New TOS

[Leafs_Pam]

Hogsmacker I have no problem with you retailating against what I am about to say. It won't bother me in the least.

1) Patrick Clinger is the owner of Proboards
2) Patrick has to protect his business
3) Due to all the horrible things happening on the Internet it forces business to have up to date legal wording in their TOS
4) I've read all your posts in this thread, and frankly I wonder why you haven't been band yet. All your posts are argumentative and against the OWNER. Those can be considered attacks. Most people get banned after a few dozen attacks on the Administrators and Moderators. They are giving you lots of leeway. Consider yourself lucky.

[hogsmacker]

Is that right?

Well, I invite you all to my barbeque!

[Kami]

Ok, I think we need to stop now. Patrick is perfectly capable of defending himself. =] I'm sure he appreciates the sentiment, but let's just let the admins respond to the queries and concerns posted in this threads, so as to not get it off track. Thanks, and no need to reply to this post unless you have further questions or concerns regarding the new TOS.

Thanks again! =]

[Phaelyn]

I actually did have a question, and I'm sorry if it's already been answered, my mind's elsewhere today....

13. FEES

Access to the Website and use of the Services is free. You acknowledge and agree that ProBoards reserves the right to charge for access to the Website and use of the Services and to change its fees from time to time in ProBoards' sole discretion.

Does this mean at any time, ProBoards could decide it is not a free sevice any more and charge me for using it?

Thanks, and again, I'm sure someone's already asked this...

[Kami]

An admin will have to say for sure but I -think- they are referring to fees on their paid services (such as adfree, domain name hosrting, etc). Double check for admin response though, I'm just theorising. =]

[Phaelyn]

All right, thanks!

[LOL what do i put here?]

seriously? can we all (I mean most) just grow up? if you don't agree to section 15 of the TOS ok, then move on, you don't have to use ProBoards, there are many other forum hosts out there. but seriously arguing over the internet because you can't accept the TOS that Patrick Clinger has? that's a little immature, Name calling is immature, and what you've been saying (I'm not trying to start anything) but can you please accept it or move on? you can't and wont make them change the TOS just because of what you think, so please stop trying? thanks

[CheatAreZee]

May 3, 2010 15:10:12 GMT -8 LOL what do i put here? said:

seriously? can we all (I mean most) just grow up? if you don't agree to section 15 of the TOS ok, then move on, you don't have to use ProBoards, there are many other forum hosts out there. but seriously arguing over the internet because you can't accept the TOS that Patrick Clinger has? that's a little immature, Name calling is immature, and what you've been saying (I'm not trying to start anything) but can you please accept it or move on? you can't and wont make them change the TOS just because of what you think, so please stop trying? thanks

Hi Justin,

Thanks for the concern, but we don't mind questions being asked about it; It's best that users understand the terms fully, even if they're doing so in a contested way

[cisleader]

Rather than making a new topic;

Before the new TOS, everything seemed fine and dandy. Yes, the TOS were less descriptive, but now that the TO is very descriptive, it does help..however, most of the TOS is written in legal terms, which, even for me made me think 'what does this mean?'. Rather than making things easier, you've made it more difficult.

I feel that the new TOS is a bit unfair, because it's worded in lawyer talk, which the majority of people have no idea. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the TOS themselves are unfair, I'm saying the wording of it is. If the wording was better, I doubt you'd be replying with the same answer to hundreds of people.

[Kami]

tim - this 'lawyer talk' keeps proboards' butts covered in the event of legal action. =X

edit;; it's also not exactly that difficult to understand. if you have questions, come here. if you find a phrase you don't understand, ask, or look it up. =]

[Dave L]

May 3, 2010 18:57:03 GMT -8 Kami said:

tim - this 'lawyer talk' keeps proboards' butts covered in the event of legal action. =X

edit;; it's also not exactly that difficult to understand. if you have questions, come here. if you find a phrase you don't understand, ask, or look it up. =]

Plain English could almost as easily keep proboards butts covered - if only their lawyers would bother to learn how to write it (or at least publish a translation into it).

Not Proboards' fault, I know that, but, if my lawyer came up with something like that, I'd be sorely tempted to fire him.

[Kami]

May 3, 2010 19:42:43 GMT -8 Dave L said:

May 3, 2010 18:57:03 GMT -8 Kami said:

tim - this 'lawyer talk' keeps proboards' butts covered in the event of legal action. =X

edit;; it's also not exactly that difficult to understand. if you have questions, come here. if you find a phrase you don't understand, ask, or look it up. =]

Plain English could almost as easily keep proboards butts covered - if only their lawyers would bother to learn how to write it (or at least publish a translation into it).

Not Proboards' fault, I know that, but, if my lawyer came up with something like that, I'd be sorely tempted to fire him.

i dunno about that. =X i'm not a lawyer, so i'm not qualified to agree or disagree with your statement. =X still, what's done is done, in terms of how it's phrased. =/ unless pat decides otherwise, that is.

[escarlata]

[edited for spelling error]
This may be inappropriate here and the forum managers should feel free to censor if they chose to.

Just as an example of what can happen with the new wording in Section 15:

heartifb.com/2010/04/30/read-the-fine-print-chictopia-and-payless-dont-need-to-ask-to-profit-from-blogger-images/

These images were placed by individuals on a site that promoted sharing looks. The site owners then made an agreement with a completely different company to use those images in an advertising campaign that gave no attribution to the original owners. The TOS section at issue is almost word for word of that in the new TOS here at ProBoards.