Section 25a?

[SpiderMike™]

25. TERMINATION

a) By ProBoards

WITHOUT LIMITING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROBOARDS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO, IN PROBOARDS' SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY, DENY USE OF THE WEBSITE AND/OR SERVICES TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON AT ALL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR ANY BREACH OR SUSPECTED BREACH OF ANY REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY OR COVENANT CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT, OR OF ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATION.

Could a member of staff just let me know if I'm reading this correctly. I'm not a victim of it, yet, but it would seem that we're all at risk.

From the above statement, does that mean that on a whim and for no reason what-so-ever PB just can just disable a forum, even if it adheres to every ruling PB put out?

If that's true it seems a tad harsh.

[VS Admin]

Yes, it does mean we can remove any forum for any reason. However, removing a forum generally speaking is not in our best interest.

As I'm sure you are aware, ProBoards generates revenue by placing advertisements on the forums and through services such as ad-free. If we just started going around randomly deleting forums that impacts our revenue. That just doesn't make sense for anyone involved.

However it is an option that we have available to us.

[SpiderMike™]

Patrick, thanks for the reply.

I only ask because in the last week alone I have seen several forums fall foul of that ruling, and being a member of a few of them, and never seeing anything that could be used as a form of complaint, it made me wonder.

Either someone is just generally bored and it reporting a spate of sites or PB is getting ban-happy.

What makes matters worse is that in two instances, forums have been turned down when asking to be turned back on. It makes me worry that all the work and effort we put into our forums is wasted if, at the end of the day, PB remove a forum without valid reasons. Especially if those reasons aren't explained to the admin of that board.

[VS Admin]

I can assure you that there is always good reason when removing a forum. Those that are able to be petitioned back are provided that option.

[SpiderMike™]

Thanks again for the reply. I'll leave it there, then.

[Craig]

Mar 15, 2011 9:32:56 GMT -8 SpiderMike™ said:

Patrick, thanks for the reply.

I only ask because in the last week alone I have seen several forums fall foul of that ruling, and being a member of a few of them, and never seeing anything that could be used as a form of complaint, it made me wonder.

Either someone is just generally bored and it reporting a spate of sites or PB is getting ban-happy.

What makes matters worse is that in two instances, forums have been turned down when asking to be turned back on. It makes me worry that all the work and effort we put into our forums is wasted if, at the end of the day, PB remove a forum without valid reasons. Especially if those reasons aren't explained to the admin of that board.

Hi Mike

You also have to put it into perspective. Although you may have seen 10 or so topics in the last week regarding this, we host over 3 million forums, so 10 of 3,000,000 is really a very very small percentage

[SpiderMike™]

That's an encouraging way to look at it, if the closure is justified, but the point I was trying to highlight was the whole 'closure on a whim' where seemingly PB can just close it WITHOUT a reason.

Example:- PB staffer has a bad day - closes a few sites.

That's an extreme example, but if forums are only closed with good reason then why have that sentence in 25a that says that may not always be the case.

[Craig]

Mar 15, 2011 10:26:15 GMT -8 SpiderMike™ said:

That's an encouraging way to look at it, if the closure is justified, but the point I was trying to highlight was the whole 'closure on a whim' where seemingly PB can just close it WITHOUT a reason.

Example:- PB staffer has a bad day - closes a few sites.

That's an extreme example, but if forums are only closed with good reason then why have that sentence in 25a that says that may not always be the case.

Of course. But as Patrick posted, it is not in our interests to delete forums on a whim. We are in the business of hosting forums, and the more we host, the better for us

[SpiderMike™]

Mar 15, 2011 11:11:15 GMT -8 Craig said:

But as Patrick posted, it is not in our interests to delete forums on a whim.

So why have the sentence in there. If a breach of the ToS is reason enough to delete then I get that, but if PB isn't interested in deleting forums on a whim then why does 25a contradict that by saying PB could delete a forum with no reason what-so-ever?

I'm not trying to be difficult, but you're saying one thing and the ToS are saying something totally different.

[VS Admin]

It's an option that we have available to us, sure, but as we pointed out, we're not in the business of simply removing forums.

[Martyn Dale]

With regards to staff having a bad day, thats grounds for instant dismissal.

In most cases, we never even get appeals to deletions because people are well aware of the issues. Appeals are then reviewed. If its found the deletion was unjust, the forum would be restored. There are protections in the system for mistakes.

Every incident of 25a you have seen mentioned on support are for forums that were deleted for genuine TOS violations. It just so happens the "any reason at all" clause also happens to be in the same block, it was not used.

[SpiderMike™]

My issue is that it COULD be used.

One could ask 'why would a board get deleted for no good reason, as per that clause?' And the answer I'm kind of getting is "because we can."

Surely if there IS no good reason to shut down a forum then why invent a rule whereby you can do it anyway, regardless a good reason. It throws the whole "we're not in the business of simply removing forums" into question if you have a clause in place where you simply CAN. OK it may not be good business, but you can still do it.

I feel a little intimidated questioning the big chiefs but I'm sure everyone would like to see a little clarification surrounding 25a and I'm really struggling to marry Patrick's and Craig's sentiment of good business with the sentence:- "PROBOARDS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO, IN PROBOARDS' SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY, DENY USE OF THE WEBSITE AND/OR SERVICES TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON AT ALL

Particularly the end bit.

[Blackball]

Certainly could be worded better thats for sure, I had noticed that part myself and thought it was very harsh.

Considering the work some put into there forums.
Then to be deleted for no reason at all.

If a forum isn't going to be deleted for no reason at all, why have "OR FOR NO REASON AT ALL"

[VS Admin]

What it boils down to is that it is the recommendation of our lawyers. It isn't good business for us to randomly delete forums. I don't think there is any other answer we can give you other than what has already been stated.

[zoso37]

My board was just suspended.

Can someone tell me why? And if I can, how do I reinstate it?