I only have been a member here for a week or so, but will put my 2pence in.
I know the difficulty of banning popular members. I am heavily involved with another forum (some 40,000+ members and well over 500,000 posts) and we had/have to regular ban members who went against the T&C’s of posting. The decision was/is always queried with other members.
To then explain the decision, you have to be careful not to dig a hole for yourself. Giving the reason for the ban the continues ignorance of the T&C’s is acceptable, but then to state that the COPPA agreement forces you to ban a person is a step towards digging yourself in a hole.
The COPPA agreement can easily be written out of the software and by simply changing the link to accept the agreement to “I’m over the age of 18” solves the problem of minors reading posts written for an adult audience. Since when are swearwords against the law? It is not that ■■■■■■■■ natured posts/pictures are posted here that would be against a local law?
The banning of members is at the discretion of the Admin team. They have every right to do so. It is their forum after all. Giving wrong explanations for the ban only antagonises members who are querying that reason.
A small correction
COPPA only applies to websites hosted in the USA.
It covers ADULT CONTENT including language.
The member was not banned for breaking COPPA legislation, (the people who are breaking that legislation if adult content is allowed are the SERVER OWNERS and website owners)
The member was banned for repeatedly breaking the rules for using this website, as set by the website owners.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the COPPA agreement then as I was under the impression that it governs the collection and display of data of a minor, e.g. a minor registring and then posting
jammymutt:
The Ayatollah of the North East sahll decide the fate by th elooks of it.
Errrmmmm Alex keep me out of it I aint said a word about it until now
Me and Rob have had our arguments but its like water off a ducks back with me, I’ve said on numerous occassions that Rob should think before posting, but at the same time, some of his posts are true and to the point.
Will I miss him? Yeah probably
Am I sorry to see him Banned? Yeah I am
Am I going to go out and kill myself because the world has ended because he’s banned? Nope dont think so
Over the years Rob has always pushed things to the limit, he may be the 2nd highest poster but how many of those posts have given outsiders the wrong impression of ALL drivers?
Rob is a quite intelligent guy and I’m sure if he is determined to put his point of view over to the people of the world, then he is quite capable of setting up his own website where he cannot be banned.
COPPA agreement is part of the COPPA legislation, all interactive websites hosted in the USA are required to have a version of COPPA agreement on their website.
it requires a parent or guardian to give express permission for a minor to use that website, it does not absolve the repsonsibilty of the website owner/host to ensure the content of the website also conforms to the legislation
Beg to differ with you there as it governs the collection of identifyable data, such as email addresses and names.
Even with the COPPA agreement in place here, a minor could register and provided the parent or guardian confirms such registration, the child could post anything in here. Afterall, the parent or guardian in effect has authorised you to collect their email address and also for the child to access this website
One prime example (randomly taken): matchdoctor.com/ - hosted in the USA, accessible to children, swear words used, no COPPA agreement.
So why the argument of swearwords and children is used, I’m still not too sure about. Disallow it because you own the site → fair enough, disallow it because of a COPPA agreement → not true.
matchdoctor.com:
B. This service is for adults only. You must be at least 18 years old to register, and by signing up for a membership on this site you certify that you are at least 18 years old. If your state or country that you live in requires you to be older than 18, you certify that you are of a proper age to legally sign up for our services by signing up for a membership on this site.
D. You agree not to use this site for illegal purposes or for the transmission of material that is unlawful, harassing, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, ■■■■■■■■ and/or racially offensive, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, torturous, or otherwise objectionable, or that infringes or may infringe the intellectual property or other rights of another. This site reserves the right to edit or remove any information you transmit to this site, or remove your membership at any time for any reason
They claim they dont allow Adult content or children to access the website therefore are outside COPPA legislation… because THEY dont remove the content that falls outside their user agreement doesnt mean we shouldnt…
Read it again…
Vulgar obscene words are NOT formally allowed on there… !!!
despite it being and adult site, if they were to allow adult content then age verification would be needed.
just because they ignore the user agreement and dont police the rules doesnt mean we will
Rikki-UK:
COPPA agreement is part of the COPPA legislation, all interactive websites hosted in the USA are required to have a version of COPPA agreement on their website.
it requires a parent or guardian to give express permission for a minor to use that website, it does not absolve the repsonsibilty of the website owner/host to ensure the content of the website also conforms to the legislation
How are you ensuring that a parent or guardian IS giving express permission for any minor viewing this website?
interlog:
Exactly, by you changing the T&C’s the same could be done here… as many swearwords as you like
Besides, the original phpBB agreement terms state similar.
Mark
And there is a website for drivers that allows just that,
TruckNet UK does not…
If you want to put a post containing swear words then go there and do it, if you want to put the same post on here do so, the word censor will catch the words that are not allowed.
however DO NOT try to circumvent the word censor or go back and re-edit in a swear word that the management team has edited out.
As I have said, if you decide to edit out swear words, that is your prerogative and us members have to abide by it or go elsewhere.
Perhaps the question should be asked whether knowing the industry we are in, some of the swearwords should be allowed? It is how they are used that matters. If they’re used insultingly, warn and ban the member with all means, but if they’re used as we all sometimes do during the course of a conversation (e.g. [zb] bad traffic today) what is wrong with that?
A member can be more insulting to another member without having to use swear words
interlog:
Perhaps the question should be asked whether knowing the industry we are in, some of the swearwords should be allowed? It is how they are used that matters.
Which is something that is under discussion at the moment, as has already pointed out, and has been for a couple of weeks.
paul261267:
we all have the right to FREE SPEECH to comment on anything that we wish to,
No we don’t, the person who owns the site can decide exactly what they want, or don’t want, on it.
Actually Coffee, Rikki posted that as the servers are hosted in the US, that the filter had to be introduced to comply with some stupid US law or another despite it being legal in this country.
As you’ll remember, in the US Consitution there is the The First Amendment, the one for free speech which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So the site owner can’t actually decide what people do or don’t post on it because of the First Amendment.
OBSCENITY
Despite having grappled with the definition of this term, the Court has consistently ruled that obscenity is not protected. The English common law definition is “anything which depraves or corrupts minds open to immoral influence.”
Seen as how you want to quote English Law, you will no doubt be aware that all English laws are basically decided on case law, so whee is the case to back up your argument? I would hazard a guess that there have not been too many as the courts would be fearful of case law being set.
Must have missed that discussion then… perhaps you could provide a link? 