FORUM RULES: The Great American Guide... Disagree Without being Disagreeable.

[goodlife]

If I were to say I think person XXXXX is a racist, hatemonger, drug addict or something like that I could be banned if that turned out to be someone on Sean's list. So I want to know who I have to treat with kid gloves and who I can be honest about if I have strong feelings about them.

Rush
Mark
Ollie

lets start there.

[tislaw]

How about this? For those that cannot abstain from belittling others, thereby belittling themselves it comes down to this......

You can only attack what they say or how they say it (even their appearance), not their personal lives.

In other words, those of you who've called Anne Coulter a man, or Man Anne, etc., that'll stand......because it is apart of their public persona

But you do not use their personal lives as a base for your attack.

In other words:

Drug addiction and Rush is not an acceptable reference.....

Criminal and Ollie is not an acceptable reference........

Adulterer and Newt it not an acceptable reference.........

Get the theme here?

Saying Rush is a blowhard.........acceptable.......

Ollie is ignorant......acceptable.

Newt was the world's worst Speaker of the House....acceptable.....

[goodlife]

Sigh...I find it irritating that we even feel somewhat of a need to provide a list.
In all actuality there is no OFFICIAL list. It's strictly up to us and precisely why I said everything would be on a case by case basis. There won't likely be any TO's or bans due to anything regarding this subject. There WILL likely be some posts deleted.
I am hoping that people will simply maintain some sense of general human decency. I do realize however that this isn't going to happen as people just can't seem to help themselves.
I have chosen to leave the rule, the list, the whole topic rather VAGUE quite on purpose. The more defined it is, the more restrictive it is. The more pushing for boundaries, the tighter those boundaries become. I do not like that.

So let's try again shall we.
We have removed the CoA rule. It no longer exists.
The exceptions are Rush and Ollie.

[Lee Kington]

REMINDER & HEADS UP:

Historically two positions / policies for these forums have been (but not limited to):

1)These are DISCUSSION forums and not here to replace Drudge, Google News, etc. Posts, especially thread starters are not valid if they are just a link or just a link with a quip and no discussion of specific content.

2)We respect copyright law. Reproduction of complete or significant portion of material from an outside source is not acceptable and will be removed from the boards. Fair-Use of copyrighted material is, in reality, quite specific to a very limited amount and only that which is directly discussed, etc. All acceptable amount of quoted material must clearly identify the source and provide a link to that source.

Of the two issues, the latter is more problematic and serious as a violation. In the past the LA Times and Washington Post successfully sued Free Republic for copyright infringement. Currently they, Free Republic, are being sued again by others who have also just filed suit against the Democratic Underground. The plaintiffs in the case are, quite admittedly, making a business out of suing those who infringe upon copyrighted material which they own the rights to. They WILL be suing others. Many others.

We could provide a list of news outlets involved and stress avoiding them. However, regardless of source copyright law must be observed and respected relevant to all sources.

A reminder.

We do NOT want to see an increase in situation #1.

We will remove, not edit but remove, any post containing all or a significant portion of copyrighted material, or any quoted material not directly and specifically commented on, or any quoted material without clearly named source, or any quoted material without a provided link, without warning regarding situation #2.

As always it is essential that the Moderator Staff, while facilitating good discussion, protect the boards, our HOST, and the corporation. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

NOTE:

Limitations on Postings
You agree that you will not:

• Deliver any posting that infringes or violates any intellectual property or other right of any entity or person, including, without limitation, copyrights, patents, trademarks, laws governing trade secrets, rights to privacy, or publicity.

LINK / INTERACTIVE SERVICE ADDITIONAL TERMS

[Lee Kington]

REMINDER & HEADS UP:

Historically two positions / policies for these forums have been (but not limited to):

1)These are DISCUSSION forums and not here to replace Drudge, Google News, etc. Posts, especially thread starters are not valid if they are just a link or just a link with a quip and no discussion of specific content.

2)We respect copyright law. Reproduction of complete or significant portion of material from an outside source is not acceptable and will be removed from the boards. Fair-Use of copyrighted material is, in reality, quite specific to a very limited amount and only that which is directly discussed, etc. All acceptable amount of quoted material must clearly identify the source and provide a link to that source.

Of the two issues, the latter is more problematic and serious as a violation. In the past the LA Times and Washington Post successfully sued Free Republic for copyright infringement. Currently they, Free Republic, are being sued again by others who have also just filed suit against the Democratic Underground. The plaintiffs in the case are, quite admittedly, making a business out of suing those who infringe upon copyrighted material which they own the rights to. They WILL be suing others. Many others.

We could provide a list of news outlets involved and stress avoiding them. However, regardless of source copyright law must be observed and respected relevant to all sources.

A reminder.

We do NOT want to see an increase in situation #1.

We will remove, not edit but remove, any post containing all or a significant portion of copyrighted material, or any quoted material not directly and specifically commented on, or any quoted material without clearly named source, or any quoted material without a provided link, without warning regarding situation #2.

As always it is essential that the Moderator Staff, while facilitating good discussion, protect the boards, our HOST, and the corporation. Your cooperation will be appreciated.

NOTE:

Limitations on Postings
You agree that you will not:

• Deliver any posting that infringes or violates any intellectual property or other right of any entity or person, including, without limitation, copyrights, patents, trademarks, laws governing trade secrets, rights to privacy, or publicity.

LINK / INTERACTIVE SERVICE ADDITIONAL TERMS

[WildRose]

If we pull a quote, and post the link to the source of that quote together is that attribution enough?

[Lee Kington]

If we pull a quote, and post the link to the source of that quote together is that attribution enough?

1) Limited (very limited) amount of material.
2) Content of material must be directly and specifically addressed.
3) Source must be named.
4) Link must be provided.

-----------------------------------

As we discuss glaciers it is essential to note temperatures are not the only factor in regards to their advance or retreat. In this article a caution is made that they cannot be used as a simple gauge of the climate and are susceptible to regional or local influences. Glaciers very near each other can be changing in totally different directions / states.

I stated above; Glaciers are not a simple gauge which one can use to claim unusual warming or temperatures greater than those of the past. As you can see from my examples, in the same geographical area some glaciers can be retreating, while others, advance.

MY CLIMATE BUZZ / The Story Of Glaciers / LINK

[animalnut]

Excuse me for being dense, Lee, but is it okay to link to an article that is copyrighted? (As long as commentary describing the article is included)?

[darknessesedge]

I am confused.
My farmers thread had the correct link and my comments on the article, but you removed it.
what did I do wrong?

[Lee Kington]

Excuse me for being dense, Lee, but is it okay to link to an article that is copyrighted? (As long as commentary describing the article is included)?

Yes, provided as you noted that actual specific content of the article is discussed in the post. (quips are not discussion)

[Lee Kington]

I am confused.
My farmers thread had the correct link and my comments on the article, but you removed it.
what did I do wrong?

Extensive / full content of copyrighted material.

Reproduce only a SMALL amount (150 words or so) and that content MUST be directly and specifically discussed.

What is directly / specifically?

In the example I posted for WildRose...

As we discuss glaciers it is essential to note temperatures are not the only factor in regards to their advance or retreat. In this article a caution is made that they cannot be used as a simple gauge of the climate and are susceptible to regional or local influences. Glaciers very near each other can be changing in totally different directions / states.


Had my comments been something like this:

Last week the Petermann glacier in Greenland calved dropping a chunk of ice four times the size of Manhattan into the sea.

THEN... the material I quoted:

I stated above; Glaciers are not a simple gauge which one can use to claim unusual warming or temperatures greater than those of the past. As you can see from my examples, in the same geographical area some glaciers can be retreating, while others, advance.

MY CLIMATE BUZZ / The Story Of Glaciers / LINK

would not be relevant, thus, not permitted.

[darknessesedge]

Extensive / full content of copyrighted material.

Reproduce only a SMALL amount (150 words or so) and that content MUST be directly and specifically discussed.

What is directly / specifically?

In the example I posted for WildRose...

As we discuss glaciers it is essential to note temperatures are not the only factor in regards to their advance or retreat. In this article a caution is made that they cannot be used as a simple gauge of the climate and are susceptible to regional or local influences. Glaciers very near each other can be changing in totally different directions / states.


Had my comments been something like this:

Last week the Petermann glacier in Greenland calved dropping a chunk of ice four times the size of Manhattan into the sea.

THEN... the material I quoted would not be relevant, thus, not permitted.

ok..sorry..wont happen again...

[Dr. Funkenstein]

This doesn't seem difficult...

Links to copyrighted material (which most articles from news sites would be)- okay, provided you've also discussed the content of the material.

Copying and pasting a paragraph from said material- okay, again, provided you're discussing it and not just posting it on its own

Copying and pasting an entire article- not okay, regardless of whether the link is provided.

Copying and pasting any part of the article without the link- not okay

The only question I have is this...once the link to the copyrighted material has been established (i.e. the OP follows the rules), are we allowed to pull a quote from the piece without linking back to it, or does each post require a link?

Also, would "this would seem to speak for itself" followed by a quote from an OP's linked article be an acceptable response?

[Lee Kington]

The only question I have is this...once the link to the copyrighted material has been established (i.e. the OP follows the rules), are we allowed to pull a quote from the piece without linking back to it, or does each post require a link?

Each post must stand on its own. Therefore, each post must contain attribution and link.

Also, would "this would seem to speak for itself" followed by a quote from an OP's linked article be an acceptable response?

That is a quip and NOT discussion of content therefore unacceptable.

[Vaard]

yeah, this will get worse as news companies start moving towards pay access for their sites to offset the revenue being lost by people not buying hard copies of their work.......

which leads me to my question.......

what are the protocols for sites that you have to pay to access their stories/articles?


will they be the same as listed in the op or more restictive?