• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Future of the Forum

RecoveringYuppy said:
Perhaps you could tell him what he should prefer for breakfast?
...
Click to expand...
Not what he (Randi) should have for breakfast, but I'm considering a possibility that I write to him myself (politely of course). Although, in view of the way I have been treated here in my telepathy threads (in spite of some good posts), I really don't think I should be the prime person defending Randi's forum, this would be a little bit like trying to defend my worst enemies, it would not be logical. Also, I would appreciate some support, some real support for this forum as it exists now (disregarding here some technical issues), this may require, in my opinion some dialogue and discussion with the bosses, rather than magnificent texts that the bosses (perhaps) don't read.
 
Last edited:
I just read through quite a bit of this thread. As usual everybody around here seems to know about this kind of stuff before I do and everybody has more inside knowledge about what goes on around here than I do.

A few comments:

Some kind of focused forum about issues JREF thinks are important.
That sort of exists now in the comment sections to the articles on the main site. That might be about all that JREF is interested in and all they JREF would ever be interested in.

Bringing back banned people
I have favored unbanning some people for quite a while and selective unbanning seems like a good idea to me in the new forum. I kind of like the idea of charging people for the unbanning, but there are bannings that should be absolute, IMO, and I wouldn't favor charging people banned in this forum to get into the new forum.

Paid premium membership to get rid of ads
That seem exactly right to me. I didn't see why members didn't need to look at ads anyway.

Darat, Icerat and everybody else that seems to be making this happen
Awesome and thank you.

Value of the forum to skepticism education
I agree that JREF seems to significantly underestimate that. The 9/11 threads were amazing. I suspect that in no other place on the internet were 9/11 conspiracy theories dealt with in such an informed and educational way. This is true for quite a few other subjects as well. The JREF point of view might have been that this kind of thing was buried in the gunge of all the other discussions on issues they didn't want their organization associated with but their failure to acknowledge the educational aspects of the forum suggests that they didn't understand that aspect of it.

Major long term problem for a forum not affiliated with JREF
New blood. There was a synergistic relationship between the forum and JREF. JREF provided a public entity that could attract new participants and the long term forum participants provided various benefits to JREF. Although, the claim was that forum participants tended to exaggerate the benefits of the forum to JREF. Regardless, without a public persona as a face for the new forum I am concerned about its long term viability. Maybe we could get Kim Kardashian? :)

Randi
I was always disappointed to see how little Randi cared about the forum. I think he made about 12 posts total. I enjoyed his posts but at times I thought he was treated rudely for no apparent reason and he might have come away with the notion that the forum was dominated by jerks. Regardless, I am a life long fan of Randi and part of the reason I liked this forum was Randi's association with it. I have a sense of loss because of that with regard to this change, but it sounds inevitable and I am at least appreciative of Randi's willingness to continue to support it during a transition phase.
 
Last edited:
davefoc said:
Bringing back banned people
I have favored unbanning some people for quite a while and selective unbanning seems like a good idea to me in the new forum. I kind of like the idea of charging people for the unbanning, but there are bannings that should be absolute, IMO, and I wouldn't favor charging people banned in this forum to get into the new forum.
Click to expand...

The problem I see with charging people to become unbanned is that they then have a sense of entitlement with regard to future bannings. I think I would if I paid to be unbanned. How long does a payment for an unbanning last? Are you guaranteed an amount of time you are ban free? If someone pays to be unbanned and comes back at snark5 level, do we give him back his money and keep him banned? Anyway, you get the idea of the potential issues.
davefoc said:
Paid premium membership to get rid of ads
That seem exactly right to me. I didn't see why members didn't need to look at ads anyway.
Click to expand...
I do like this idea, although would pop-up blockers negate the purpose?
davefoc said:
Darat, Icerat and everybody else that seems to be making this happen
Awesome and thank you.
Click to expand...

The ratpack! :D
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
I do like this idea, although would pop-up blockers negate the purpose?
Click to expand...
I run adblock+ and noscript, and have come across some sites that require you to turn them off before they'll show you any content. I turn them off on some sites anyway, if I want to support the site and the ads aren't too obnoxious.
 
Rat said:
I run adblock+ and noscript, and have come across some sites that require you to turn them off before they'll show you any content. I turn them off on some sites anyway, if I want to support the site and the ads aren't too obnoxious.
Click to expand...


Yes, so do I for sentence one.

Only very infrequently for sentence two.

YMMV also.
 
Last edited:
Ampulla of Vater said:
The problem I see with charging people to become unbanned is that they then have a sense of entitlement with regard to future bannings. I think I would if I paid to be unbanned. How long does a payment for an unbanning last? Are you guaranteed an amount of time you are ban free? If someone pays to be unbanned and comes back at snark5 level, do we give him back his money and keep him banned? Anyway, you get the idea of the potential issues.
...
Click to expand...

I had similar thoughts and perhaps those problems make it so that in practice it wouldn't be a good idea. I do see some ways that it might work though. First, absolute bannings need to exist so that getting out of a banning for a serious breech needs to not be allowed. In particular serious breeches that occur close in time to when the individual joins the forum.

Putting a price on the cost of a less serious banning seemed to be a bit humorous to me. I could see the person's friends contributing to the cost and certainly the cost of additional unbannings would need to be increased substantially with each infraction.

As it is, the rules to be followed in the new forum will be a bit of a contentious issue for awhile. The finality of Darat's decisions and the necessity for them was always rooted in running the forum in a way compliant with what JREF wanted. When that goes, and we begin to move more towards self governance what happens? Both the spin off forums from this one that I'm aware of moved much more into a licentious direction. Will that happen here? It's mostly not what I'm looking for, although I'll be the first to admit to admit to hypocrisy on that kind of thing. If I had any sway, I'd loosen the rules a bit on civility, but not to any great extent.

We really are moving into uncharted territory here. Without a JREF connection will there still be activity in some of the conspiracy theory topics? Will the forum still attract true believers to come and test their mettle against the evil Randi groupies? Maybe JREF will continue to link to the forum and visa versa? If that happens maybe a lot of things stay the same. But what happens if there is no JREF connection whatsoever?

One alternative idea, is that the members could be given the opportunity to transfer en masse to a different ongoing skeptic forum. If that happens it is pretty hard to imagine that any sense of identity with this place will last more than a year or so. Does planet X exist on other forums?
 
Last edited:
I felt like selective unbanning was a good idea for a while, but changed my mind when I read the thread in Forum Management Feedback. Too divisive. How would the mods choose? I would like to see Marduk come back since I learned so much from his posts, but some didn't like him, and he did after all, have a lot of chances to change his ways and didn't. I'd also like to see certain troublemakers come back, since they added color, but again, who chooses?

I'm against any unbannings now.

And Randi had 56 posts total and left the forum when he made a very unfortunate mistake.
 
Last edited:
Olowkow said:
I felt like selective unbanning was a good idea for a while, but changed my mind when I read the thread in Forum Management Feedback. Too divisive. How would the mods choose? I would like to see Marduk come back since I learned so much from his posts, but some didn't like him, and he did after all, have a lot of chances to change his ways and didn't. I'd also like to see certain troublemakers come back, since they added color, but again, who chooses?

I'm against any unbannings now.

And Randi had 56 posts total and left the forum when he made a very unfortunate mistake.
Click to expand...

Nice to hear that Randi had more posts than I realized. I think I'll see if I find some of the later ones.

I suppose there were gray area bannings, but of the ones I was familiar with there was the wackos and the normal people and I thought the difference was pretty obvious, but if the forum leadership didn't believe it had my acuity at sorting the normal from the wackos it seems like objective rules about how short a membership would qualify an individual for a permanent ban would work. Also some offenses seem pretty obvious to require an absolute banning. I promised once before not to beat this dead horse again and I will try to not break my promise after this.
 
Olowkow said:
I felt like selective unbanning was a good idea for a while, but changed my mind when I read the thread in Forum Management Feedback. Too divisive. How would the mods choose? I would like to see Marduk come back since I learned so much from his posts, but some didn't like him, and he did after all, have a lot of chances to change his ways and didn't. I'd also like to see certain troublemakers come back, since they added color, but again, who chooses?

I'm against any unbannings now.
And Randi had 56 posts total and left the forum when he made a very unfortunate mistake.
Click to expand...

My view as well. There are some banned people who I like, but this cannot be a consideration. There would be more people leave the forum if unbannings happen.
 
I would say that for unbannings anyone who was banned for any rule which will be in place on the new forum (e.g. advocating suicide) should stay banned and anyone (if any exist) who was banned for a rule which may not exist at the new place (e.g. the advertising in sigs rule) should be unbanned if this applies to any banned member.
 
Last edited:
laca said:
Only if posting history goes as well. Which would be a shame. So, no.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I was - in retrospect - very unclear. What I was saying/suggesting/asking is that if someone was banned from THIS forum, could they come back to the new forum with different details, and should they be allowed to anyway?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I would say that for unbannings anyone who was banned for any rule which will be in place on the new forum (e.g. advocating suicide) should stay banned and anyone (if any exist) who was banned for a rule which may not exist at the new place (e.g. the advertising in sigs rule) should be unbanned if this applies to any banned member.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you should choose those examples. Advocating suicide is no longer an automatic banning offence (and I know of no plans to make it one when the forum has moved), yet those people banned for breaking the rule when it was still valid were not reinstated.

I'm not aware of anyone having been banned for putting an advert in their signature (outside, possibly, of straightforward spammers, who don't normally last long enough to get a sig).
 
Last edited:
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
My two cents? New forum - new members.
Click to expand...

On balance, I agree. It's possible people may have mended their ways.
Releasing the prisoners is pretty standard during revolutions.

In any case, I doubt anyone banned previously will be in a hurry to return, except for outright trolls, who will simply keep using sockpuppets anyway.

It's all fairly academic anyway. Our new Australosvensk Overlord and his team of henchpersons highly skilled moderators will decide who's in and who's out.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Sorry, I was - in retrospect - very unclear.
Click to expand...

That, or I wasn't paying enough attention to the context. Eh, well... :)

What I was saying/suggesting/asking is that if someone was banned from THIS forum, could they come back to the new forum with different details, and should they be allowed to anyway?
Click to expand...

They couldn't, unless they change the rules. As for should they be allowed to, I don't really have a preference – there's good arguments pro and contra.
 
laca said:
That, or I wasn't paying enough attention to the context. Eh, well... :)
Click to expand...

To be fair, my comment wasn't really long enough to provide any context!



laca said:
They couldn't, unless they change the rules. As for should they be allowed to, I don't really have a preference – there's good arguments pro and contra.
Click to expand...


In terms of the actual mechanics - IP ban? - does that carry over to the new forum too?
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
To be fair, my comment wasn't really long enough to provide any context!
Click to expand...

I meant the previous posts as well.

In terms of the actual mechanics - IP ban? - does that carry over to the new forum too?
Click to expand...

I don't think IP bans are actually used, they are usually easy to circumvent. I have't been following the thread carefully enough to know whether this has come up already.
 
If they are banned, how are we allowed to keep their posts on the new site?

I'd give permission to keep my old posts, but the bannanaramas don't have that opportunity.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You and they have already given permission.
Click to expand...

To whom though? And is that the same whom which will be whom is running the new place?

As a freelance writer, I am somewhat familiar with how copyright works, and unless this forum is a work for hire, copyright is usually not so easily transferable.

I'm not really worried anyone would press the case, but fair's fair.
 
zooterkin said:
... Advocating suicide is no longer an automatic banning offence .....
Click to expand...

But still against Rule 1, right? Since it is an illegal act.

....considered likelihood of inciting a violent or felonious act, or an intention or knowledge that its content will be used for, or in furtherance of, any criminal purpose.
Click to expand...
 
Rasmus said:
Where does it say that?
Click to expand...

This has been covered in several discussions. You agreed to give the JREF rights to publish your posts when you signed off on the MA. A tiny bit of legalese in the transfer of ownership and that permission can be granted to the new owners.

This covers posts, not personal details. The posts are IP and you granted copyright and copyright is transferrable.
 
Rasmus said:
Where does it say that?
Click to expand...

In the registration agreement. And Foolmewunz got one thing wrong. You didn't transfer your copyright to them, you gave them a license to your work. You still have the copyright on your post and you can use your content anyway you see fit including licensing it to someone else.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
In the registration agreement. And Foolmewunz got one thing wrong. You didn't transfer your copyright to them, you gave them a license to your work. You still have the copyright on your post and you can use your content anyway you see fit including licensing it to someone else.
Click to expand...

Actually, we said the same thing. You use "license". I used "right". It's the same thing. I didn't say he/she gave away the copyright. We all hold copyright to our writings, but we all granted permission according to the MA, which I believe says "as the JREF sees fit" or something to that effect. That PERMISSION is what the JREF can transfer (e.g. "is transferrable") quite easily. If it wasn't easy then any time a magazine or newspaper or publisher is sold, all the copyrighted material would be in a ridiculous state of limbo.
 
Olowkow said:
But still against Rule 1, right? Since it is an illegal act.
Click to expand...

What is an illegal act? Suicide? Not where I live, and not in the US, as far as I can tell.

You are still likely to be moderated for advocating suicide (depending on context, and the usual caveats), and the action could include suspension or even banning; what has changed is that you will not automatically be banned for it.
 
Here's the relevant paragraph from the MA:
"Any post or article published on the JREF forum by a Member is the copyright of the Member and may not be reproduced, copied or otherwise re-published without the express permission of the Member. By posting on the Forum a Member grants the JREF a non-exclusive licence to publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity. The James Randi Educational Foundation is the copyright holder of the JREF Forum."

Banned members would have to give permission to a new forum owner to publish their posts. The copyright cannot simply be transferred in the manner suggested unless that is covered elsewhere in the MA.

Wishing it otherwise will not make it so.
 
marplots said:
Here's the relevant paragraph from the MA:
"Any post or article published on the JREF forum by a Member is the copyright of the Member and may not be reproduced, copied or otherwise re-published without the express permission of the Member. By posting on the Forum a Member grants the JREF a non-exclusive licence to publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity. The James Randi Educational Foundation is the copyright holder of the JREF Forum."

Banned members would have to give permission to a new forum owner to publish their posts. The copyright cannot simply be transferred in the manner suggested unless that is covered elsewhere in the MA.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer, but, as Foolmewunz has already said, I think you are missing the distinction between transferring the copyright (which is not being done; the member making a post still holds that, which is what the first sentence you quoted from the MA says) and giving the JREF a licence to publish the work (which is what the second sentence quoted is about).
 
zooterkin said:
I am not a lawyer, but, as Foolmewunz has already said, I think you are missing the distinction between transferring the copyright (which is not being done; the member making a post still holds that, which is what the first sentence you quoted from the MA says) and giving the JREF a licence to publish the work (which is what the second sentence quoted is about).
Click to expand...

Unless the MA says differently somewhere, licence transfer (permission to publish) is non-transferable. A company cannot even take content from print and put it online without permission - see recent lawsuit settlement here: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...hears-arguments-in-tasini-copyright-case.html

Arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court March 28 in the copyright infringement case of Tasini v. The New York Times, Laurence Tribe, attorney for the publishers, was glib, quick-witted and creative in arguing that under a disputed section of the 1976 copyright act, publishers did not need explicit permission to use the work of thousands of freelance contributors in electronic databases.
Click to expand...

The publishers lost. The default is to get permission and unless transfer permission is specifically given, it cannot happen unilaterally.

Naturally, all this may be moot until some previously banned member files a DCMA...
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
What is an illegal act? Suicide? Not where I live, and not in the US, as far as I can tell.

You are still likely to be moderated for advocating suicide (depending on context, and the usual caveats), and the action could include suspension or even banning; what has changed is that you will not automatically be banned for it.
Click to expand...

Learn something new every day. I grew up believing "attempted suicide" was a crime. It seems it used to be, and I wasn't paying attention to changes.

By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but every state had laws declaring it to be a felony to aid, advise or encourage another person to commit suicide.[22] By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification.[citation needed] In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries.
Click to expand...
 
marplots said:
Unless the MA says differently somewhere, licence transfer (permission to publish) is non-transferable. A company cannot even take content from print and put it online without permission - see recent lawsuit settlement here: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...hears-arguments-in-tasini-copyright-case.html



The publishers lost. The default is to get permission and unless transfer permission is specifically given, it cannot happen unilaterally.

Naturally, all this may be moot until some previously banned member files a DCMA...
Click to expand...


The facts of that case are not comparable at all to the current forum situation with the forum and the case has no application to the forum situation. The publisher there was trying to argue "that under a disputed section of the 1976 copyright act, publishers did not need explicit permission to use the work [of freelance writers]" by selling them to others for republishing in electronic format, without compensation to the writers, when the publishers had only a licence to publish the articles in print form and no licence to sell them to others for republishing in electronic form. In the case of the forum, members have already given the JREF permission to "publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity".

Apples and oranges sea otters.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
Here's the relevant paragraph from the MA:
"Any post or article published on the JREF forum by a Member is the copyright of the Member and may not be reproduced, copied or otherwise re-published without the express permission of the Member. By posting on the Forum a Member grants the JREF a non-exclusive licence to publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity. The James Randi Educational Foundation is the copyright holder of the JREF Forum."

Banned members would have to give permission to a new forum owner to publish their posts. The copyright cannot simply be transferred in the manner suggested unless that is covered elsewhere in the MA.

Wishing it otherwise will not make it so.
Click to expand...

"Banned members" were merely "members" when they gave their permission for everything they posted to be used in perpetuity by the JREF as the JREF saw fit. The fact that they are no longer members does not remove the right they gave the JREF when they were members.

Ward
 
LashL said:
In the case of the forum, members have already given the JREF permission to "publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity".
Click to expand...

But the JREF isn't going to publish, republish or reproduce the work of the posters. They are transferring to somebody else who will then publish it.

Nobody gave Icerat permission to do anything with the posts.
 
The JREF will re publish most of the current forum content on the new forum. The new forum will have no rights over that content, the JREF is not transferring its licence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom