BOD Minutes - 9/22/2010
- Thread starter mrsmojo
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,712
- Reaction score
- 0
+1 Thanks for bringing that up jead
Thanks for the clarification Michael - it read a little odd to me as well initially
+1 - Maybe the funds could have been better utilized trying to prevent it from happening again vs. persuing the past...or maybe not, i want at the meeting this time
I understand ya
Yes - thanks Rit, very generous of you
The above issues regarding spending money on legal representation are why it is important for anyone interested in having their input considered and discussed by the BoD to attend BoD Meetings.
IMO, it is not practical to have the entire Club vote on matters like this. That is why the Membership elected the BoD, to conduct the daily business of the club for them at BoD Meetings.
For example, I am the ARC Member basically responsible for the Fresh Water SIG Subforum that was established several months ago because I saw a want of it in the Club Membership. I have a good bit of FW experience, and thought it would be a nice addition. I proposed it to the BoD like any other member did, tried to deal with their and other member concerns that it would dilute the primary purpose of the club, even suggested that new posts be kept off the home page, etc and that it be established with an initial 3 month trial period then be reviewed. The reason it passed was that I at least cared enough about it to show up at the BoD Meetings to lobby for it, and talk with ay BoD member that had concerns, and they had concerns.
I did not get it passed because I was a Mod. I guess I was just convincing enough in my desire for it that I was able to overcome BoD concerns about it enough to give it a try.
That is how you effect change and influence this Club's direction. By showing up and being a part of the Process.
IMO, it is not practical to have the entire Club vote on matters like this. That is why the Membership elected the BoD, to conduct the daily business of the club for them at BoD Meetings.
For example, I am the ARC Member basically responsible for the Fresh Water SIG Subforum that was established several months ago because I saw a want of it in the Club Membership. I have a good bit of FW experience, and thought it would be a nice addition. I proposed it to the BoD like any other member did, tried to deal with their and other member concerns that it would dilute the primary purpose of the club, even suggested that new posts be kept off the home page, etc and that it be established with an initial 3 month trial period then be reviewed. The reason it passed was that I at least cared enough about it to show up at the BoD Meetings to lobby for it, and talk with ay BoD member that had concerns, and they had concerns.
I did not get it passed because I was a Mod. I guess I was just convincing enough in my desire for it that I was able to overcome BoD concerns about it enough to give it a try.
That is how you effect change and influence this Club's direction. By showing up and being a part of the Process.
- Messages
- 1,712
- Reaction score
- 0
My intentions are not to micromanage the bod. However if the minutes are posted for us as a club to see and understand, Why cant a person ask about them? Eventually when my life calms down I will attend and If I have a problem I will voice it and accept without discretion, points from all sides of the issue.
It is my professional opinion that any pursuit of criminal charges through use of GAs cyber stalking law would be fruitless and a wasted effort. As for a civil case, I don't see that it can be shown where an actual loss was sustained to the "club".
Individual users might have better success, but I doubt it. Either way, I think it's best to just let it go.
And that's a thought I'll never be able to give to the BoD at a meeting because of my work schedule.
Individual users might have better success, but I doubt it. Either way, I think it's best to just let it go.
And that's a thought I'll never be able to give to the BoD at a meeting because of my work schedule.
One of the things I hope to change if I'm elected president next year. I'll start another thread to discuss this.
Disclaimer: I don't have a vote on the BoD, but did attend the meeting.
I tend to agree with you. However, the reason that the BoD decided to move forward and "explore options" was because of future attacks like this. If no move is made, and the person could choose to file yet another false copyright claim against us and our hosting provider yet again blindly decides to agree to it and shut down our site. They could choose to do that every week if they wanted, at no cost to them, for their own personal amusement.
Without some kind of ramifications, there's no reason that any disgruntled person couldn't just keep doing this forever. If there's a chance that the club may start down a legal path, then the chance that it may happen again in the future is nipped in the bud.
Yes, we should be doing things so that we don't have disgruntled members / ex-members in the first place, but this is dealing with the issue at hand.
I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the decision, only explaining the thought process that happened at the meeting.
- Messages
- 1,712
- Reaction score
- 0
Could something be added to the sign up contract like if you get banned and try to screw the site up we have a right to come after you for x amount of dollars?
- Messages
- 6,671
- Reaction score
- 15
maybe some legal jumbo-mumbo then when everyone signs in, they have to go to that screen acknowledging the agreement of photo's, posts, etc.
and whatever other protections as needed. something the host would be able to see that is clear. (there's a thought in there somewhere.lol)
You can have whatever disclaimers you want, but if someone is out for revenge they don't mean a lot. There are ways around almost anything.
Exploring possible legal avenues for the past attack, and any future issues should this happen again, is a very wise and prudent move, IMO.
Exploring possible legal avenues for the past attack, and any future issues should this happen again, is a very wise and prudent move, IMO.
The reason I feel it would be fruitless is because for this particular incident, said person had a specific reason for doing what was done, whether it be right or wrong in our collective eyes. It (the reason) places reasonable doubt for any criminal prosecution and likely any civil case as well.
That being said, future attempts to prohibit access to the site would show a clear and distinct pattern of harassment, which would then fall under criminal law with which the guilty party would most likely not have a justifiable defense.
Try if you like, but any attorney worth his weight in salt will tell you it's pointless for THIS incident.
I even spoke with a friend, who is a Magistrate and he tends to agree it would be pointless unless there are further incidents of some kind.
Just my .02.
That being said, future attempts to prohibit access to the site would show a clear and distinct pattern of harassment, which would then fall under criminal law with which the guilty party would most likely not have a justifiable defense.
Try if you like, but any attorney worth his weight in salt will tell you it's pointless for THIS incident.
I even spoke with a friend, who is a Magistrate and he tends to agree it would be pointless unless there are further incidents of some kind.
Just my .02.
