PDA

View Full Version : Schweigert flies to Miami to talk with Dolphins



Surferosa
04-08-2004, 11:19 AM
BOOOOOOO to the Mod that deleted the Insider info. What CK posted is WELL within the TOS.

Bowl_Bound
04-08-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Surferosa
BOOOOOOO to the Mod that deleted the Insider info. What CK posted is WELL within the TOS.


Agreed. Why is it gone???????

RUDEbyallMEANS
04-08-2004, 11:41 AM
I was shivering a little when CK posted all that Insider info...

ESPN coming for you CK :lol:

Surferosa
04-08-2004, 12:57 PM
Mods,

You know I have the utmost respect for the work you do on this board, and duly appreciate the time and hard work you put into making this site a haven for Dolphin fans. Please hear me out.

You guys have to take it easy. You are ruining good, interesting threads by deleting and modifying posts that are clearly within the rules of the TOS. I'm referring specifically to CK's "Scouts Inc" Post.

In addition, now that we are in the offseason, when there are usually less than 30 posters visiting the site at a given time, you need to be more leniant running the main board. With such little traffic right now, posts that would otherwise be considered "off topic" should remain on the main board. What do we collectively gain by moving a fascinating posts about new FA signings/Mock drafts to another board, just becase the topic doesnt directly the Dolphins? These, and other posts, generate conversation that often leads back to the Phins. In contrast, moving the threads simply kill the conversation.

Now that we are three months removed from the season, I would hope that you guys would be a little bit less extreme when moderating the site. Not in terms of trolling, insulting, etc. In terms of the free flow of football information.

Thanks guys,

Surf

Muck
04-08-2004, 08:19 PM
If the content in question was Insider material (i.e. not free), then there isn't really much to discuss. If the TOS states that you cannot post more than a few lines from an article, then why would it be ok to post several paragraphs (or the entire text) from an article(s) that requires paid admission/membership??

Maybe the TOS needs to be further updated. But I really think that after reading Rule 11, this kind of thing would be inherently understood.

Muck
04-08-2004, 08:36 PM
Also, there are usually far more than 30 people visiting the board at a time. You (non-staff) just can't see them. ;)

Surferosa
04-09-2004, 05:50 AM
Muck,

IMHO, Mods need to make sure this place runs smoothly, which means among other things:

1) No trolling, insulting, etc
2) No repetitive posts (merging, etc)
3) No board cluttering (users cant find relevent information because some threads are off topic)

IMO, the first two points have been dealt with in a professional, responsible manner. However, the Mods need to review their stance on the third point. Now that we are in the offseason, discussions about the draft/free agency are COMPLETELY relevant to the Dolphins, regardless of the actual wording of the TOS. Still, these posts continue to get moved. Go take a look at the college draft forum, or the Free Agency forum, or the Salary Cap forum. You will find plenty of threads that contain interesting, RELEVANT football discussion (which is either directly or indirectly related to the Phins) that have been moved. Its a shame, really.

As for the Pay content, I hear you but disagree how little (or how much) info can/should be posted. In CK's case, he cited 4-5 player bios from Scouts INC (out of more than 360 available bios). Even Amazon.com allows surfers to view 10-12 pages of a book without purchasing it. :lol: And the ironic thing is that board veterans like CK honor the TOS anyway.

Again, not trying to dog you guys (and definitely not you personally). Maybe youre right, the TOS need to be revised - or at the very least, the way that they are interpreted by Mods (and posters) needs to be reconsidered.

I consider myself a honest guy that abides by and respects the rules. I'll play by whatever rules the Mods set up. I just feel you should think twice about which rules need to be enforced with an iron fist, and which rules call for a more liberal interpretation of the rules, in order to honor the intent of the TOS.

P4E
04-09-2004, 02:24 PM
Surf,

Respectfully but emphatically:

What you are expressing as acceptable to you in terms of copyrighted material being quoted is EXTREMELY far removed from the law, and frankly, with no offense intended, what you believe is acceptable is wholy irrelevant. What IS relevant is what the owner of the copyrighted material states as acceptable to THEM regarding reproduction in whole or in part, as they say. Most copyright disclaimer statements make NO allowance for ANY reproduction without specific authorization. Thus, even allowing that a brief excerpt can be copied can be called to question.

Intellectual property rights laws are there for a reason. What these people produce is a product. It takes effort, resources and knowledge to produce, and each of those has a value. As for excerpting just 6 out of 300 profiles and believing that to be acceptable, that would be considered "creaming", -- which is to say only swiping the portion of the material most important to a particular audience (like Dolphin fans). It is just such a portion of most/any copyrighted information that many potential purchasers are seeking. (When you purchase a dictionary, for example, do you expect to read and use ALL the definitions?) Allowing substantial copying of materials intended for sale undermines their market and sales and ultimately, the providers' ability to compile it.

Muck
04-09-2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Surferosa
Now that we are in the offseason, discussions about the draft/free agency are COMPLETELY relevant to the Dolphins, regardless of the actual wording of the TOS. Still, these posts continue to get moved. Go take a look at the college draft forum, or the Free Agency forum, or the Salary Cap forum. You will find plenty of threads that contain interesting, RELEVANT football discussion (which is either directly or indirectly related to the Phins) that have been moved. Its a shame, really.


I would agree with you on this point if you were accurate here. Look at the Salary Cap Forum. The last post there was 10 days ago. Nothing is being moved there.

We have no Free Agency forum.

The College/Draft Forum.......nothing in 4 days there.

In fact, being in those other forums is actually helping those threads. They are being seen at the top of their forum now, as opposed to being on page 25 in Main.

I agree with the sentiment though. Things can be improved. And we are a little bit more loose in the offseason. Many times threads that would be moved on the spot sit in Main for hours and hours. That's something that isn't seen by everyone.

Also, I'd just like to say that I appreciate you writing and understand where you're coming from. No offense perceived or taken. :)

dolphan39
04-10-2004, 10:11 AM
bottom line is that the Phins boards is not a place to discuss,i.e. who SD will select who the first pick or the Bills will select. It is to discuss w/the Phins will select. Though all topics could remotely or directly affect the Phins, we have chosen to keep only topics specific to the Phins in the Phins forum. If you say, if SD choses Manning, we might get Mike Williams, then it is ok

Surferosa
04-10-2004, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Muck


I would agree with you on this point if you were accurate here. Look at the Salary Cap Forum. The last post there was 10 days ago. Nothing is being moved there.

We have no Free Agency forum.

The College/Draft Forum.......nothing in 4 days there.

In fact, being in those other forums is actually helping those threads. They are being seen at the top of their forum now, as opposed to being on page 25 in Main.

I agree with the sentiment though. Things can be improved. And we are a little bit more loose in the offseason. Many times threads that would be moved on the spot sit in Main for hours and hours. That's something that isn't seen by everyone.

Also, I'd just like to say that I appreciate you writing and understand where you're coming from. No offense perceived or taken. :)

Thanks Muck, for your candor. :)

Surferosa
04-10-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by P4E
Surf,

Respectfully but emphatically:

What you are expressing as acceptable to you in terms of copyrighted material being quoted is EXTREMELY far removed from the law, and frankly, with no offense intended, what you believe is acceptable is wholy irrelevant. What IS relevant is what the owner of the copyrighted material states as acceptable to THEM regarding reproduction in whole or in part, as they say. Most copyright disclaimer statements make NO allowance for ANY reproduction without specific authorization. Thus, even allowing that a brief excerpt can be copied can be called to question.

P4E,

I respectfully disagree with you here.

To be legally accurate, the issue is NOT about copyright infringement, but about this Site's TOS. As you said yourself, even "brief excerpts" are infringing copyright laws. So in essence, Finheaven takes the Law into its own hands when determining how much content can be posted.

Once Finheaven takes that step, it is both understandable and natural that different people have different opinions as to HOW MUCH content may be posted. This will differ from person to person and from moderator to moderator. By "limiting" the amount of pay content that is allowed to be posted (as was done in an earlier post), we are NOT honoring the copyright laws AT ALL, we are merely honoring FinHeaven's Terms of Service.

And while Content Provider Infringement Laws may not be questioned by Finheaven Moderators/Users, the Sites TOS can and should discussed/reviewed from time to time. Of course, its ultimately AJ's (and the Mods) decision to interpret how much pay content is too much. And obviously, I will honor whatever decision is made. But my point is, there absolutely IS room for dicscussion in determining how much paid content is "too much".