Subject:
|
Re: New Terms of Use for LUGNET
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Sep 2006 16:44:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5308 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> Hi Tim, Frank,
>
> thanks for bringing this up.
>
> In lugnet.admin.terms, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > 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
> > the Factory model might be the only version of the model. Having a separate
> > guideline means having something that can be changed to deal with new issues
> > more than changing the TOS to deal with every new case.
>
> I like this idea very much. So the ToU could say (note 9.3.):
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> +9 Do not post information or material for commercial purposes which is not
> reasonably related to LEGO toys or which contains advertising which is not
> reasonably related to LEGO toys.¬¬9.1. Do not post small ads, want ads and
> any other information for commercial purposes in discussion groups other
> than lugnet.market, unless a discussion group explicitly welcomes their
> presence.¬¬9.2. Do not post auction announcements, updates, or listings
> (“auction spam”) in discussion groups other than lugnet.market.auction,
> unless a discussion group explicitly welcomes their presence.¬¬9.3. For
> further determinations and derogations, see also the Terms of Service for
> lugnet.market / market.lugnet.com (URL)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please feel free to correct misspelling or choice of words.
>
> -Rene
I would be really happy if this particular issue would be straightend out.
As have had causing a big problem with this myself, making clear what this all
means would be great.
I mean, I posted my MOC for sale in a theme group, with an intended follow up to
the market group.
The thing about it was I had sub content in the sales graphic that wasn't
authorized nor proper to use and include. aka, the IRON MECHA concept sketch.
As well as an initial resistence protest to my post by some certain individuals.
In the end they were right, and I was wrong for doing that.
1. For using the concept sketch. That wasn't cool, I relent.
2. For Posting a [1] sales model, (moc I decided to sell, not a production
model, ie, 1 of 10,000)... in a theme group. All of which I just wanted to let
A. the readers of a group know; I was active in, B. and fully intended to follow
up outside the group in the market area, taking the discussion or further
inquiry out of the group to avoid spaming it with an auction post thread.
However,...I should not have done that.
Though, and please consider this: I was being corrected and told by other
members of LUGNET, not by the admin or direct inpterpretation of the TOU.
In otherwords, I thought it was ok to post my sales post in the theme group.
Going on the premise and precedent, that both myself and two other Mecha
Builders had previously posted their "products" sales posts before.
(not that is was a bad thing, I'm just saying... ---> ) stay with me
Both Brian Cooper and Sun Yun, [both very respected and acomplished] anounced
their sales posts in the .mecha newsgroup previously. Without resistance and
citing of the TOU by anyone.
I as a curator, endorsed this, in the case of Mr. Cooper, by adding his
TEKNOMEKA instructions link on the sidebar of the Newsgroup, because of its
inherent value and interest to the community.
What I would like to get at, is when we say:
"unless a discussion group explicitly welcomes their presence"
as stated above,
What does that really mean? We need help with this.
What is the determining factor in this?
How does that "welcoming" become rule of thumb?
When is it recognized?
Would one (a person) campaign for this?
Does a curator's endorsement count for anything?
Like a decision about wheather or not a particular post is appropriate for the
newsgroup, given reasonable content? As well as how it proceeds from there? Ie,
does that post follow up to .market and is the proper protocol being followed
and observed on topic/(theme)?
Feel free to discuss. I am not trying to rehash anything, what's done is done in
my case. BUT ---> I did cause a considerable dispute and rukuss about this,(so
did others) for which I am sorry for, so I would welcome more light on this
subject.
Because I don't want to see it happen to anyone else. Nor should members be able
to use the letter of the law in either way, for or against without implicit
writings in the TOU.
So we can grow. Not because I want to profit from it, more like so we don't cut
our nose off despite our face so to speak.
If a great train builder like Mr. Mathis made another awesome Train, and
mentioned it was for sale in the .train group for example, I think that would be
pretty cool, and I would like to know about it. Because other wise I might not
know. Plus it is of interest due to the theme as well as coming from an active
builder in that theme.
If Mr. Cooper made super awesome TEKNOMEKA instructions and informs the
community through the theme group, it is relevant content. Of interest to the
newsgroup and valuable to the community. Completely Lego related and theme
oriented. I heard it was all the rage at Brick Fest 2006 too.
:)
Lastly, if I may, all and all, it is difficult for us to sell our Lego creations
to one another openly, what I feel from that is not one of capitalism but rather
that we as Lego fans should help one another to make our hobby stronger. It is
only for ourselves, and if some how popular models or people with enough Lego
build and replicate their models to SHARE with others, it makes us stronger as a
group of hobbiests.
Possibly leading to others outside or on the fringes of the hobby/fandom, to
become interested in Lego. Remember, the more people dig Lego the better the
LEGO company itself benefits. We benefit by their success and popularity.
Last I remember, they would like to see us do well and have fun. The more we
make ourselves as fans and hobbists sucessful and noticeable to the general
public and collectively as an entity, like a force to be reconed with! lol!
We as Lego fans make our hobby stronger by finding new ways to be dynamic.
Hey, let's help each other in this respect. Though, there are only a relative
few that sell their MOCs due to the costs and high value of one's own Lego
Collection, for now I think we should help foster this endeavour, when every
(pardon the expression) Tom, Dick and Harry, starts selling their MOCs in the
future, (if we can get to that point) then perhaps we should revisit the issue.
Or come up with simple protocol to deal with it, like just adding a link or
something.
Thanks, please take my thoughts for what it is worth, having caused trouble with
this issue, I hope we can all come to an agreement. Some of the arguments were
unfair, but in the end justified given the loop hole of the phrase:
"unless a discussion group explicitly welcomes their presence"
Thank you.
btw, I am for mentioning sales models in a related theme group as long as the
follow up goes to the sales/market area. I do hope it won't be abused. I'm sure
if it gets out of hand, someone (hopefully consice words in the TOU) will
correct it.
take care,
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
