DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Members:

The moderator team and I have been working on an update to the forum rules, and I'm attaching them below in PDF format for you to review as well before we finalize and upload them. Most of these rules are the same as what we have and enforce today, just further explained.

Our reasons for updating the forum rules were twofold:
We also plan to update the initial TOS agreement to more explicity link these rules for new members, and also update the text in our new member initiation email to include a 101 introduction on the search feature.

Please post your comments here or PM them to me directly. I don't promise to make changes you may suggest, but I do promise to listen and consider them

kingkong5

Those rules seem pretty thorough, and IMHO they do reflect the current status of rules for the forum.

$5,000 reinstatement fee for the banned? That one was interesting

I'm a little sad about the PG-rated pictures only rule, but I guess that's just something we have to learn to live with.

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Yep, we've had an ongoing problem with a small number of former members who rejoin after they're banned and we want to add some teeth and compensation for the problems they cause.

Almost every one of the banned members who rejoin continue to break the same (or more) forum rules; no lessons were learned. Especially concerning are those who have caused issues in the classified forums. We don't want scam artists coming back after we ban them to rip off more members.

That fee will be split with the banned member's ISP and will give the ISP more of an incentive to investigate the TOS violation with us and terminate internet services for the rejoiner should they continue to break the rules (or they may not be allowed back in, depending on their infraction).

jet864

Very well done CL staff! I'm very impressed with the new rules and hope they keep CL on the straight path. It's you guys working for free that make this a great place to be. The $5000 fine is great insurance, but I worry about all the people that don't take things like this serious enough and fail to realize what they're signing off to when they click the "I agree" box. But if nothing else, it'll teach them to be smarter consumers in the future.

I can't think of anything that needs revising (oh, you just missed an end quote after WTB, page 5) so I say make this bill a law!

James

RobSoVIP

This is just a little thing that I would like to see added... No political signatures. We all remember how out of hand it got during the Presidential race in 2004. Its one thing to have those images in the debate forum, but its another to see those images while Im just trying to read about cars.

Dx3

iTrader: (13)

Dave,

Reads well Seems like you have covered everything.

Jonny

Richie

Looks pretty good to me.

GSXLEX

iTrader: (2)

Looks good..How about a minimum post count(say 50)for posting items for sale.A lot of "new members"selling non noob items ie.sways,coilovers etc..I think most guys(at least me)look at a post count if they dont know the person in trying to determine the risk.Or maybe a teired system ie under xx amount of post item cant exceed xx amount of $$.Nobody likes to get burned for any amount of money and maybe this puts us in the right direction to weed scammers out..Of course this isnt full proof..but what is..My $.02

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

Good idea, and we've considered this in the past but decided that approach basically encourages new members with something to sell to post ***** until they get enough to sell it. We instead made sure to add looking at the post count as part of our 'sales warning' annoucement in the classified forums.

pilip99

good stuff Dave, I think you've covered everything, i agree it would be hard to regulate the post count thing before selling items.

AsianGirl007

iTrader: (1)

Dave,

I'm liking the temporary ban. It gives people a chance to calm down from being all worked up and to rethink courtesy on their part. The "time out" is a good addition to what you are doing to control outright rudeness and negativity on forums. Thanks and keep up the good work.

mmarshall

Dave.....I read the entire list, understand it, and agree with virtually all of it, but IMO the $5000 " reinstatement " fee needs further explanation ( though, obviously, I hope it is something that will not concern me)...and I notice there have already been a number of questions and comments on it.
EXACTLY what is the reason for this fee? Is it a punitive measure, like a fine for traffic violations? Or a means to ensure that those who break CL rules the most do the most to help pay CL expenses? Or penitent money....like the idea that " I'll put up X number of dollars as collateral toward my future good behavior " ?
Second, if a person does manage re-join under a different name or ident, without electronic access to one of that person's bank accounts, ( probably illegal ) it could be very difficult to actually collect the money....especially if the mods aren't able to spot and catch the attempt to re-register under a new name.
So....I agree with all the new rules....but please explain this one further. Thanks.

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

MM,

The fee is primarily a dis-incentive for members who have been banned from our forum who try to come back under another identity... a penalty to keep them from repeatedly re-joining under different screen names.

It's not meant as a way to make money, it's not simply a fine to pay to get back in. It does give us broad legal recourse (and a way to pay for that recourse) to engage the re-joiners ISP in permanently removing access from ClubLexus from those that "don't get the hint" after being banned multiple times for repeatedly violating our rules, working to destroy our sense of community, ripping off other members, etc.

mmarshall

Thanks, Dave...that clarifies it.

aswang

iTrader: (4)

Looks good to me. I'm confident we'll see it working great and in action soon