serious concerns re: mfk that everyone should see

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
iscariot said:
i think it is interesting that all of the staff here just accuse me of putting down the site for asking this question.... all i really want is a promise from the top dog that he/she wont ever use what we post without getting our permission first.

and its not standard legalese.... i used to have a vbulletin forum and it didnt say that when you installed it.. it has been added..

and damn it i am not trolling anybody.. i hate being accused of things im not even doing. i used aquatic predators as an example just like grim reefers and water wolves. it doesnt mean that i am staff there or something ok?
Click to expand...
ALL?? I am Staff and I never said your put down the site Please point out where I said that. I ALSO HATE BEING ACCUSED of things I NEVER SAID or DID! So do your self a favor and listen to your own words.
 
redtailfool said:
Also, its such a coincidence that moderators from other sites just "happened " to stumble on this thread. Coincidence? I think not.
Click to expand...
I have no idea who iscariot is, but I can shed some light on the presence of some WW staff. It's no coincidence, but not for the reason you think. The real reason is that WW is down for maintenance right now so we have no place else to go and are anxious to chat about fish! :(
 
icthyophile said:
Most of the member agreement seems like standard boilerplate to me with one notable exception--the $5,000 liquidated damages clause. That doesn't worry me though, because I have no intention of getting banned and then re-registering under an alias. Also, such a clause is likely legally unenforceable for two reasons: 1) the liquidated damages amount bears no relation to the probable amount of actual damage, if any, suffered by the site due to a banned member re-registering under an alias and 2) many of the members of this site, as with any online forum, are minors who are, as a matter of law, incompetent to enter into a binding agreement. That said, there's nothing to worry about, folks. :)
Click to expand...
ya, you essentially have the right idea.

the idea is to protect the site and site owners from being sued.

the clauses involving members being sued is unenforceable. it falls into the same category as software EULAs, the disclaimers that people put on filesharing networks, and the agreements you sign when you go do something dangerous (ie - skydiving) or have a medical procedure done.

for example, in the contract you sign when skydiving, a typical clause states that you cannot sue them for negligence if you go to pull your chute and pots and pans fly out. it is simply unenforceable. there are many documented cases that have been overturned in courts of law to the same effect.

so it is simply this, the site is protecting themselves from being sued, your rights are not affected whatsoever.
 
icthyophile said:
I have no idea who iscariot is, but I can shed some light on the presence of some WW staff. It's no coincidence, but not for the reason you think. The real reason is that WW is down for maintenance right now so we have no place else to go and are anxious to chat about fish! :(
Click to expand...

And we're more than happy to have you here Jesse and to anyone else who would like to come and talk about fish here when their sites are down.

But like all sites, when you go to someone elses house to play, you play nice and under house rules.

Now Let's talk fish! this fishless discussion is getting me deperessed. :(
 
i know that eulas and software licenses have been enforced before - even if they havent been in all venues where they have been tried....... and also it doesnt matter to me whether or not it can be enforced.. i just want to be really really sure there are no ulterior motives... some of these pix i spent hours and hours getting the focus and light right on.

is jesse icythophile?? and is he staff here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom