[DocJohn]

Two things to be real clear about--

1. NOBODY GETS BANNED FOR VIOLATING A GUIDELINE ONCE. Nobody. Ever. We're not trigger-happy on the banning or suspensions. You will get a PM. You do it again, you'll probably just get another PM (depends on the circumstances and such). Do it a third time, yes, we're going to start getting a little annoyed and start talking about a suspension for a day or something.

2. Not sure what the point about talking about administrative issues in public serves. We administer the forums private, mostly through PMs to individual members. PMs are, to me, like email -- you don't share them with others unless you have permission.

The point of this guideline is that we don't want to get into long, drawn-out discussions for every little administrative action. I don't appreciate constant second-guessing of decisions (as, I suspect, most people don't), and since I can't predict how much second-guessing there will be (although I have a sense of it already), it's best to just make it a simple constant.

The best part about all of this? THE GUIDELINES ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION! Make a case for why this guideline shouldn't be there, and I'm happy to listen.

Hence, this thread.

Thanks,
John

Originally Posted by DocJohn

Two things to be real clear about--

1. NOBODY GETS BANNED FOR VIOLATING A GUIDELINE ONCE. Nobody. Ever. We're not trigger-happy on the banning or suspensions. You will get a PM. You do it again, you'll probably just get another PM (depends on the circumstances and such). Do it a third time, yes, we're going to start getting a little annoyed and start talking about a suspension for a day or something.

since the guidelines don't say this, how would anyone know?

Originally Posted by DocJohn

2. Not sure what the point about talking about administrative issues in public serves. We administer the forums private, mostly through PMs to individual members. PMs are, to me, like email -- you don't share them with others unless you have permission.

The point of this guideline is that we don't want to get into long, drawn-out discussions for every little administrative action. I don't appreciate constant second-guessing of decisions (as, I suspect, most people don't), and since I can't predict how much second-guessing there will be (although I have a sense of it already), it's best to just make it a simple constant.

I totally agree - but then why is second guessing decisions made on other forums allowed?

Originally Posted by DocJohn

The best part about all of this? THE GUIDELINES ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION! Make a case for why this guideline shouldn't be there, and I'm happy to listen.

Hence, this thread.

Thanks,
John

I have already posted my objection to the ability of moderators to just end threads which are neither hostile, abusive, or containing personal attacks.

I believe if one is going to belong to a forum they should abide by the TOS, and the ability of moderators to just do that isn't something I am comfortable with.

Hence, my request to have my membership deleted. I have deleted all posts that I can except in this thread. The others are in threads which have been locked. Please delete my membership and those threads.

At the time those posts were made, locking threads wasn't done or permitted, and I would rather not have those posts remaining if I am not a member.

Thank you for your efforts. I think many people will be quite happy with the TOS you have outlined. I am just not one of them - and I think one should be willing to abide by the rules in order to be a member.

[DocJohn]

Understood and I appreciate your feedback.

[Thelma]

Does this not sound more accurate


The purpose of our Community is simple -- it's devoted to support for the neurological and mental health of all of our membes as well as any related health issues. In that veinof support you should endeavor to be civil and treat others as you expect to be treated

than this

The purpose of our Community is simple -- it's devoted to support for neurological health, mental health and related health issues. In that vein, you should be civil and treat others as you expect to be treated

the followig statement needs to be elaborated upon to include your current changes as to this forum being included

such as

Soliciting others to join comparable health communities.

Soliciting others to join another online mental health community

Then again that is such an overbearing statement of almost ownership of an individual that maybe should be eliminated

[Rocking4Epilepsy]

In MY opinion if a mod is rude to a member or fellow mod YES if you see this a PM should be sent to either Kimmy or Doc.
Just because we are mods doesn't give us any special treatment and we need to obide by the same rules. We are still members too

Hugs

[mrsD]

Many of us posted in the past using the guidelines from OBT...

Which were, if you sited and quoted the author you could post copyrighted
materials. Many of us who are more medically oriented did this alot.

In your guidelines:

Copyrighted materials that you do not own the rights to

For example, I have a membership to a great science magazine called
Science News. www.sciencenews.org

Right on their articles is a permission to "email this to a friend" statement.
When I post copies for people, I quote the link, and "quote" the article.

Using copyrighited materials with the INTENT of making them your own words,
does infringe on copywrite,esp to make $$.. But quoting, and using "fair use" ....
Is that allowable here? I am unclear and confused.
example:
http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

[The Crystal Cave]

Originally Posted by mrsd

Many of us posted in the past using the guidelines from OBT...

Which were, if you sited and quoted the author you could post copyrighted
materials. Many of us who are more medically oriented did this alot.

In your guidelines:


For example, I have a membership to a great science magazine called
Science News. www.sciencenews.org

Right on their articles is a permission to "email this to a friend" statement.
When I post copies for people, I quote the link, and "quote" the article.

Using copyrighited materials with the INTENT of making them your own words,
does infringe on copywrite,esp to make $$.. But quoting, and using "fair use" ....
Is that allowable here? I am unclear and confused.
example:
http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

I don't recall having seen guidelines or TOS that gave permission to use copyrighted materials. But that is of no matter; the only person or entity that can give permission is the owner of the copyright (which is not always the author or creator of the work). In cases where permission is granted, the author is credited and the source is cited when it is reproduced.

Dr. John is the keeper of the guidelines, and I am not in any way interpreting them for him. I offer the following as general information only.

One of the most misunderstood provisions of copyright law deals with fair use.

"Fair use" refers to copying and using a SMALL PORTION of a work without permission. What consititutes fair use changes from situation to situation, depending on the piece of work, on how much will be taken, and on what the "fair use" material will be used for. Fair use might be a paragraph, a page or a sentence. Fair use is awash in gray areas, but one thing is clear.

Fair use is most assuredly not a provision that allows people to use/reproduce/copy an entire work as long as there's a promise not to make money or plagiarize (claim ownership).

"Quoting" an article means citing a piece of it and setting that piece off in quotation marks. Quite acceptable (within reason) when the source is cited. That's different from pasting an entire article, which - if not in the public domain or covered by permission - is a copyright violation.

Copyright violation is unauthorized use – appropriation – of someone else's article, poem, photography, music, intellectual property, creative works, art, etc. Theft. Illegal. Period.

Using a Web site link that allows an article to be sent to an individual via a link set up for that purpose cannot in any way be construed as being related to copyright.

From the link you posted above (by the Franklin Pierce Law Center):

User's Risks -- The Bottom Line

"Those who copy others' text are ever more easily found with search engines. Titles, markers and the like may also enable owners to locate improper copies of sounds or images.

Copyright law precludes most uses of others' works without explicit or implied permission. Because some uses are okay, people often ask which uses are okay. Such questions often miss the point. The most important risk is not of liability, it is of suit."

In the context of a medical article for use on a forum, it is a far better choice and very wise to post a summary statement (or the first paragraph or two), followed by a link to the entire article. As for pasting an entire article, the basic rule to follow is, "No permission? No post."

(Information, by the way, cannot be copyrighted. I can write an entire book around the alphabet. The book is mine, the writing is mine, they cannot be copied, but the alphabet is there for the picking. Anyone is free to use published information.)

TCC

[DocJohn]

Yes, we will make an exception for such copying and pasting here, because for educational purposes, you can legally do so.

Originally Posted by mrsd

Many of us posted in the past using the guidelines from OBT...

Which were, if you sited and quoted the author you could post copyrighted
materials. Many of us who are more medically oriented did this alot.

In your guidelines:


For example, I have a membership to a great science magazine called
Science News. www.sciencenews.org

Right on their articles is a permission to "email this to a friend" statement.
When I post copies for people, I quote the link, and "quote" the article.

Using copyrighited materials with the INTENT of making them your own words,
does infringe on copywrite,esp to make $$.. But quoting, and using "fair use" ....
Is that allowable here? I am unclear and confused.
example:
http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/copynet.htm

[trekker]

DocJohn

I have read the guidelines and they appear to cover the concerns I've had about getting involved with this site. I am also a member of BT1 but didn't get as involved as I have been on this site. I do have one question and it involves "triggers". I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could someone explain it to me and also where do you get the trigger icon?

[snoozie]

Originally Posted by trekker

DocJohn

I have read the guidelines and they appear to cover the concerns I've had about getting involved with this site. I am also a member of BT1 but didn't get as involved as I have been on this site. I do have one question and it involves "triggers". I'm not sure what you mean by that. Could someone explain it to me and also where do you get the trigger icon?

I also would like some more information about "trigger" I had no idea that certain topics or pictures of food could be a trigger. I am learning here too. I can't find the red X either. I would never want something I may post to cause someone else any problem. Thanks, Sue