Subject:
|
Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:29:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4835 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Frank Filz wrote:
> 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 ONLY include .org groups (perhaps a general note that
> market posting outside or .market would almost never happen outside of .org
> groups).
>
> In general, it might also be worth clarifying what is a commercial post and
> what isn't. Make sure discussion of sets and MOCs is enabled even if the
> only place to link to for a picture of such is a commercial web site
> posting. Here are some thoughts on rules of thumb:
>
> 1. Does the poster stand to make money or conduct a trade as a result of the
> post? If so, that's a commercial posting, and belongs in the appropriate
> group (hmm, you also need to clarify what goes in .brickshops,
> .buy-sell-trade, and .auction (also clarify if a best offer post is an
> auction or a buy-sell-trade - at one time I believe Todd considered a best
> offer post as an auction).
>
> 2. Is the poster pointing out the opportunity to buy something from an
> online or brick and mortar retail operation? Such a post belongs in
> .market.shopping. If the poster is pointing out the opportunity to buy
> something from an online auction or brickshop, perhaps that belongs in the
> appropriate group (i.e. no "my buddy is auctioning off an XYZ, look at his
> cool MOC!" posts).
>
> 3. In the case of an auction, it might be better to wait until the auction
> is concluded to say "look here's a neat MOC!" If not, make it clear the
> poster is not intending to drum up business for the auction, but is trying
> to point out some neat MOC, or an example of an old set or part or
> something.
>
> On acknowlegdement and acceptance:
>
> #3: it might be polite to point out this is only for the purposes of hosting
> the Lugnet site, and potentially publishing a best of CD or something, but
> maybe that's not really necessary. More importantly might be to note that a
> legal judgement can override that, and Lugnet especially does not lay claim
> to any copyrighted or trade secret material that is posted without
> permission (but again, maybe that kind of thing is automatically assumed).
>
> Oh, one more thought - document a clear process for raising complaints with
> violation of the discussion group terms (and I would suggest adding a remark
> that continued discussion after the Lugnet administration makes a final
> decision may be grounds for action).
>
> Otherwise looks good. I welcome the updating of the .market posts.
>
> Frank
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 the follow-up group is set to .market.
This has particular issues now that Factory is usable as it means that people
could announce that their new Factory MOC is for sale (in this case their is no
profit for the poster but it is still a sales announcement).
The other big one is modded parts such as those made by Ondrew Hartigan and Rob
Hendrix. The nature of these often means that the person sells on the modded
version (or a copy) but the initial post is also an announcement that it has
been done (repeat posts obviously should be in .market).
Of course another solution would be to set up .market subgroups (.market.trains,
.market.space etc.) which are linked to from the main group. This would keep
market traffic out of the main group whilst providing a way for people to find
items of interest (as a post, not a purchase) to them without having to sort
through the full .market.b-s-t list.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
