Consider revising terms of service for a policy type/misuse issue I see bubbling up
#1
05-10-2011, 08:05 PM
Consider revising terms of service for a policy type/misuse issue I see bubbling up
See this thread and post I made today: https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...-post1675.html ,
and then go back to the thread that involves the 2011 JCW owner with the underlying warranty issues. Here: https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...56-motors.html and (particularly for the longer history) here: https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ini-today.html
Seems like pretty fair reason to believe a dealer service person, and perhaps Mini/BMW, accessed another board and sought to gain information about another poster and user of this board. Unclear whether this board may have been used similarly, though a careful review of the prior posts may give some insight there that I am forgetting or didn't see.
Can I suggest you consider two changes for terms of service:
1. No use of information is permitted for any disputes among parties, and any such confirmed use leads to termination.
2. Be clear that #1 is a violation of TOS and therefore of your permitted use license. I say/suggest that because that could cause a company or person doing something like this to have evidentiary use issues or other exposure with third parties. Might cool the jets of some of the company lawyer types playing with supposed smoking guns.
No, you can't stop this kind of stuff from happening in the modern board world and information everywhere, instantly. But, what I can tell you in the very real world is if situations like this are permitted to arise or continue with no fear of consequences, they are all the more likely to occur. Well, for me in turn that means just keep my mouth shut about anything that is more interesting to many. We will have many more posts about upholstery and dogs and paint colors and all that, but I certainly expect fewer from folks with newer cars under warranty exploring interesting mods. And by the way, I'm sure you know mods and mod vendors drive ad revenue, and if the customers (who are often the best promotors) get scared off, that's no good for anybody. Ultimately that has a chilling effect on good discussion as well as business, and it's one I would like to see you step up and try to do something constructive to reduce the chance it may occur.
For the record, I have no connection to any of the players here nor have ever met or corresponded with them. And I am sympathetic to all of the perspectives--Magnuson-Moss warranty issues, modders taking ownership of consequences, dealers playing it straight and not hiding, Mini owning up to that it apparently may have some real internal motor issues that are pretty shocking in this era of expected reliability, privacy and most importantly, feeling comfortable to express oneself. I have bought various mod products from vendors and advertisers who frequent this site, and a variety of JCW factory stuff as well (which I favor and like in many cases). And given what I sense--or at least fear--has happened, I am indeed less likely to be forthcoming about information in the future, from someone w/ a 30 year history modding cars way back, and a few thousand posts on various boards. Some of the rhetoric has been more emotional than necessary perhaps, but as a disinterested party I am really concerned when I think about it as a car enthusiast. Hoping you may be willing to step up on this one and be ahead of the curve some.
and then go back to the thread that involves the 2011 JCW owner with the underlying warranty issues. Here: https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...56-motors.html and (particularly for the longer history) here: https://www.northamericanmotoring.co...ini-today.html
Seems like pretty fair reason to believe a dealer service person, and perhaps Mini/BMW, accessed another board and sought to gain information about another poster and user of this board. Unclear whether this board may have been used similarly, though a careful review of the prior posts may give some insight there that I am forgetting or didn't see.
Can I suggest you consider two changes for terms of service:
1. No use of information is permitted for any disputes among parties, and any such confirmed use leads to termination.
2. Be clear that #1 is a violation of TOS and therefore of your permitted use license. I say/suggest that because that could cause a company or person doing something like this to have evidentiary use issues or other exposure with third parties. Might cool the jets of some of the company lawyer types playing with supposed smoking guns.
No, you can't stop this kind of stuff from happening in the modern board world and information everywhere, instantly. But, what I can tell you in the very real world is if situations like this are permitted to arise or continue with no fear of consequences, they are all the more likely to occur. Well, for me in turn that means just keep my mouth shut about anything that is more interesting to many. We will have many more posts about upholstery and dogs and paint colors and all that, but I certainly expect fewer from folks with newer cars under warranty exploring interesting mods. And by the way, I'm sure you know mods and mod vendors drive ad revenue, and if the customers (who are often the best promotors) get scared off, that's no good for anybody. Ultimately that has a chilling effect on good discussion as well as business, and it's one I would like to see you step up and try to do something constructive to reduce the chance it may occur.
For the record, I have no connection to any of the players here nor have ever met or corresponded with them. And I am sympathetic to all of the perspectives--Magnuson-Moss warranty issues, modders taking ownership of consequences, dealers playing it straight and not hiding, Mini owning up to that it apparently may have some real internal motor issues that are pretty shocking in this era of expected reliability, privacy and most importantly, feeling comfortable to express oneself. I have bought various mod products from vendors and advertisers who frequent this site, and a variety of JCW factory stuff as well (which I favor and like in many cases). And given what I sense--or at least fear--has happened, I am indeed less likely to be forthcoming about information in the future, from someone w/ a 30 year history modding cars way back, and a few thousand posts on various boards. Some of the rhetoric has been more emotional than necessary perhaps, but as a disinterested party I am really concerned when I think about it as a car enthusiast. Hoping you may be willing to step up on this one and be ahead of the curve some.
Last edited by MP1.6T; 05-10-2011 at 09:08 PM.
#2
05-11-2011, 04:41 AM
Let me start by saying that I don't disagree with you at all.
Though, I really feel a need to also mention that people should not post anything, here or elsewhere, that would someday leave themselves in a compromising position. More specifically, don't post a "confession" online that you would not want MINI corporate to know about.
Though, I really feel a need to also mention that people should not post anything, here or elsewhere, that would someday leave themselves in a compromising position. More specifically, don't post a "confession" online that you would not want MINI corporate to know about.
#3
05-11-2011, 10:04 AM
I'd suggest if users don't want someone else to use their information (in disputes or otherwise), then they shouldn't be posting.
If the TOS were changed as suggested, does that mean posters would not be able to present a case by citing all the instances noted on this board. E.g. posters could not cite all the instances of chain tensioner failures claimed on NAM when trying to convince MINI/BMW to cover something under warranty.
There is a thread somewhere here on the site where a user was soliciting information on chain tensioner failures for a potential class action lawsuit. All of the responses suddenly become verboten for use by the attorneys?
Just don't see how this could work or what the benefit would be.
If the TOS were changed as suggested, does that mean posters would not be able to present a case by citing all the instances noted on this board. E.g. posters could not cite all the instances of chain tensioner failures claimed on NAM when trying to convince MINI/BMW to cover something under warranty.
There is a thread somewhere here on the site where a user was soliciting information on chain tensioner failures for a potential class action lawsuit. All of the responses suddenly become verboten for use by the attorneys?
Just don't see how this could work or what the benefit would be.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
09R56
R56 :: Hatch Talk (2007+)
17
11-16-2022 10:49 AM
ECSTuning
Vendor Announcements
0
08-19-2015 12:51 PM