Administration Forum Rules

[BackFromUSA]

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.

Unfortunately I don't believe that 100% is possible as we are all human ... 90% would be nice.

I shall keep trying.

[asiu]

have faith Simon.
i do.

I'll float an idea ... when i finish constructing it
... that might impress u in its simplicity 'n its inclusiveness.

lets see what transpires.
... easy peasy imo ,
if we keep our eye on the ball ... the community will be well served.

(and it is all about the Community.. agreed?)

[GrumpyOne]

...i'm certainly not interested in voting on anything or have anyone vote for or with me........bloody hell!!!!!

Yet you are interested enough to comment....... strange that.

[Cairnsman]

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

Simon you are slipperier than an eel in a bucket of snot.

Ok just to go over it again. In our discussions earlier this year you counter-argued against some of the suggestions I was making by claiming the AFL could shut us down any time they like. I am claiming that they cannot shut us down if we use tradenames to discuss their product in a non commercial way as it is not a breach of any licence. What happens on this website is merely a discussion about a product.

Can you acknowledge that or do you disagree.

And before you come back with but "we use images etc that breach" please accept that I agree on this point and as I have said that would be easy to tidy up.

[SENsei]

I think the point actually is not 'can' the AFL shut SS down for whatever reason, but 'could' they attempt it?

The answer in my view is that they may not be legally able to shut the site down, but they could certainly mount an action that would be costly to defend. Who foots that bill on a voluntary site? Who wants to play a game of legal chicken anyway? And why is it an issue anyway? Everyone is able to express their opinion, positive or negative. It would only be an issue I would expect should SS do something that StKFC and by extension the AFL, thought was dangerous to their brand or persons. ie. threats to players, staff, etc.

I can't see that happening, so I guess it is a moot point all round.

But why rock the AFL boat. Just keep going as we are providing a respectful place for posters to share opinions. How they share that opinion should be up to them, within the rules of common decency.

Never seen Robert Elphingstone in a bucket of snot....would need to be a big bucket.

[stinger]

Simon you are slipperier than an eel in a bucket of snot.
.

charming......not...

[Cairnsman]

I think the point actually is not 'can' the AFL shut SS down for whatever reason, but 'could' they attempt it?

The answer in my view is that they may not be legally able to shut the site down, but they could certainly mount an action that would be costly to defend. Who foots that bill on a voluntary site? Who wants to play a game of legal chicken anyway? And why is it an issue anyway? Everyone is able to express their opinion, positive or negative. It would only be an issue I would expect should SS do something that StKFC and by extension the AFL, thought was dangerous to their brand or persons. ie. threats to players, staff, etc.

I can't see that happening, so I guess it is a moot point all round.

But why rock the AFL boat. Just keep going as we are providing a respectful place for posters to share opinions. How they share that opinion should be up to them, within the rules of common decency.

Never seen Robert Elphingstone in a bucket of snot....would need to be a big bucket.

They could attempt it and if they were unsuccessful they would have to pay all costs and so I would be certain on that basis they wouldn't challenge as it clearly isn't a breach. Now it's not a moot point in regards to my debate with BFUSA and him using the claim as a basis for an argument because it is clearly wrong.

[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

Simon you are slipperier than an eel in a bucket of snot.

Ok just to go over it again. In our discussions earlier this year you counter-argued against some of the suggestions I was making by claiming the AFL could shut us down any time they like. I am claiming that they cannot shut us down if we use tradenames to discuss their product in a non commercial way as it is not a breach of any licence. What happens on this website is merely a discussion about a product.

Can you acknowledge that or do you disagree.

And before you come back with but "we use images etc that breach" please accept that I agree on this point and as I have said that would be easy to tidy up.

Actually Cairnsman you are clearly wrong and I clearly disagree and so does the law!

--> the legal test (if the AFL took action to close the site for trademark breach / damage) is not whether we are a commercial site or licensed or not, or an accredited media outlet or not, but whether we (saintsational and the individual posters involved) have made a negative commercial impact on their trademark by our actions and action (e.g. Removal of trademarks making us 'sational.net' with no imagery, no allowance to use the terms Saints or St.Kilda Football Club any other club name, AFL or The like and / or closure due to the inability to pay our bills or by court order) and damages (finacial restitution and legal costs) will be sought by the AFL ...

--> Please note (again) they would only do this if we did / posted something really bad, or broke the law e.g. Cyberbullying

--> the liability of the site will be established based on the effort of the owner, admin and moderators to control / limit / delete the action of a poster on the site that has impacted on / damaged the AFL owned trademark

--> the legal argument could also centre on who owns the post and is fully or partially liable for it

--> the assertion by you that we should, could or would go to court to fight the AFL is simply flawed as the defense would cost $20,000+ and there is zero guarantee we would win (actually we would probably lose) and costs awarded against us as well if they apply

--> simply removing jumpers / logos etc will not save "sational" (as we would probably be excluded from using Saintsational
branding)

As such we opt to take the position that the site is administered and moderated to ensure civil discussion, remains within legal boundaries of cyber-bullying and will not permit / retain any posts that damage the Trademarks owned by the AFL and retain the ability within the rules to delete such posts.

Perhaps we need to beef up this element in the rules or even establish a revised user agreement that all posters need to acknowledge the trademarks of the AFL, undertake that they will not post anything to harm or damage those trademarks, but if they do they acknowledge that Saintsational is not responsible for or owns in any commercial sense their posts and that it is understood that Saintsatipnal retains the right to delete any post that causes harm to or damages any AFL trademark.

Other than that possibility (rough draft) it is business as usual IMHO as described by SENsaintsational.

If your contention is that we should not worry about this at all - that we should allow (or even encourage) posts that could damage the AFL trademark and that we shouldn't worry about it and depend on the principle of free speech as our defense in a trial ... (which we actually can't fund or afford to lose) and then as either a preemptive strike or as a rear guard action remove all trademarks for the site and even the name to help us survive legal action against the site ... Then I think you may be barking up the wrong tree.

Now if you want to fight the AFL ... Go do it on your site ... With your time and money!

Have you ever eaten eel? Delicious! Snot isn't my taste.

[plugger66]

Lets be honest here. The AFL couldnt give a stuff about this site unless it somehow got in the news for the wrong reasons which is very unlikely to happen. I think all of this is way to serious.

[BackFromUSA]

Lets be honest here. The AFL couldnt give a stuff about this site unless it somehow got in the news for the wrong reasons which is very unlikely to happen. I think all of this is way to serious.

Completely agree. They are happy to allow us to exist unless we do something that gets us into the news and damages their trademark. That is the whole point of having rules like the cyber bullying rule etc and moderation.

Cairnsman doesn't agree.

He can outline his own arguement if he chooses.

[Cairnsman]

Actually Cairnsman you are clearly wrong and I clearly disagree and so does the law!

--> the legal test (if the AFL took action to close the site for trademark breach / damage) is not whether we are a commercial site or licensed or not, or an accredited media outlet or not, but whether we (saintsational and the individual posters involved) have made a negative commercial impact on their trademark by our actions and action (e.g. Removal of trademarks making us 'sational.net' with no imagery, no allowance to use the terms Saints or St.Kilda Football Club any other club name, AFL or The like and / or closure due to the inability to pay our bills or by court order) and damages (finacial restitution and legal costs) will be sought by the AFL ...

You are right that it would be a test, and test only. It would be a huge test for the AFL to argue that the public cannot have conversations about their product because it contains tradenames. They wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. Do you have a precedence in law you could reference? Or do you have an example of your own other than the previously mentioned example where the AFL might take umbrage if there was a campaign against an umpire. I think if the AFL wanted to shut down SS because they were targeting an umpire (in a way that wasn't breaking the law) then there would be a massive backlash against the AFL.

The previous examples you gave re the Hawks and Pies website are irrelevant to this debate because it's unclear how they were allegedly breaching the law. We are discussing the hypothetical argument of modifying the site to remove all breaches (including the site domain name if need be). As previously stated, if we were threatened by the AFL with court action because of licence breaches then I would be very surprised if the members didn't vote overwhelmingly in support of making the necessary changes to avoid court action.

Discussing a tradename in a conversation does not breach a licence. Arguing it does suggests you agree with blocking the right to free speech.


--> Please note (again) they would only do this if we did / posted something really bad, or broke the law e.g. Cyberbullying

Are you suggesting that the AFL are policing the cyberbullying laws? Wrong if you are and in any case I am all for complying with the law of the land so please stop mentioning your pet argument as it is irrelevant to the discussion.
Agree that if you break a law there is a case to answer but other than that there is nothing the AFL could do if no laws are being broken, no matter how badly they view the discussion.


--> the liability of the site will be established based on the effort of the owner, admin and moderators to control / limit / delete the action of a poster on the site that has impacted on / damaged the AFL owned trademark

--> the legal argument could also centre on who owns the post and is fully or partially liable for it

--> the assertion by you that we should, could or would go to court to fight the AFL is simply flawed as the defense would cost $20,000+ and there is zero guarantee we would win (actually we would probably lose) and costs awarded against us as well if they apply

Yes the AFL would be relying on the size and budget of their legal department as a deterrent to a challenge. That does not make the legal case flawed and as you seem very confident that the AFL would win you should be able to easily reference a precedence where a company has been able to shut a conversation down because it included tradenames. Looking forward to having a look at your response on this.

--> simply removing jumpers / logos etc will not save "sational" (as we would probably be excluded from using Saintsational
branding)

Probably but as I say I would be very surprised if the members of the site didn't vote in overwhelming support to make the change if it meant it was the only breach the AFL could use to shut down public discussion.

As such we opt to take the position that the site is administered and moderated to ensure civil discussion, remains within legal boundaries of cyber-bullying and will not permit / retain any posts that damage the Trademarks owned by the AFL and retain the ability within the rules to delete such posts.

Yep stay legal, no problem with that, but can you give an example of how a public discussion can damage a trademark/name? Maybe a precedent in law?

Perhaps we need to beef up this element in the rules or even establish a revised user agreement that all posters need to acknowledge the trademarks of the AFL, undertake that they will not post anything to harm or damage those trademarks, but if they do they acknowledge that Saintsational is not responsible for or owns in any commercial sense their posts and that it is understood that Saintsatipnal retains the right to delete any post that causes harm to or damages any AFL trademark.

Are you getting kickbacks from the AFL? Why do you seem so hell bent on defending their trademark? Before you go beefing up the rules (again) I would propose that we have proper consultation this time around. Maybe pose some questions that aren't biased towards your agenda.

Other than that possibility (rough draft) it is business as usual IMHO as described by SENsaintsational.

If your contention is that we should not worry about this at all - that we should allow (or even encourage) posts that could damage the AFL trademark and that we shouldn't worry about it and depend on the principle of free speech as our defense in a trial ... (which we actually can't fund or afford to lose) and then as either a preemptive strike or as a rear guard action remove all trademarks for the site and even the name to help us survive legal action against the site ... Then I think you may be barking up the wrong tree.

Again can you give an example of public discussion that could damage the AFL trademark.

Now if you want to fight the AFL ... Go do it on your site ... With your time and money!


Have you ever eaten eel? Delicious! Snot isn't my taste.

[SENsei]

Deleted because who really CBF?

[BackFromUSA]

Deleted because who really CBF?

I feel that i have to respond, but you can elect not to - it is fine.

[plugger66]

Deleted because who really CBF?

Shouldnt have deleted it. it made perfect sense which is rare on here.

[BackFromUSA]

Deleted because who really CBF?

Shouldnt have deleted it. it made perfect sense which is rare on here.

Perhaps I should have read it - perhaps it could have helped me understand where I am wrong and what I can do about it.

[BackFromUSA]

Deleted because who really CBF?

I feel that i have to respond, but you can elect not to - it is fine.

I shall respond to Cairnsman tonight when I have 30 uninterrupted minutes to spare.

[plugger66]

Deleted because who really CBF?

Shouldnt have deleted it. it made perfect sense which is rare on here.

Perhaps I should have read it - perhaps it could have helped me understand where I am wrong and what I can do about it.

It wasnt about the mods.

[BackFromUSA]

Hi Cairnsman

You seem mostly worried by freedom of speech issues. I am not disagreeing with you on this matter, as I am an advocate of freedom of speech - but please read on.

I agree that the AFL cannot stop you (or anyone else) from using this site or any other medium you have access to - other forums, twitter, facebook etc to express your opinions. I have never said that you or anyone else do not have the right to write or say what you like, but whatever you say can have consequences to you and us.

Of course the consequences to the poster (as they retain post ownership) would be dependent on what criminal or civil breaches have occurred and who takes action.

What is of concern to Saintsational is that we are able to continue to exist and prosper, even after a poster posts something that breaches crimnal or civil laws.

First step of defence is the Saintsational rules - that is why we have rules, warnings and a banning system but it is designed (not by me) to create a harmonious forum and importantly the moderators have the right to edit, move or delete posts and this is essential to help ward off the possibility of the AFL taking action against us.

As such, any post has consequences in terms of warnings and bans for breaches - that bit is obvious!

Saintsational wishes to exist as is (with the continuing blessing of the AFL to exist and use their trademarked properties) without any interference HOWEVER they CAN take legal action to prevent our use of those trademarks IF and only IF a poster posts something that harms the AFL trademark or brand and they can effectively close us down. We could exist but the site would (a) have to change our name to not use "Saints" in reference to an Australian Football League team, we would have to remove all imagery that uses the St.Kilda logo, St.Kilda colours, St.Kilda jumper in reference to Australian Football League and whilst we could potentially all write in code - we would not be able to continue use the trademarked terms St.Kilda Football Club, St.Kilda, Saints or St.Kilda Saints in posts on this forum (whatever it is to be called) in reference to the Australian Football League, nor would be able to use the AFL owned trademarks of the other 17 clubs (not that we ever refer to another club by their trademarked name) - and lets be honest we would ALL stop posting and coming to this forum if that was the case - such an action by the AFL would kill this forum, BUT only if they were provoked into doing it. Quite clearly this doomsday scenario faced by other forums and a facebook site is not one we would like to invite.

If you do not agree that the AFL has this power (despite me showing you three examples where they have exercised this power in the past) then you are welcome to hold that opinion, but until you provide legal qualified opinion that proves this to be wrong, it is my intention as administrator to tread carefully and do my best to not provide the AFL with any reason to take such action against Saintsational. The scary part is that we cannot control what a poster may post - so we are still vulnerable.

Essentially this is why we have rules. This is why the moderators have the right to edit and delete posts. I think that this discussion highlights for me that we should take additional steps to further protect the site from the actions of a rogue poster who may post something that potentially harms the AFL and their trademarks.

In conclusion

- anyone can post anything here (so there is some freedom of speech - within the boundaries of law of defamation, cyber-bullying etc)

- the AFL allows us to use their trademarks as an act of goodwill to fans - we are not licensed to use them, nor are we an accredited media outlet

- the moderators can edit, move delete (for harmony and to hopefully protect the site in the best interest of the site from any legal action)

- if we caused a media stir e.g. if a violent act occurred as a result of cyber-bullying on Saintsational, the AFL would act swiftly to remove our ability to use trademarks

- if we were unable to use the AFL trademarks - this site would lose appeal to posters and readers and die (especially as there so many alternative sites available)

As a final set of questions to you:

- what exactly are you proposing as an alternative?

- what Saintsational Rules do you want abolished?

- what do you want put in place to protect us from the AFL taking action against us?

- how do you propose we exist without trademarks (voluntarily now or if forced in the future)?

I look forward to your further input.

Simon

p.s How much should I be asking from the AFL? I just want to see if I low-balled myself when they came a calling for me to be their imperialist puppet!

[SENsei]

Deleted because who really CBF?

Shouldnt have deleted it. it made perfect sense which is rare on here.

Wasn't worth it. I wasted my virtual breath and it would be just that, a waste.

[asiu]

"I look forward to your further input."

Thats the attitude.


hopefully its genuine 'n encouraged.
'n appreciated even.

[asiu]

i'm glad he deleted it.

[BackFromUSA]

It is genuine.

I have asked questions because I am interested.

[BackFromUSA]

i'm glad he deleted it.

No idea what it was ... very curious ... but obviously the self deletion was well considered.

AND

He has every right to self-edit!

[asiu]

It is genuine.

I have asked questions because I am interested.

Sweet.
...coz i'm all for 'encouraged input'

encouraged brainstorming would be eminantly more
serving to SS ... but encouraged input is fair progress

... given where we've started from.

[Cairnsman]

Deleted because who really CBF?

Shouldnt have deleted it. it made perfect sense which is rare on here.

Wasn't worth it. I wasted my virtual breath and it would be just that, a waste.

You seem troubled, I hope you find peace one day...hey BFUSA thanks for the reply. I shall respond soon...busy, busy!