Administration Forum Rules

[st.byron]

[quote="Principle of Q'uo"]


see above what ??????

the point i made , requires acceptance , not some glib ... see above comment , that had nout to do with it anyway
is that YOU are guilty , like i am guilty , like your boss is guilty of using 'loaded words' if it suits your / our purpose.

no arguement about it .... pure fact , in fact.


POQ. Are you saying that you have not posted derogatory remarks to or about BFUSA in this thread?

".. stick your threats where the sun dont shine."

"from where in these sacred bloody rules that the Messiah makes up as he
goes along does he grant ....... ?"

"Before I lose my rag with this puffed up parcel of pomposity"

".. we need a big noter with an entertainment account .
where could we find one of them ?"

"Dont see u pulling up Simon
with his two faced shyte."

"and then stood back as our Supreme Leader came over the top with his 'ways'.
piss poor behaviour imo ... but we move on."

"something about the sunshine and on whom and where it graces itself
comes to mind
... stick your pdf file on your NEW apology pinboard"

Do you regard any of these as derogatory or abusive?

[stinger]

As for the pre-post submit prompt. That function was removed because a large number of posters found it hindered their ability to contribute during game day threads. I do not remember any lobbying at the time (wanting to keep the prompt feature) but I do remember overwhelming complaint about it as a feature in the thread that opened this up for debate and we felt that the administrative change was made to reflect the community opinion. It could be returned as a feature if the community wanted it. You are welcome to open up a thread in the Fan Forum to see if there is community support for it's return.

Simon

no no no...hated it....

[BackFromUSA]

of course i didnt forget.
.... do u think i move my pieces haphazardly ?

Well them the very basis of your accusation of me being slippery is false.

And some may accuse you of being both slippery and hypocritical by omitting your own abuse that lead to the response for which you accuse me of slipperiness.

I don't think that to be the case at all.

I think you are just wasting our time in some type of ludicrous game.

[Cairnsman]

can we get back on topic...please.

[stinger]

can we get back on topic...please.

what's the main topic...or should we say main game mate.........abuse ..denegrate, insult simon....that's what this thread has turned into.......disgraceful imho....

[Cairnsman]

Hey Byron can you check if BFUSA is going to respond?

[8856brother]

Does the bell ring ar 3 or 3.30 these days?

[st.byron]

Hey Byron can you check if BFUSA is going to respond?

Yes I can do that. Which post are you wanting a response to? Apart from your suggestion that we get back on topic, it seems he's responded to your last post of substance.

[BackFromUSA]

I have already responded - or did I miss one?

[Cairnsman]

I have already responded - or did I miss one?

my apologies, I missed the response.

Ok. So let me get this straight. You are suggesting that if I have a chat about the St. Kilda Football club I am some how breaching the AFL/clubs licence/copyright/ownership clauses. Or put another way, if I have a chat that includes the words St. Kilda Football Club or the Saints or any other name we go by that somehow I am using the property of the AFL/club? Is this what you are suggesting?

If you are can you reference a publicly available document that backs up your claim?

[asiu]

God
grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

[SENsei]

From the AFL website itself:

The AFL considers its brands to be its most important long-term asset. The AFL owns all AFL logos, club logos and other intellectual property associated with the AFL competition. It also has intellectual property rights that ensure the appropriate use of AFL images.

The AFL has exclusive rights to license for commercial purposes all names, symbols, emblems, designs and colours of the AFL and the competing AFL Clubs who are also Licensees of the AFL. The AFL vigorously enforces all of its commercial options in protecting AFL trademarks and licensees officially in place.


It would appear that the the colours, the use of the word "saint" and the photos of the players in the banner would consitute a breach of AFL copyright. However, I think it would be a very long bow to draw to suggest that those breaches alone would cause action from the AFL to this site. Without suitable controls in place though, I would imagine St Kilda FC or the AFL could attempt to have this place wound up. Should they wish to. I think even the threat of closure would be enough....who is going to foot the cost of the legal defence to fight them if needed?

I do remember a fan site supporting Hawthorn I think that got shut down by the AFL. Did it have something to do with CrannyPete? I will try to find a link to the article.

In short though, BFUSA is correct. However, I would think the chance of that action would be remote but not impossible.

[SENsei]

I found a link. The site was Hawk Headquarters. AFL shut them down. It was a few years ago now.

http://www.eaglesflyinghigh.com/forum/v ... f=3&t=6626

[asiu]

Romans 6:16

Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

i aint interested in being a trained monkey to your ways Simon.
... sorry.

'your ways' ... describes the methodologies of the internet persona used as a vehicle whilst attempting to remake this site into a
image of your own (or your masters most likely) system of ideas and ideals ... then the enforcement of that political theory and policy by manipulative means onto the Saintsational community.


all i see 'in your ways' , all i've seen in 'your ways' is an ongoing campaign of deceiptful politics.

my experience of 'your ways' is / has been of half truths , non truths , blatent un truths , intentional un truths ,
unsustainable claims and propaganda based 'story telling' all designed to give false credence to this



mindset and community wrecking ideology.

when called out on or asked to explain your deceipts , or god forbid asked to apologise for your blatent
and intentional false accusations you seek safety in petulant defiance and an open disregard and contempt for those
who with you were pretending to be engaged ,
or as we saw in this thread withdrawing , changing and or altering assurances given due to unsustainable adjudication on anothers writings all on a personal whim to soothe emotional 'n intellectual uncomfortability.

not very grown up really ... is it !
not very leadership material ... is it !







i hope i have described accurately "n fairly the environment we are left to participate in.
imagine that sort of moral 'n intellectual vacuum controlling the ban button via the warning procedures held over any community.

scary stuff .... imo.


the past political year (or so) on SS i would express as being split into 6 parts

part 1 ... the con
part 2 ... the big stick
part 3 ... unjustifiable administrative & moderation techniques
part 4 ... the outlawing of the big stick
part 5 ... the re writing of history
part 6 ... the positioning towards removal of outliers

********************************************************************************************************

i need to move at this time from a community mindset and back to a personal mindset

the following quoted line was included by Simon in a post that i will respond to shortly

I think you are just wasting our time in some type of ludicrous game.

and i say to it

if you think that my concern for the actual truth of our Saintsational history ,
the friendships , the relationships forged through adversity and joy ,
for the freedoms fought for and maintained by many ,
the learnings , laughter 'n anticipations shared ,
the deceipts foistered on the community already forgiven ,
the absolute (intentional in my mind) trashing of the General Forum ,
the gut wrenching disappointment of another 'orange hatter' running amok
are the concerns of one playing some sort of ludicrous game ... please .... keep under estimating me ... happy (non) thinking.

i will attend to the full post from which that line was drawn , at my next appropriate opportunity.
... that is , i suppose , if the thread hasnt been locked by then .... for general unsuitability or some such other whim of fantasy.



ps ,

one of the wise heads around these parts who i have always gone to for council ,
(and i hope i am breaking no confidence)
stated a few weeks ago (i paraphrase)

"Simon has done things 70 % correctly ...."

at the time of reading ... i thought to myself ... 'yes , a tad higher even.'

now , i think ... 'yes , though a tad lower.'

****************************************************************

pps,

i am not anti Simon , i am not anti mod ... but i am anti political bullshite , anti political deceipt , anti political manipulation
& deeply deeply dissappointable by moral cowardness and the lack of intellectual authenticity.

[BackFromUSA]

Hi POQ

I am not anti you either.

I know you are not happy with my "performance" but I am human and trying my best.

Have I made mistakes - yes - but often it is from trying to please everyone and guess what ... not everyone can be pleased.

I am learning on the job (voluntary as it is) and whilst you think I have some grand agenda (like destroy the General Forum or kick posters off) nothing could be further from the truth. I am happy for the General Forum to stay and I certainly don't want any poster to be banned. We just all need to be respectful here.

Simon

p.s. if you are looking for the PDF I have filed it where you suggested ... it was only 16 A4 pages long ... not dozens ... although I did consider doubling the font size to 24 but thought that to be a bit petty.

[BackFromUSA]

I have already responded - or did I miss one?

my apologies, I missed the response.

Ok. So let me get this straight. You are suggesting that if I have a chat about the St. Kilda Football club I am some how breaching the AFL/clubs licence/copyright/ownership clauses. Or put another way, if I have a chat that includes the words St. Kilda Football Club or the Saints or any other name we go by that somehow I am using the property of the AFL/club? Is this what you are suggesting?

If you are can you reference a publicly available document that backs up your claim?

Hi Cairnsman

I see that SENsaintsational has responded with the guts of the matter and the AFL site's explantion.

The trademarks including the names are owned by the AFL.

We are ALLOWED to use them by the AFL despite not being a licensee or an AFL accredited media agency or even an official media outlet.

If we anger them, they will come down on us like a ton of bricks.

We don't have the $s or inclination to fight them legally.

I have sent you several links about this previously ... but this one sums it up best:

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/archi ... 49694.html

And some commentary of this action:

http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?p=440948

But before i hear ... oh but that was 2006, trademark infringements impacted an unofficial fan page on facebook in 2011 ... and it would be my guess that the AFL legal eagles were the ones that alerted facebook ... not the Brisbane Lions ... but anyway it shows the danger involved in using trademarks by the good grace of the owner:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/afl/bri ... z1NdBwkVG8

Essentially this is one of the reasons to remain moderated and with rules etc and for everyone to post with respect AND maintain good relations with the trademark owners.

It is why I volunteered to step in last year to moderate when the moderators fled and all hell was breaking loose.

It is also a key reason that each post remains the property of the member that posted it.

Anyway, we are free to use the trademarked names and images etc UNTIL we stuff up and hurt their brand.

If we do stuff up, we are goneski.

I hope that clears it up.

Simon

p.s. I think we may need to add a section in the rules that the trademarks remain the property of the AFL and clubs ... and that members, readers etc must respect that fact and not post anything that damages or could do damage to those trademarks ... will float this amongst a few other suggestions being made for rule changes

[Cairnsman]

I have already responded - or did I miss one?

my apologies, I missed the response.

Ok. So let me get this straight. You are suggesting that if I have a chat about the St. Kilda Football club I am some how breaching the AFL/clubs licence/copyright/ownership clauses. Or put another way, if I have a chat that includes the words St. Kilda Football Club or the Saints or any other name we go by that somehow I am using the property of the AFL/club? Is this what you are suggesting?

If you are can you reference a publicly available document that backs up your claim?

Hi Cairnsman

I see that SENsaintsational has responded with the guts of the matter and the AFL site's explantion.

The trademarks including the names are owned by the AFL.

We are ALLOWED to use them by the AFL despite not being a licensee or an AFL accredited media agency or even an official media outlet.

If we anger them, they will come down on us like a ton of bricks.

We don't have the $s or inclination to fight them legally.

I have sent you several links about this previously ... but this one sums it up best:

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/archi ... 49694.html

And some commentary of this action:

http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?p=440948

But before i hear ... oh but that was 2006, trademark infringements impacted an unofficial fan page on facebook in 2011 ... and it would be my guess that the AFL legal eagles were the ones that alerted facebook ... not the Brisbane Lions ... but anyway it shows the danger involved in using trademarks by the good grace of the owner:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/afl/bri ... z1NdBwkVG8

Essentially this is one of the reasons to remain moderated and with rules etc and for everyone to post with respect AND maintain good relations with the trademark owners.

It is why I volunteered to step in last year to moderate when the moderators fled and all hell was breaking loose.

It is also a key reason that each post remains the property of the member that posted it.

Anyway, we are free to use the trademarked names and images etc UNTIL we stuff up and hurt their brand.

If we do stuff up, we are goneski.

I hope that clears it up.

Simon

p.s. I think we may need to add a section in the rules that the trademarks remain the property of the AFL and clubs ... and that members, readers etc must respect that fact and not post anything that damages or could do damage to those trademarks ... will float this amongst a few other suggestions being made for rule changes

Those breaches were because they used trademark logos and images. They were also at a time when the AFL and in particular the media outlets were very very concerned about the introduction of social media products. I know for a fact that the media in particular were terrified about their introduction, the Herald Sun in particular spent much time and resources working out how to counter it.

The AFL cannot stop me from saying something like "Go the Saints". They cannot own my conversation just because I am talking about their product. As Sensational says, it would be a very, very long bow to draw and I would personally lead the fight as I feel very strongly about any attempt to stamp out free speech.

The cyber site Saintsational.net is just like any other place in the real world where conversation takes place about the footy such as pubs, cafes work place etc.

There is no way that the AFL can shut a conversation down because you use their trademark names to discuss their products. BFUSA if you believe otherwise then I suggest we get some legal advise on the matter.

If we are going to float a suggestion then I suggest we float the following question to the members for a vote:

If the AFL threatened to shut down Saintsational down because of a licence breach, would you be willing to make the necessary changes to the website to avoid being shut down.

Fair enough if we use logos on the site and images etc and were commercialised in any way but we are not and that is the main reason the AFL wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they tried to shut us down . As I previously stated, our current breaches would be vary easy to tidy up if we were forced to, i.e. turn off logos remove banner etc and I reckon members would vote overwhelmingly to do so if the situation arose.


BFUSA I suggest that before you go making any rushed changes that we have a proper discussion and VOTE on this issue. We should be working to protect our independence and right to free speech. Clearly you have a conflict of interest.

[Cairnsman]

Important to note that websites like facebook and twitter are commercial products, Saintsational.net is a discussion board powered by free open source software...it is a place to meet, mingle and engage in conversation, that can't be shut down, and shouldn't be shut down. It is another reason why we shouldn't link to Facebook, Twitter or any other commercial product so we remain unique on the social media landscape by being truly independent of any external influence.

[GrumpyOne]

I've been following the discussion on here with interest.

Something needed to be done about SS, and to his credit, Simon stepped up and stepped in.

The problem as I perceive it is the dictatorial attitude taken by the admin of this site.

There is nothing new about that. It is not a problem of Simon's creation. As long as I have been a member of this site, successive admins have adopted this attitude.

An additional problem is the hard-line suppression of dissent. As a wise person once said "Dissent is the seed of progress". If it wasn't for dissent, we would still be sending conscripts off to be killed in Vietnam. If it wasn't for dissent, females would not be permitted to vote today. Dissent is still active today, forcing main-stream Australia to acknowledge the plight of the First Australians.

We must view this dissent as an opportunity to progress.

I know I have been banging on incessantly about bringing some form of democracy to this site. But this has to happen for the site to survive.

It's time for a compromise.

My suggestion is that this site be managed by a team of five; two from the current admin and three elected. To prevent any skulldudgery the only persons allowed to stand and/or vote are posters with a 500+ post count. Previous posting history should not come into consideration. All decisions on the site to be made by a majority vote of those five.

If the general membership agree with Gaz and Cairnsey they will get votes. If they agree with Stinger he would get the votes. If the Silent Majority actually do exist a cohort of Simon's will get the votes. Whatever, at the very least there will be no extremes of action taken as it has in the past.

My two-bobs worth It is a compromise on both sides. The old chestnut about who actually "owns" the site should be put to rest. The site needs both admin and posters.

[Cairnsman]

I've been following the discussion on here with interest.

Something needed to be done about SS, and to his credit, Simon stepped up and stepped in.

The problem as I perceive it is the dictatorial attitude taken by the admin of this site.

There is nothing new about that. It is not a problem of Simon's creation. As long as I have been a member of this site, successive admins have adopted this attitude.

An additional problem is the hard-line suppression of dissent. As a wise person once said "Dissent is the seed of progress". If it wasn't for dissent, we would still be sending conscripts off to be killed in Vietnam. If it wasn't for dissent, females would not be permitted to vote today. Dissent is still active today, forcing main-stream Australia to acknowledge the plight of the First Australians.

We must view this dissent as an opportunity to progress.

I know I have been banging on incessantly about bringing some form of democracy to this site. But this has to happen for the site to survive.

It's time for a compromise.

My suggestion is that this site be managed by a team of five; two from the current admin and three elected. To prevent any skulldudgery the only persons allowed to stand and/or vote are posters with a 500+ post count. Previous posting history should not come into consideration. All decisions on the site to be made by a majority vote of those five.

If the general membership agree with Gaz and Cairnsey they will get votes. If they agree with Stinger he would get the votes. If the Silent Majority actually do exist a cohort of Simon's will get the votes. Whatever, at the very least there will be no extremes of action taken as it has in the past.

My two-bobs worth It is a compromise on both sides. The old chestnut about who actually "owns" the site should be put to rest. The site needs both admin and posters.

Good post GO and yes compromise is always a pathway. I would also add that there are other considerations we need to take into account also when talking about the need for more members in management and that is a management contingency in the event Simon is suddenly, possibly permanently unavailable. A board of managers would help with this scenario.

[GrumpyOne]

I've been following the discussion on here with interest.

Something needed to be done about SS, and to his credit, Simon stepped up and stepped in.

The problem as I perceive it is the dictatorial attitude taken by the admin of this site.

There is nothing new about that. It is not a problem of Simon's creation. As long as I have been a member of this site, successive admins have adopted this attitude.

An additional problem is the hard-line suppression of dissent. As a wise person once said "Dissent is the seed of progress". If it wasn't for dissent, we would still be sending conscripts off to be killed in Vietnam. If it wasn't for dissent, females would not be permitted to vote today. Dissent is still active today, forcing main-stream Australia to acknowledge the plight of the First Australians.

We must view this dissent as an opportunity to progress.

I know I have been banging on incessantly about bringing some form of democracy to this site. But this has to happen for the site to survive.

It's time for a compromise.

My suggestion is that this site be managed by a team of five; two from the current admin and three elected. To prevent any skulldudgery the only persons allowed to stand and/or vote are posters with a 500+ post count. Previous posting history should not come into consideration. All decisions on the site to be made by a majority vote of those five.

If the general membership agree with Gaz and Cairnsey they will get votes. If they agree with Stinger he would get the votes. If the Silent Majority actually do exist a cohort of Simon's will get the votes. Whatever, at the very least there will be no extremes of action taken as it has in the past.

My two-bobs worth It is a compromise on both sides. The old chestnut about who actually "owns" the site should be put to rest. The site needs both admin and posters.

Good post GO and yes compromise is always a pathway. I would also add that there are other considerations we need to take into account also when talking about the need for more members in management and that is a management contingency in the event Simon is suddenly, possibly permanently unavailable. A board of managers would help with this scenario.

I am touching my wooden work desk in that we are not wishing an unfortunate event to befall Simon, but it is a good point to raise.

[asiu]

i'll touch wood on that as well.

[asiu]

Thank you Simon.
your generosity of Spirit is appreciated.

My humble apologies ,
for unintentional arrogances 'n visciousnesses U bravely received.

and i figure ,
that between u & i
"n the other good folk around here

we can cover that last 30% pretty easily.

[stinger]

I've been following the discussion on here with interest.

Something needed to be done about SS, and to his credit, Simon stepped up and stepped in.

The problem as I perceive it is the dictatorial attitude taken by the admin of this site.

There is nothing new about that. It is not a problem of Simon's creation. As long as I have been a member of this site, successive admins have adopted this attitude.

An additional problem is the hard-line suppression of dissent. As a wise person once said "Dissent is the seed of progress". If it wasn't for dissent, we would still be sending conscripts off to be killed in Vietnam. If it wasn't for dissent, females would not be permitted to vote today. Dissent is still active today, forcing main-stream Australia to acknowledge the plight of the First Australians.

We must view this dissent as an opportunity to progress.

I know I have been banging on incessantly about bringing some form of democracy to this site. But this has to happen for the site to survive.

It's time for a compromise.

My suggestion is that this site be managed by a team of five; two from the current admin and three elected. To prevent any skulldudgery the only persons allowed to stand and/or vote are posters with a 500+ post count. Previous posting history should not come into consideration. All decisions on the site to be made by a majority vote of those five.

If the general membership agree with Gaz and Cairnsey they will get votes. If they agree with Stinger he would get the votes. If the Silent Majority actually do exist a cohort of Simon's will get the votes. Whatever, at the very least there will be no extremes of action taken as it has in the past.

My two-bobs worth It is a compromise on both sides. The old chestnut about who actually "owns" the site should be put to rest. The site needs both admin and posters.

Good post GO and yes compromise is always a pathway. I would also add that there are other considerations we need to take into account also when talking about the need for more members in management and that is a management contingency in the event Simon is suddenly, possibly permanently unavailable. A board of managers would help with this scenario.

what a lot of nonsense.....just a plain blatant attempt to take over the site ffs......three elected...??...yeah...we all know who they would be and what would then happen to the two existing mods and posters like me who have expressed a different view and their contempt for these carpetbaggers.....and that's what you guys are ....carpetbaggers.....just who owns the site is not an old chestnut that needs to be put to rest.......we know who owns the site....the guy who put his money , effort, skill, and time into developing it........damien....give it a rest you guys ..you have always been predictable ...now you are becoming just plain boring...i'm certainly not interested in voting on anything or have anyone vote for or with me........bloody hell!!!!!


three guys don't like who and how the site is being moderated...three guys......two of whom have been extremenley offensive to simon...who...because of just who he is..has decided to forgive or overlook their transgressions....and continue his dilalogue with them......i would not have....but hey..i'm no simon.....anyway, these three guys...unsupported by any of the other regulars now want to have some of their number....a majority of three no less...elected to run this site.....yeah...like that s going to happen...

[BackFromUSA]

Hi Cairnsman

Please re-read my post.

In summary:

- we are 100% free to discuss all things St.Kilda here as much as we want - we cabn even express Anti AFL sentiment - because the AFL allows it
- They allow it because they own the trademarks therefore have the right to allow it or NOT
- They have no intent to shut down non-commercial or commercial sites (e.g. BigFooty or facebook sites that take ads / sponsorship)
- They will however protect their trademarks as they see fit when an online OR licensed media outlet does something to damage / undermine their trademarks
- They monitor all sites (to a degree) and they will vigorously protect their trademarks whenever it is necessary
- This is as true today as ever before, even more so since the introduction of cyber-bullying legislation

This is not my opinion - it is fact.

And what exactly is my conflict of interest here???

As for what happens if something happens to me?

1) there are other moderators in place

2) two other posters have access to the admin panel and I intend to appoint a third

3) multiple posters have the ability to contact Damien

As for voting - I have outlined the reasons before but here we go again:

- the site is owned and managed
- it is not a voting democracy
- how can we have a voting democracy of one person / one vote on the internet (impossible)
- vast majority of posters don't have the care factor to vote - happy as it is - but the unhappy ones are always more active to vote

As stated, I work under a direction for the site. The direction is clear.

Part of that direction is that change is taken to the community for OPINION and that the opinions of all are to be taken into account and a decision that accurately reflects the WHOLE communities wants and interests should be made. I have done that consistently in the past year.

Do I personally agree with some of those decisions - definitely not! There are several I personally disagree with.

Does that mean I think that change needs to be made or voting is required?

No.

I respect the voice of the community.

It isn't a formal vote but certainly opinions are expressed and listened to.

Simon