Draft Members Agreement

[COBOLdinosaur]

Changes to the Members Agreement will go through the Governing Council.  Changes to the the rules will go through the Governing Council. If some kind of action need to be taken, to protect the site or the Community then as owner of the site I would take whatever action was necessary.  If it is some kind of flaw in the rules that is causing a lot of headaches then the Governing Council will at some point address it.

If it is a serious issue that that exposes me to legal or financial risk then I would defend myself.

As to th eclause in teh MA at the other site.  Any lawyer will tell that clause is worthless.  One party to an agreement cannot chage the agreement without agreement even if the agreement says they can; because invoking it nullifies the agreement.

[Esopo]

Item 2
  >>or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. <<
  Add something in the lines of
  "...or would be found offensive...", or
  "...or unsuited for a technical discussion..."

Item 6

- Add something in the lines of
  "...or any material that would be considered offensive...", or
  "...or unsuited for a technical discussion..."

 
  ++just to make sure we cover the full range of crap that someone can post. Usually, everything that we don't want in a thread can be covered by the description of "offensive" or "stupid", and they both fit the description of "unsuited for a technical discussion".


- Rephrase
  >>...or is a site in competition with Experts Round Table<<
  to something in the lines of
  "or a site that does not add to the thread's content."

  ++most good links will be to threads and content from competing sites, but there is a difference between linking to a thread that helps the user make a point and linking to the homepage of a competitor in the interest of promotion.



$0.2

[Analyst]

I think the applicable laws would be the laws of the country where the person making the post is currently resident, and the laws of Bulgaria, where the server is located.  However, note that some countries claim "ownership" over their citizens no matter where they live or are visiting.  In the case of China, a simple disclaimer might be sufficient.  That is, if the law being violated was unique to China, then there could be a statement that the individual posts from there "at his own risk".

Also, their are strict USA laws about exportation of certain hardware and software items.  I haven't heard anything about BBS getting in trouble over this, but that could change with the new Patriot Act.  Instead of hiring an expensive attorney, perhaps a delete clause would be sufficient in the short run.

Of course, it should be obvious that ERT must not be used for any secret coded messages regarding any military issues.  In this regard, I don't know what has been decided about validating identity.  If a participant has nothing to hide, why do so many try to hide?