Bait threads

[mota bhai 2,675]

Excuse me, it appears my title offended the arugula lobbyist association. I guess you also do not wish to see the name of your product sullied with the name of the most unpopular President since GWB.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Excuse me, it appears my title offended the arugula lobbyist association. I guess you also do not wish to see the name of your product sullied with the name of the most unpopular President since GWB.

I believe your thread contravened TOS, in short.

Far simpler, and less personal than you fancy.

[mota bhai 2,675]

I believe your thread contravened TOS, in short.

Far simpler, and less personal than you fancy.

Ooh, mentioning arugula really gets you going huh.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Ooh, mentioning arugula really gets you going huh.

Remember that English is not my first language and I manage the produce dept at the PX/BX. Arugula is always personal to me!

[mota bhai 2,675]

I see.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Mods change topic titles, in accordance to TOS.

Conversely the argument can be made that using a baiting title on a thread should be considered trolling. Why not expect honesty in the title of a topic? IMHO it is only fair to the community.

To a point, but I'm not sure that falls under the remit of the TOS - The TOS actually says in the preamble:

You acknowledge and agree that all information, code, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, pictures, graphics, video, chat, messages, files, links and other materials (collectively, "Content"), whether posted publicly or privately, are the sole responsibility of the person from which such Content originated. This means that you, and not Visajourney.com, are entirely responsible for all Content that you publish, post, upload, distribute, disseminate or otherwise transmit (collectively, "Post") via the Service.

Further on it says:

Member Content Ownership and Rights. Visajourney.com claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, Posted or displayed by you on or through the Service. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, Post or display on or through the Service and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate.

To my mind this means that content is effectively owned by the poster. The poster may assume legal liability for posting content which is copyrighted elsewhere (which would include every posted article) in the unlikely event that a journalist sues someone for seeing their work posted on VJ. Saying that, if you post a copyrighted article (which everyone does, and IS in violation of the TOS) and editorialise the thread title then you are effectively making that content yours.

If the mods were strictly enforcing the TOS they would delete every thread that was linked to a copyrighted article, not amend the thread title (thereby endorsing theft of copyright) or remove editorialising in the OP.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[JohnR! 5,495]

To a point, but I'm not sure that falls under the remit of the TOS - The TOS actually says in the preamble:

Further on it says:

To my mind this means that content is effectively owned by the poster. The poster may assume legal liability for posting content which is copyrighted elsewhere (which would include every posted article) in the unlikely event that a journalist sues someone for seeing their work posted on VJ. Saying that, if you post a copyrighted article (which everyone does, and IS in violation of the TOS) and editorialise the thread title then you are effectively making that content yours.

If the mods were strictly enforcing the TOS they would delete every thread that was linked to a copyrighted article, not amend the thread title (thereby endorsing theft of copyright) or remove editorialising in the OP.

Legally that is true. If anything, the mods should enforce the need that credits be added to all copies being posted. Not only that would prevent legal issues but also would help the readers identify questionable sources, such as blogs, op-eds and a tons of cybersmut which are offered in these forum as bona fide sources.

[mota bhai 2,675]

So we all agree, then, that VJ Moderation is illegal. Good. I'm glad.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Legally that is true. If anything, the mods should enforce the need that credits be added to all copies being posted. Not only that would prevent legal issues but also would help the readers identify questionable sources, such as blogs, op-eds and a tons of cybersmut which are offered in these forum as bona fide sources.

Well it just requires more active engagement from the moderators than currently happens. Amending thread titles just because is lazy.

[JohnR! 5,495]

So we all agree, then, that VJ Moderation is illegal. Good. I'm glad.

Recommended reading:

[mota bhai 2,675]

Well it just requires more active engagement from the moderators than currently happens. Amending thread titles just because is lazy.

That would require making moderators out of regulars. The current rules state that to be a moderator, you have to have been a forum wallflower.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

My post was removed for pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes.

And yet a similar post by me remains. Interesting.

[mota bhai 2,675]

And yet a similar post by me remains. Interesting.

Somebody likes you.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Somebody likes you.

It's mostly because I'm awesome. Also the bribes help.

[Sousuke 1,214]

It's mostly because I'm awesome. Also the bribes help.

So the moderators ARE paid! I knew it!