lawyer so I may be reading it wrong...

[recoiljpr]

ARTICLE IV – MEETINGS
Section 1. Membership Meetings
Paragraph 3: Special membership meetings may be called if deemed necessary by the President, the Board of Directors or not less than one-tenth of the general voting-enabled membership.

How would a member go about getting a vote going in order to call a special membership meeting? Do we have the ability to create a vote for all Charter members in that area? Would we need to rely on a Board member to create a vote? If we are not careful, IMO with that wording people could ask for general votes on all sorts of garbage if one was so inclined. On the other hand, it should not be entirely up to the board to decide if it should go up before members for a vote either.

Article IX – Amendments
a. Any thread that has posts by two or more members that are inflammatory or derogatory ( Including personal attacks) towards other members with be automatically locked and deleted.

I'd like this portion to be removed or greatly modified. My personal opinion is that these boards should be more open. A statement this wide leaves a HUGE amount of wiggle room for anyone with the power to lock and delete a thread. If we are going to give people the ability to lock threads, I feel it should be spelled out in minutia to take a lot of the wiggle room away. I do not feel a thread should EVER be able to be deleted. I think a thread can be moved to a non-viewable area by general members, but never deleted.

[recoiljpr]

One last thing (hey you asked) :-)

I'd like this added to either the privacy section, or the by-laws.

That the vBulletin Admin hack for reading PM's (which is freely available for install by Admins from Vbulletin) cannot be installed on any server running the MAAST bulletin boards without a majority vote by all members.

Also, if that Admin hack is currently installed, the board shall imemdiately notify all members that it has been installed. Finally, since all vBulletin PM's are stored in the databases as clear text (not encrypted) the Administrators of the site will not query into the databases to pull back the texts of the PM's.

[princer7]

The term "deleted" is not so much a litteral thing.... threads/posts are moved to a junkyard (non-viewabe area) for record keeping.

Thank you for your input so far

[stoneroller]

Article IX – Amendments
a. Any thread that has posts by two or more members that are inflammatory or derogatory ( Including personal attacks) towards other members with be automatically locked and deleted.

I'd like this portion to be removed or greatly modified. My personal opinion is that these boards should be more open. A statement this wide leaves a HUGE amount of wiggle room for anyone with the power to lock and delete a thread. If we are going to give people the ability to lock threads, I feel it should be spelled out in minutia to take a lot of the wiggle room away. I do not feel a thread should EVER be able to be deleted. I think a thread can be moved to a non-viewable area by general members, but never deleted.

I am not sure I agree with complete removal. I think there must be some article that provides protection for the organization. I certainly don't enjoy reading inflammatory or derogatory statements and in fact tend to steer clear of such. Perhaps, definitions or criteria would be helpful.

[aggman]

In the Terms of Use the only thing that bothers me is #12...

your right, this one is kind of confusing. and i am not a lawyer either, but my guess would be that maast takes on a certain risk by operating this site. and for that risk the association reserves that right to take ownership of whatever is posted here. it is not meant to be a big hooplah or anything. but if we can get sued for anything posted here, the association should get that much. now this might not make sense, or i could be wrong, but that is my personal understanding.

ARTICLE IV – MEETINGS
Section 1. Membership Meetings
Paragraph 3: Special membership meetings may be called if deemed necessary by the President, the Board of Directors or not less than one-tenth of the general voting-enabled membership.

the first thing to consider with this is that this 'bylaw' doesn't allow for the random votes by the charter members as you questioned. it only allows for the charter members to vote to call a special meeting. with that said, all members, charter or web, can post polls in threads that they start. these polls though would not have any affect on official issues.

Article IX – Amendments
a. Any thread that has posts by two or more members that are inflammatory or derogatory ( Including personal attacks) towards other members with be automatically locked and deleted.

while most agree with your idea of a more open forum, the truth is that there are some members who lack a certain tact, a certain level of decorum if you will. and sometimes in the heat of the moment members forget that this is simply a friendly aquaria forum. tempers flare and fins flap. this measure is necessary to prevent innocent members from having to deal with other people's dirty laundry. it would be great if we didn't need measures like this, but we do. can't argue that. the bod and the mods are currently working to create a systemic and streamlined approach to moderating abilities and duties. so rest assured that there will be no gestapo lurking about. and as princer7 mentioned, threads and posts never get deleted. they are moved to an admin area that the general membership can't access. i agree that word 'deleted' should be removed.

hope some of that helps your understanding of the issues, or at least comes close to answering your questions. keep 'em coming. we need to update and revise our current bylaws so this is the time to voice concerns.

~alex

[recoiljpr]

The term "deleted" is not so much a litteral thing.... threads/posts are moved to a junkyard (non-viewabe area) for record keeping.

Good to know. If that's the case, then the wording should be changed in the bylaws to match whats really done. It allows for too much confusion when the bylaws say X, but Y is really done.

and for that risk the association reserves that right to take ownership of whatever is posted here. it is not meant to be a big hooplah or anything. but if we can get sued for anything posted here, the association should get that much. now this might not make sense, or i could be wrong, but that is my personal understanding.

I see that as bad aggman. By saying MAAST has the rights of ownership, then that means MAAST is responsible for anything posted here. I would think that that opens MAAST up to more problems with lawsuits, not less.

So my overall issue with 12 is it either allows MAAST rights to my personal pictures, words, etc without my express consent. I don't think MAAST should have rights to my posts, conent without me saying so. Also, by taking ownership it makes MAAST responsible for all content on the boards, opening MAAST up to be sued for slander, etc. By taking rights to the content, you now become responsible for it. I personally don't agree or like either of those intepretations of 12.

I really do think a lawyer should look that clause over and help explain it to us.

the bod and the mods are currently working to create a systemic and streamlined approach to moderating abilities and duties.

Do you feel that the members should be able to vote on the final implementation of the moderating abilities and duties?

[prof]

Moving a post to the back board so that users can not see it is no different than deleting it. If it can't be read than it might as well not exist.

As users we should not be inflamatory and be able to overlook statements that may or may not be intended to inflame. I would like to see much more freedom to what is posted returned to this board.

There are posts and threads that need to be locked and sometimes removed so please change the wording to reflect this.