The Operation Sports Terms Of Service

[Jdoug312]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

The staff also reserves the right to revoke membership privileges at any time without notice or reason.

I think this is a very dangerous clause. I'm sure mods are thoroughly screened somehow before being chosen, yet they are still human. If the person who's supposed to keep everyone else in line doesn't have to justify their ruling, issues can occur.

Lack of transparency never works IMO.

[Millennium]

I think this is a very dangerous clause. I'm sure mods are thoroughly screened somehow before being chosen, yet they are still human. If the person who's supposed to keep everyone else in line doesn't have to justify their ruling, issues can occur.

Lack of transparency never works IMO.

OS is a privately owned site. This clause just allows us to protect ourselves from members who don't fit the standard of our membership.

By the way: that line has been in the TOS since OS was created. EVERYONE has agreed to that term when registering, so or is nothing new.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[superxero27]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

OS is a privately owned site. This clause just allows us to protect ourselves from members who don't fit the standard of our membership.

By the way: that line has been in the TOS since OS was created. EVERYONE has agreed to that term when registering, so or is nothing new.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4 Beta

That's true, however the clause is potentially dangerous as it's open to abuse by moderators provided there's no internal accountability among mods. Which I think is what Jdoug's point was, correct me if I'm wrong.

[PVarck31]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

That's true, however the clause is potentially dangerous as it's open to abuse by moderators provided there's no internal accountability among mods. Which I think is what Jdoug's point was, correct me if I'm wrong.

There is very much internal accountability for mods. If we screw up we will be disciplined accordingly. Its happened before and if need be, will happen again.

We aren't a communist site. Mods just can't go around banning people for the hell of it. If we wrongfully ban someone actions will be taken to sort out the matter.

[JohnnytheSkin]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

Still curious about the ban on religious talk...I'm assuming it's just proselytizing and overt recruitment stuff, because there are countless examples of "I'm praying for you" and "prayers being sent your way" which I see as religious, but nothing is being done.

[BlueNGold]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

Still curious about the ban on religious talk...I'm assuming it's just proselytizing and overt recruitment stuff, because there are countless examples of "I'm praying for you" and "prayers being sent your way" which I see as religious, but nothing is being done.

Really? Really?

[l3ulvl]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

Really? Really?

I've never heard the word proselytizing either

[Psyblast]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

Still curious about the ban on religious talk...I'm assuming it's just proselytizing and overt recruitment stuff, because there are countless examples of "I'm praying for you" and "prayers being sent your way" which I see as religious, but nothing is being done.

You assume correctly.

And "I'm praying for you" and "prayers sent" is not "religious talk."

[Fuimus Troes]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

There is very much internal accountability for mods. If we screw up we will be disciplined accordingly. Its happened before and if need be, will happen again.

We aren't a communist site. Mods just can't go around banning people for the hell of it. If we wrongfully ban someone actions will be taken to sort out the matter.

You have insulted my political sensibilities. I demand internal accountability.

[Jays Journal]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

Why can't I post dynasty entries? It keeps saying "You don't have permission to use this page." It's getting annoying...

[Jays Journal]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

Am I doing something wrong?

[aholbert32]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

Still curious about the ban on religious talk...I'm assuming it's just proselytizing and overt recruitment stuff, because there are countless examples of "I'm praying for you" and "prayers being sent your way" which I see as religious, but nothing is being done.

We arent extending it to that level. We arent going to ban people for saying something like that when the intent isnt to spur religious discussion but to offer support for a fellow member.

[BlueNGold]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

Am I doing something wrong?

Rub your belly and tap your head at the same time as fast as you can.

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: The Operation Sports Terms Of Service (Updated 6/17/2013)

Quick question(just so I understand correctly), how would this:

Spam
Posting of senseless, mentally empty threads/posts is not tolerated. These include, but are not limited to, post padding (+1, "I agree" with not reasoning"), party posts, "drunk posting" (incoherent messages with the excuse that you were not in the right state of mind), chain letters, In Before Lock posts, or "thread bumping" (posting on your own thread in an effort to 'bump' it to the top of the page).

be considered spam?

For example, let's say I created a "Deron Williams traded to the Nets from Jazz" Thread that was made in 2011 and I bump it back up because I recently found some new info regarding that trade that wasn't available at the time of when the thread was created, would that still be considered spam?

[dickey1331]

Quick question(just so I understand correctly), how would this:


be considered spam?

For example, let's say I created a "Deron Williams traded to the Nets from Jazz" Thread that was made in 2011 and I bump it back up because I recently found some new info regarding that trade that wasn't available at the time of when the thread was created, would that still be considered spam?

From my understanding no. I think it means more like no one replies to someone's thread and they say bump just to move it to the top of the list.