=][= TERMS OF USE and SITE RULES (CORRECTIVE ACTION) UPDATED =][=

[Brother Tyler]

We have made some updates to both our TERMS OF USE and the CORRECTIVE ACTION section of our FORUM RULES.

 

The previous terms of use were woefully inadequate, being mostly a welcome to the site and links to our social media platforms. There was also an outdated note about the account approval process. The intent of a Terms of Use (different sites use different names) is to outline the basic terms that users agree to follow when participating at a site. The key, of course, is the forum rules. We have made no substantive changes to the forum rules except in the area of the corrective action, described below. Otherwise, the terms of use were simply expanded to include more relevant information. While phrased in a legalistic fashion (common for terms of use), we kept it brief. The details are in the forum rules.

 

Our corrective action system has been updated based on new capabilities in the site software and observations of inadequacies in our previous system.

 

The key inadequacy was that members could game the system, accruing warning points, but behaving only so long as necessary to avoid escalating discipline until the warning points expired. This basically resulted in long-term misbehavior. So we have included provisions for considering previous warnings for similar misbehavior in determining the consequences for misbehavior.

 

In addition, members with 2-4 active warning points were suspended previously, but will now be temporarily banned (for the same periods of time as before: 3/7/14 days). What we have observed is that members that were suspended were misbehaving while on suspension, using reactions in malicious ways. The whole point of the suspension was to prevent further misbehavior, giving such members time to "cool off" and return to the site refreshed and (hopefully) willing to abide by the community standards. Since suspension allows for continued misbehavior, we had to shift to temporary bans. Members that are temporarily banned can still review site content by viewing the site as a Guest (i.e., not logging in), but they can no longer misbehave during their forced break from the site.

 

Any instance of abusive behavior will now result in the loss of 1 achievement point. Abusive behavior is deliberate disrespectful treatment of other members of the community. While all infraction types are unacceptable, abusive behavior is the most disruptive and antisocial, creating the most toxicity at the site and within the community. The loss of 1 achievement point may result in a demotion in rank (e.g., from Veteran to Battle-Brother).

 

In addition, members may lose achievement points and rank for continued misbehavior. This is based on the total number of active warning points a member has (including the warning point accrued for the current incident) as well as all expired warning points for the same type of infraction. The higher the number, the worse the consequences.

 

While we have always reserved the right to impose increased penalties based on the severity of the infraction, we've codified some basic expectations. For example, if a member ever accumulates 5 total warning points (active and expired) for the same type of infraction, they have demonstrated that they are unwilling/unable to follow the site rules and will be permanently banned. Similarly, if a member ever accrues 10 total warning points (active and expired) for all types of infractions, they have similarly demonstrated their unwillingness/inability to follow the site rules and will be permanently banned.

 

Members that have been permanently banned continue to have the option to request reinstatement as a + PENITENT +, which has changed from a title to a user group (which is exactly like the + FRATER DOMUS + group, but it has its own badge). As before + PENITENT + members are in a probationary status and must demonstrate their willingness to abide by the site rules in order to remain members of the community.

 

Lastly, we've clarified that members submitting REPORTS must provide a description of the perceived problem in the report. We have received multiple reports in which the reporting member didn't provide an explanation for the report. While some of those reports were for issues that were readily apparent, some were unclear. Providing a description of the perceived problem helps the staff to focus on the specific problematic issues.

 

This has been a basic rundown of the updates. While you had to agree to the updated Terms of Use before being able to view the site again, you can always review them here; and you can read the full update to the Corrective Action section of the site rules here.

[Brother Tyler]

Before anyone asks, no, we're not going to retroactively adjust anyone's achievement points/ranks based on the update. Everything done before the update remains in effect. Discipline enacted henceforth, however, will follow the updated rules.

[Brother Tyler]

It should go without saying, but if you have any questions or concerns, please post them here. We are definitely open to discussion on this.

[Kastor Krieg]

While I understand the need for visibility, I'm reasonably certain this was not at all the Team's intent. The milk has already been spilled.

However, my immediate reception to the non-skippable placard was that forcing acceptance of the new terms prior to continued access to the site and prior to even being able to discuss them at all (and therefore ensuring a forced, not agreed to, commitment to compliance) felt very much like a "rules have changed overnight, accept this fact or do not return" kind of a message. That has a very authoritarian vibe, leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Some consideration towards messaging and the outlook of such access-limiting interaction, especially when sprung upon us as a surprise, would surely have been warranted beforehand.

Doing this via a highlighted post on top of each subforum (the "announcement" functionality) and stating, for example, "These new rules will go into effect no sooner than within 2 weeks, on 00:00:01 GMT 10 Apr 2023, unless delayed further by Administrative choice - in the meantime, please discuss these changes +HERE+ (link)" would have been the way I'd handle this. Not that unskippable thing :|

[Brother Tyler]

That is a very fair request and we will do that in the future.

[The Yncarne]

IIRC the copy did say T&Cs can change at any time. 
 

I do appreciate the plain language and brevity of the updated T&Cs.

[Kastor Krieg]

3 hours ago, Brother Tyler said:

That is a very fair request and we will do that in the future.

Excellent, very much appreciated :)

[Kastor Krieg]

@khornestar

Care to elaborate?

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

Very much appreciate you being responsive to Krieg's suggestion, Brother Tyler.  I was wondering if you could break down what this passage means a little more clearly--it's possible this was in the old terms too but I'd love to know what this means in practice:

 

"You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content."

 

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by Inquisitor Eisenhorn

[Kastor Krieg]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

"You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content."

It means nothing, as it's legally non-binding, especially in EU. Especially the irrevocability and re-publishing of content. And especially without renumeration.

But it is concerning and has the airs of the recent WotC attempt at being able to do what they want to with user-created content under nu-OGL.

Even they had to back out of that one.

 

Again - I kind of understand the intention, but the optics are poor, to say the least. The mere fact of posting something on plastic dude forums cannot be unilaterally construed to become a broad, sweeping, "permanent, unlimited and irrevocable license to use, publish and re-publish" something I posted - be it text, images of our miniatures, images of art we drew, stories and others.

It just doesn't work that way, if B&C wants all that, please pay us for the content. If B&C wish to limit the license to "hosting, viewing, displaying the Content in the manner and context it was originally published, with the ability of the author to withdraw / delete the content at any time, after which the right to host/view/display ceases", then possibly fair.

As stated, that phrase allows B&C to take a story I wrote and publish it for money. It allows them to take a Marine flag design and put it on merch. It allows B&C to rewrite, redraw and rehash our art in any way B&C would like to. It even allows them to reinstate content we've intentionally deleted and wanted gone from the site, without our ability to disagree to that.

 

There is absolutely no need for such widely cast right to use and re-use of our "Content". It's phrasing is borderline abusive and a massive overreach.

The idea that "we can do all that, but you retain your Copyright" is just... No, dudes, you just said you literally own the copyright to my work once it's posted.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Kastor Krieg

[Brother Tyler]

No. It just means that we can promote (i.e., re-post) members' content on our social media sites and elsewhere on the B&C along the lines of, "Hey, look at this great stuff by Kastor Krieg." And it literally says that you retain your copyright.

 

And ultimately, since just about everything here is derivative of subject matter for which Games Workshop owns the copyright, there's nothing we can do with stuff anyways. Nothing here makes anyone any money (definitely not the B&C).

 

And if you really think that we should be renumerating members for the content that they submit, we'll have to start charging members to participate in the site. How much are you willing to pay to both keep the site running (about $2,000 per year for hosting, licenses for capabilities, and maintenance) and to renumerate everyone for their content?

 

You are seriously misinterpreting and overreacting.

 

However, if you really are bothered by the terms of use and don't agree with them, let me know and I'll take care of things.

[Kastor Krieg]

I'm not saying you should pay us. I'm saying that you guys used several legal terms which are either not binding at all in this context, not binding without renumeration and / or in direct conflict with the statement of "retaining copyright". 

Copyright law is very different between the US and the EU, and more so between US and some of EU's constituent countries (e.g. Poland where I live and create my content).

What I'm trying to convey is that creating and enforcing something like what was stated above, in this form and phrasing, is nigh impossible. And it may turn away users concerned about what will be done without their input with what they post on the Forum.

[RWJP]

18 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

or in direct conflict with the statement of "retaining copyright". 

Nothing in the statement you originally highlighted is in direct conflict with retaining your own copyright.

You, as a copyright holder, can grant as many licenses as you want to as many different people as you want for as many different rights as you wish to grant, while still maintaining copyright. Granting a license to someone does not remove your own rights, unless in the license you specifically agree to that.

In this scenario, you are granting B&C a license that allows them to publish your content in things like hotlinking, or sharing on social media. You have not granted them any other rights. You still retain all your own copyrights, you are free to still sell your content, post your content elsewhere, make derivatives etc etc etc. You still have all of those rights, while also granting B&C limited rights to perform certain functions. The B&C TOU does not at any point state that you are entirely waiving your own rights. In fact, it does the opposite and specifically states you retain your rights.

[Khornestar]

18 hours ago, Kastor Krieg said:

@khornestar

Care to elaborate?

Nope.

[Brother Tyler]

When you say that members should be renumerated [by the B&C] for content they submit, you're saying that we should pay you. If that's not what you mean, say what you mean in a more accurate manner. Words mean things.

 

The wording of the terms is similar to, and derived from, Terms found at a variety of other websites. We looked at existing terms from other websites, big and small, to find something that worked for the B&C. These include:

• DakkaDakka & YakTribe (2 other fan sites that are probably familiar to most of us)
• reddit
• Quora
• Discord
• Board Game Geek

We also looked at terms for other websites, but as businesses, their terms were much more legalistic and not quite as suitable for our needs. Admittedly, the Board Game Geek's terms were also much more legalistic because that website has a business arm and is a limited liability company. Similarly, some of the other sites whose terms we studied were also monetized, so those aspects of their terms were not considered for our own.

 

We opted for a shorter set of terms, modeled after YakTribe's. All of these sites are similar in that they are primarily discussion forums, though some have additional capabilities (Board Game Geek is notable for having a large database of content related to board games, so that site's Terms are much more expansive and cover Intellectual Property owners such as designers, artists, and publishers). All of the sites are similar in that members that submit content retain legal ownership over the content for which they have legal intellectual property rights (based on whatever country they are in), but by submitting content to the site they are allowing the site to use that content in certain manners. In the case of the B&C, pretty much everything is derivative work created based on IP that is owned by Games Workshop. While members retain copyright ownership of whatever content they submit (insofar as they might have any), the community will use that content as it sees fit and as is legal. For example, we can't publish anyone's work (e.g., in print) without their express permission, but that's largely because GW owns the copyright and we can't publish anything anyways except as freely available digital files. Even then, "we" also covers the community as a whole and allows for things like moving content (i.e., within our information architecture such as categories, forums, albums, etc.), quoting, etc. All you see in the terms of use is a codification of how things have been since the site's creation. This protects the site from litigation over things like members having their content moved around or quoted or other silliness. It doesn't in any way take away from the members. Neither the B&C nor the members, after all, can publish any content for money except insofar as Games Workshop allows, and members' retention of copyright over anything they submit means that even with GW's consent, the B&C can't take that work and monetize it in any way.

 

Do you have specific examples of concerns? After all, there might be some changes we can make to make things more clear in our terms (but the basic concepts will remain the same).

[Xenith]

On 2/25/2023 at 12:07 PM, Kastor Krieg said:

I'm not saying you should pay us.

 

On 2/25/2023 at 12:38 AM, Kastor Krieg said:

please pay us

 

 

I do think you're overracting. As BT says, the goal is to be able to show off B&C member's work on our media streams. A small line that allows us to work with you in this won't turn people away unless it gets blown way out of proporotion by people. 

[NovemberIX]

Quote

"You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content."

 

I too would like to see a more clarity and definition regarding this statement. The intent to publish and re-publish for social media is great, but "use" is very broad, especially coupled with permanent, irrevocable, unlimited, license. I'm a graphic designer (maybe not a great one, but still a paid one none the less) and I have a DIY army, for that army I have created patterns, designs, and liveries that are not derivative of the work of any other person or generative AI, and are related to designs I either use, have used, or have future plans to use for commercial endeavors.

 

6 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

I do think you're overracting. As BT says, the goal is to be able to show off B&C member's work on our media streams. A small line that allows us to work with you in this won't turn people away unless it gets blown way out of proporotion by people. 

While I trust Brothers' Tyler and Argos and the current intent, what's not to say there might not be a future owner/s of this website who may want to push the issue and use those designs they now have unlimited license to for their own benefit. Yeah for a lot of people that's not an issue, but edge cases are the reason why legal jargon was invented,

 

As such, I have a recommendation for the replacement of that specific bit.

 

"You are granting us with a non-exclusive, non-commercial license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service to Social Media for promotional purposes. You retain copyright over the Content and may revoke the license by either deleting the Content, or your Membership."

[Kastor Krieg]

@NovemberIX

Thank you for this voice. 

I'm not a lawyer either, but just like you, I also rely on copyright to make a living (translation, on my side). The phrasing used in the boilerplate, however well-intentioned it might be - is simply threatening in its overreach. Should this phrasing remain as is, I would not post anything creative on B&C - written or painted.

[Special Officer Doofy]

@Brother Tyler why don't you make it so next time people sign on, if they don't want B&C to use any of their content to promote the site (that they use for free, without ads) they have to pay a subscription fee or get their account deleted?

 

You guys are acting like somehow B&C is going to make money off your home brew lore or paint jobs. The site doesn't even have ads yet after so many years, do you really think they are going to try and start making money off your nonsense? 

 

8 hours ago, Kastor Krieg said:

Should this phrasing remain as is, I would not post anything creative on B&C - written or painted.

 

Then don't? 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Special Officer Doofy

[Inquisitor Eisenhorn]

Quote

While I trust Brothers' Tyler and Argos and the current intent, what's not to say there might not be a future owner/s of this website who may want to push the issue and use those designs they now have unlimited license to for their own benefit. Yeah for a lot of people that's not an issue, but edge cases are the reason why legal jargon was invented,

 

As such, I have a recommendation for the replacement of that specific bit.

 

"You are granting us with a non-exclusive, non-commercial license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service to Social Media for promotional purposes. You retain copyright over the Content and may revoke the license by either deleting the Content, or your Membership."

I agree with this.  It wasn't my intent to have some major throw down about these lines when I asked for what the original content policy meant, it just seemed a little broadly defined.   November's suggested edit or something similar would better reflect the intent of the site's owners as Brother Tyler has clarified on this thread and I think put to bed any good faith concerns by other board members. 

 

 

 

[Kastor Krieg]

44 minutes ago, Inquisitor Eisenhorn said:

I agree with this.  It wasn't my intent to have some major throw down about these lines when I asked for what the original content policy meant, it just seemed a little broadly defined.   November's suggested edit or something similar would better reflect the intent of the site's owners as Brother Tyler has clarified on this thread and I think put to bed any good faith concerns by other board members. 

Yeah, November's phrasing is much better.

[Black Knight]

As it has been mentioned above, the site may not have the current desire to use users content to monetarily benefit itself but as has been recently shown, people move on and the "owner"(Not this site but other media sites) of a site can change over night.  There are plenty of examples from many media/VPNs/online storage companies ignoring past threads like this where they say they wont do something and then doing it because "they" never made the statement. What matters is the black and white legal interpretation of the contract you have just changed, instantly and with no notice. We should not care about what is written here in this thread but what the contract says can be done and the way it is worded.

 

You may say people are over reacting but by doing so you show that the argument has some BIG holes in it. You have changed the rules and there's wording there that you could drive a overlord through. People are rightly concerned and instead of trying to reassure those concerns we are telling people that they are taking it the wrong way. That's not how legal speak works, you need to change the text of the new contract so that the intentions are black and white and not left in an area of grey that anyone could stretch and mould to any wish they want.

 

Also instead of aggressively coming out and threatening creatives with having to pay to use the service, when they have a genuine concern of their work being used to make money for others, how about we discuss everyone's concerns and change the contract wording so that this site can get what it needs, while creatives work is also protected. There is no room for "our intentions" here, its a binding contract, so please change the wording so that it shows what you need(Your intentions). If the vagueness is there to allow for expansion later on, you will need to change it again at a later date. In relation to anyone using the "Its not enforceable in the US /or EU" then why is the wording there? There's usually a good reason why an area bans the use of certain statements in contract law. Not to mention not everyone is from these areas.

 

I greatly doubt the people above wanted to make money from their work but the problem they have, is that with this new wording, someone else can and they can do nothing about it. Again it is not about what the current sites objectives are, its about what the black and white text says can be done in the future. No one is asking for money for uploading some of their original work but they want the ability to say no to someone else making money off their work. You have stripped them of that right by not allowing them to even comment here without accepting the new rules. A 30 day warning of change would have allowed all the creatives on the site to voice their concerns but that wasn't given as an option to them.

 

Even massive corporations give a period of time(Usually 30 days) of any changes to the contract of use. In the past you have allowed us to view upcoming changes, so why now do we get an in your face message that we can only accept right there and then. This concerns me greatly for the future direction of the site.

 

All I can say to any creatives here is, if the Admin do not change this within a few days and go quiet to try to ride it out, then get your stuff off this site, leave and never look back. To the Admin, I doubt you intended anything but the good intentions of the continued running of the site but this cannot be ignored and you have to change this now without delay. No ones saying you cannot do the whole media blitz thing, in fact I would enjoy it but even Games Workshop asks permission to use anyone's work in their social media and you need to too.

[MegaVolt87]

I think it should be worded as NovemberIX phrased it to show good faith. If the new site owner changes the terns, we can make an informed decision if we agree with a more broad application of content use. There is no guarantee a new owner would have the same good internet as the current site operators. It's too ambiguous right now and allows new owners scope to act in an immoral way upon ownership from the start. I want to see true colours on a new owner if they want to do a dodgy, they then need to change the terms of service when they take ownership. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by MegaVolt87

[Xenith]

3 hours ago, Black Knight said:

Also instead of aggressively coming out and threatening creatives with having to pay to use the service,

 

I think you've misread and misconflated things.

 

On 2/25/2023 at 1:27 AM, Brother Tyler said:

And if you really think that we should be renumerating members for the content that they submit, we'll have to start charging members to participate in the site.

 

It was Krieg's idea that B&C pay people for their content on the site. BT said that if it went that way, where people demanded to be paid for posting their work, B&C would have to charge you to be on here. 

 

On 2/25/2023 at 12:38 AM, Kastor Krieg said:

if B&C wants all that, please pay us for the content.

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Xenith

[Kastor Krieg]

@Black Knight
Thank you for yet another reasonable voice.

@Xenith

If you're talking about conflating and misconstruing things, please stop doing this with cherrypicking the quote from my statement.

I have clearly said that you're grabbing such broad and irrevocable rights to republishing our creative expressions, that I am literally disallowed by Polish and EU law to agree to that scope without renumeration - or the agreement is not binding. So I've said, to underline how extreme the situation is, B&C would have to pay us to keep the phrasing used and have it remain binding.

The point wasn't "pay me!", the point was "you cannot achieve what you've set out to, legally, without renumeration to the creatives whose work you're licensing by default".

This doesn't even touch the fact that in Polish and EU law you cannot have a generalist agreement of license of unspecified, future works of art and that each of such works of art has to be licensed specifically and separately, to be anywhere close to enforceable. And as well that the creative has a literally indispensable (even with agreements) right to several other factors, such as their choice of attribution, as well executive decision upon the ways, forms and means their work is published.

The fact that one would license a work to be published in a book, on a billboard poster or on a Forum, doesn't mean that B&C have the right to republish it by producing mugs or hats or t-shirts - which the B&C "license statement" directly indicates in the phrasing and which it attempts to force upon us.

 

A tertiary defect is that this is a commercial license, which also cannot be binding without renumeration - you cannot republish our work for sale under Polish and EU law, without renumerating us - but the B&C phrasing currently doesn't preclude commercial use.

 

Black Knight's statement about "holes you can drive an Overlord through" is accurate. This phrasing is faulty, overtly broad and overreaching and not binding.

Please show good will and rework it, instead of trying to poke sticks at people who point out issues with best of intentions for the site's future.