Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   General Adirondack Discussion (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Amended Forum Rules - Please Read (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=10338)

Mavs00 11-06-2008 12:17 PM

Amended Forum Rules - Please Read
 

As many of you know, we have created the ADKhighpeaks Foundation, which will be a charitable foundation dedicated to maintaining and improving (if you can do such a thing) the NYS Forest Preserve Lands. Some of that will involve the fundraising efforts currently underway, some of it will involve volunteer efforts and some of it will involve other stuff that comes along that we've not thought of yet.

These forums, which were owned privately by Neil and I before, will be folding into the foundation and be a part of that effort. Don't worry, it does not mean will be constantly be hounding people for money or donations. It really won't mean any drastic changes to the way this site is moderated or run. We will perhaps have one fundraiser a year (sorta like what we are doing now), or something similar to that, but these forums will continue to be free to use for our community members. You can choose to help us when we run a fundraiser, if you find the cause worthy enough, but that is completely up to you, the individual user.

This is a legitimate "charitable foundation" and we are currently in the application process to become a 501(c)(3) Non-profit, tax-exempt organization. That means that all donations (for future projects), will be tax-exempt and able to be claimed on your personal or corporate income tax. We view these as very positive things, however, in order to be classified as non profit, there are a few modifications to the rules that need to be made.

We are posting an "updated" forum rules, that will take effect immediately. You will notice only a few changes. Most notably, changes to rule #6 a,b. These involve the promotion and solicitation of member for-profit enterprises. They will be allowed (uniformly, so long as they are theme-specific to our community) in signature links with restrictions. Additional #6b is also added as a point of reference. It should be taken for granted, but now it is in writing. This is an opinion site, and you are free to post yours here, but just because you read it on this site, it does not mean that the Foundation endorses or agrees with it, particularly when it comes to reviews of gear, or services provided by other groups or companies. Nor does it mean that those groups/compainies are affiliated with the foundation because they are members here. Memberships are INDIVIDUAL.

If you have any questions. You of course are encouraged to PM either Neil or Myself.

These rules apply uniformly to both ADKhighpeaks and ADKForum. These rule can be found by following the link in the top menu bar above.

redhawk 11-06-2008 01:46 PM

I'm a little confused about 6C: Especially the bolded part. can you elaborate a little?


C) There will be no unsolicited offline communication (including written) or other physical interactions between forum members without the consent of all members involved. Any unsolicited contact that is derogatory, threatening, or ongoing/unwanted in nature will not be tolerated. Violators will be banished from the forums for life and referred to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Chance meetings and encounters along the trail or in the backcountry will, of course, continue to occur, and are acceptable so long as both parties continue to mutually engage each other in discussion. Group hiking, forum gatherings and other other types of consensual social activities involving forum members is not only acceptable, but encouraged.

Mavs00 11-06-2008 02:03 PM

There was a past incident on another forum where somebody left a nasty note in somebody's mailbox referencing something said on one of these forum. That is considered harassment and is strickly verboten.

Plus, with Neil's dashing good looks, it helps keep all the ADKForum ladies from camping out in his driveway :dance:

redhawk 11-06-2008 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavs00 (Post 111276)
There was a past incident on another forum where somebody left a nasty note in somebody's mailbox referencing something said on one of these forum. That is considered harassment and is strickly verboten.

Plus, with Neil's dashing good looks, it helps keep all the ADKForum ladies from camping out in his driveway :dance:

So if I want to call someone an idiot I either have to ask their permission to tell then that in a PM or else I have to call them an idiot publicly? :confused:

And what Neil are you referring to? :D

WinterWarlock 11-06-2008 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 111277)
So if I want to call someone an idiot I either have to ask their permission to tell then that in a PM or else I have to call them an idiot publicly? :confused:

And what Neil are you referring to? :D

You have my permission to call me an idiot when and if such behavior warrants it...I'm sure it would be deserved anyway.

Neil 11-06-2008 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 111277)
And what Neil are you referring to? :D

Why, Neil Sedaka of course. I love I love I love I love my ADK calendar fire tower.

Lute Hawkins 11-06-2008 05:16 PM

Regarding forum rule 6.C, paragraph 2, which reads in part:
Quote:

Chance meetings and encounters along the trail or in the backcountry will, of course, continue to occur, and are acceptable so long as both parties continue to mutually engage each other in discussion.
I'm glad you gave us permission to meet on the trails, as long as we engage in conversation. Apparently, if we do not engage in conversation, it is unacceptable that we meet.

With all due respect, the tone and content of this particular rule suggests you have acquired police powers over forum members outside of this forum!

Mavs00 11-06-2008 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lute Hawkins (Post 111294)
With all due respect, the tone and content of this particular rule suggests you have acquired police powers over forum members outside of this forum!

With all due respect, I don't think the tone or content implies any such thing, and if you think so, you must not know us well.

This line was added (several years ago I might add) after an experience between forum members (on another forum) where one was harassed by another member offline to the point where inappropriate behavior (stalking) and a physical altercation took place. It stemmed from an online disagreement. We also had several other instances of inappropriate communication taken offline from online.

It may sound stupid, or unneccesary to you, and that is fine. It's in there based on advice from someone smarter then me in that area and it's meant to protect both US and you, the individual member.

If you find it that offensive, feel free to PM me, and we can discuss it there.

Mavs00 11-06-2008 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 111277)
So if I want to call someone an idiot I either have to ask their permission to tell then that in a PM or else I have to call them an idiot publicly? :confused:

And what Neil are you referring to? :D

If you want to call someone an idiot, don't do it in the open forum. If you do it via PM, that is fine.... They may call you one right back (I would). Or they may say "I don't care what you think, leave me alone". If you persist after that, then you are in violation of that rule.

Also, this allows us to ban people who fly in under the radar and then send out 100 PM's asking you to buy Nokia telephones.

It's pretty simple stuff folks. Don't make it complicated.

Neil 11-06-2008 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavs00 (Post 111299)
It's pretty simple stuff folks. Don't make it complicated.

And, if I may be so bold as to add:

Keep it fun.

colden46 11-06-2008 11:24 PM

I take it the same text is used for the rules for both here and ADKHighPeaks? I only ask because of this line:

Quote:

(Ex. A question about the Northville-Placid Trail would be most appropriate in the “Other Adirondack Places” section.)
Which struck me as odd because it seems a question about the Northville-Placid Trail would be most appropriate in the Northville-Placid Trail section ;)

<spelling nazi>Also, section 7 has a misspelling of public as "puplic".</spelling nazi>

Mavs00 11-06-2008 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colden46 (Post 111328)
I take it the same text is used for the rules for both here and ADKHighPeaks? I only ask because of this line:



Which struck me as odd because it seems a question about the Northville-Placid Trail would be most appropriate in the Northville-Placid Trail section ;)

<spelling nazi>Also, section 7 has a misspelling of public as "puplic".</spelling nazi>

Yes, it is the same........ the other posted rules for here were built off the ADKHP ones anyway. we're just bringing them into line. As for the spelling. Yeah, I'm sure yu'll find lots more if you look. I'll change the example so your not confused. Not tonight though, perhaps tommorow.

colden46 11-07-2008 12:15 AM

Naa, not confused. Just making conversation -- things have been quiet around here lately!

Mavs00 11-07-2008 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by colden46 (Post 111331)
Naa, not confused. Just making conversation -- things have been quiet around here lately!

Yeah, it' been awhile since we've had a good ole' fashioned ADKF dust-up. Lute tried to get one going by accusing me and Neil of heavy-handedness :mad: :rolling: . It just didn't have the same ooomph that we usually see.

Perhaps we should start a "wolf reintroduction" thread :eek:

btw, I made the changes.

Kevin 11-07-2008 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavs00 (Post 111297)
With all due respect, I don't think the tone or content implies any such thing, and if you think so, you must not know us well.

This line was added (several years ago I might add) after an experience between forum members (on another forum) where one was harassed by another member offline to the point where inappropriate behavior (stalking) and a physical altercation took place. It stemmed from an online disagreement. We also had several other instances of inappropriate communication taken offline from online.

It may sound stupid, or unneccesary to you, and that is fine. It's in there based on advice from someone smarter then me in that area and it's meant to protect both US and you, the individual member.

If you find it that offensive, feel free to PM me, and we can discuss it there.

FWIW I agree with the intent of the rules. I think the problem is just with the phrasing of them. Like Lute, I read those words exactly as he does. We know the intent isn't to police, but it most definitely comes across that way. And I guess the main thing to carry away from that is the new members who don't any of us from adam reading these rules and wondering what the hell the writers are/were thinking.

Instead of getting mired in the legalese, have you considered explaining (in plain english) exactly what the problem is? Something like "Physcial, written, and verbal threats made against forum members done outside the context of the forum is prohibited and could result in a permament ban from the forum(s)." Removing the " in discussion" to read as "mutually engage each other (.period)" more likely captures the intent. Specifically mentioning the method of engagement is redundant and likely part of why that rule comes off as being overbearing.

I don't think legal action can be taken by the forum since the incident didn't occur on the forum or involve the forum ("the forum" cannot press charges for things not digitally logged from my basic understanding of internet law), so that entire section about reporting things to the authorities is null and void. What you do as an individual is fine, but you can't legally put that in the forum rules since it wouldn't be the forum making the report. Basically - the forum is virtual/electronic, the only physical jurisdiction here is if someone destroyed the server. Electronically that jurisdiction covers hacking the software (which includes circumventing a "ban" put in place and re-registering).

The only problem you may encounter is if a forum member does get into a fight with another forum member, but it has nothing to do with the forum. The fact that two people happen to have accounts here doesn't mean their entire life revolves around their interactions as forum members, and there's plenty of other means and opportunities for people to engage in fighting, etc that is independent of the forum. It's a gray area that I'm not entirely sure forum owners can adequately cover. I know I didn't even try because it just seemed like a stretch. It would seem unfair to remove both accounts for something unrelated to the forum (especially considering the forum is not a judge and jury, so both accounts would need to be removed to maintain objectivity and fairness).

Mavs00 11-07-2008 11:51 AM

It's all CYA........ I'll consider changing the language (to make everyone happy) when I get some time, but it essentially means what Kevin said.

"Physical, written, and verbal threats made against forum members, either within or outside the context of the forum, is prohibited and could result in a permanent ban from the forum(s)."

To tell you the truth, it was written and posted several years ago, and just adopted over here. I didn't even consider that people would get bent about it. I'll put it on the list of things to "to do", and we'll change it to reflect that language.

I agree with almost all of hat you said. But it has occurred in the past, and upon legal advice, it's in their. Perhaps not in the best language, but it is in there to stay. You are right, you can't really cover yourself, but you must try. The internet is tricky business like that.

Kevin 11-07-2008 12:01 PM

I've been told a couple hundred times I should have been a lawyer :D.

Mavs00 11-07-2008 02:52 PM

I beleive the language changes have been made to all the applicable styles. Hopefully, it's palatable to most everyone.

adktyler 11-07-2008 04:01 PM

It all makes sense to me :thumbs:

Judgeh 11-08-2008 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 111356)
I've been told a couple hundred times I should have been a lawyer :D.

...in any state other than Connecticut :D


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.