 | | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that no one has commented more on this particular update. This seems overly restrictive and I'm not exactly sure how I feel about LUGNET terms now being based on German law. Am I the only one that sees a serious (...) (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Thanks for the clarification, Rene. I'm glad to hear that the German laws against Nazi symbols aren't as restrictive as I had feared. Marc Nelson Jr. (URL) Marc's Creations>> (18 years ago, 19-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hi Bruce, that's a well justified question. Basically, this astriction arised out of the German "Protection of Young Persons Act". There's an addendum called "Jugendmedienschutz-...tsvertrag" (word-by-word translation would cause nonsense, but (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) I think something like 9.3 While the ultimate decision on market posts rests with the Admin of LUGNET, decisions will be made according to the guidelines found at URL which should be obeyed at all time. would be better. Tim (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
Hi Tim, Frank, thanks for bringing this up. (...) I like this idea very much. So the ToU could say (note 9.3.): Do not post information or material for commercial purposes which is not reasonably related to LEGO toys or which contains advertising (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hey Rene, Things look pretty good. Could we have a clarification on "glorifying violence"? Many (most?) official themes and AFOL MOCs have a level of violence, whether it be knights with swords, pirates with cannons, or space ships with (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
Hi Kelly, (...) Either I'm stumbling over for myself, or somebody is sending an email or there's a request in lugnet.admin. These are possibilities. Others, like just posting a reply to a message in question and keeping it within (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hi Marc, since I accepted responsibility, I thought about things like this and I always kept exactly this specific example in mind. So now somebody catched me on the hop finally :-) As you may know, dealing with all kinds of issues regarding (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
--various snippage-- (...) Thinking on this particular issue I think I would prefer an extra set of market guidelines sitting outside the main TOS. What if Factory starts paying out an authors share? Then it becomes more grey since for some people (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Factory is a bit of a grey area. Given that the poster doesn't (currently) stand to benefit from the sales, and given that the purpose is to point out the existence of a new model, I think that's ok. That's no different than pointing to Shop (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hi Frank, Looking at your suggestions for sales posts it seems as though MOC announcements/ad combined posts would be unallowed in most groups. Personally I would prefer that they should be allowed in the relavent announcement group provided (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
Some thoughts on the discussion group terms: #7: clarify to allow use of FTX. #9.2: I think it would be reasonable to allow auction postings in groups that specifically allow them, though it should be pointed out that set of groups would generally (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
(...) Hello Rene, The new ToU does seem more clear and concise, although there is one area that I think could use some clarification. At the bottom of the T&C block is the new (and IMO much-needed) sentence: "LUGNET reserves the right to cancel (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
What effect (if any) does this change have on things like (URL) this>? Marc Nelson Jr. (URL) Marc's Creations>> (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
| |
| | New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
|
Hi, due to the fact that this site is now subjected to German law, there are new ToU for LUGNET. NEW (URL) OLD (URL) The ToU are now more clear, changes are as follows: Changes in "OVERVIEW AND DEFINITIONS" The headline is no longer "Overview and (...) (18 years ago, 18-Sep-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, lugnet.general, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
[snip] Thanks for the positive feedback, Janey. -Suz (18 years ago, 4-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) It's as the others in this thread said. The "murfling" was done in the past. It's not something being done on posts right now. If it were to be adopted, I'm sure users would be notified. I don't know why they were not before the act was (...) (18 years ago, 1-Apr-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) Many parts snipped out, just to shorten things up. You made some great points and reminded my why I continue to return to Lugnet, and thank you for taking the time to respond so throughly. (...) Yes, totally. Both of those issues concern me a (...) (18 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: Murfle?
|
|
(...) quick answers: (...) no. (...) not yet. (...) no. At least, not a different one. 'updating' would probably be good though. (...) completely understandable. I agree. (...) is it the lack of clarity then? potential for abuse? ..? (...) I (...) (18 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
| |
| | Re: IRON MECHA - The Qwelder Mech - FOR SALE
|
|
(...) I really can't see why this is so difficult to understand, Eric. No-one had a problem with it when you first released it because it came under 'fair use' and you weren't trying to make money out of it. It wasn't a coincidence that concerns (...) (18 years ago, 31-Mar-06, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
