A TOS question

[Mandi]

. . . just a "in theory" question, I don't have evil plans up my sleeve, LOL . . . but the related thread in Open Discussions has me wondering.

I know a lot of forum packages allow for various degrees of "private" forums. When those are employed, how would FQ pursue a complaint regarding a TOS type violation residing on a website, within private forums? I've participated at (non FQ-hosted) sites where the private forums' content would definately have violated the FQ TOS . . . but it makes me wonder how that would play out here. It surely isn't an isolated occurance.

I have always assumed "private" content was visible from the backside regardless, so perhaps there is no difference at all.

Disclaimer . . . I do have 2 private forums at my forum-oriented site (the mySQL enabled one . . .) but I promise they are deadly dull boring, just staff stuff, I am also not am I looking to play FQ Neighbor Spy . . .

[Deb]

The TOS does apply to _all content_ going through the FutureQuest Network.

To expand... imagine a "private download site" or a "private image gallery" that provides access to "paying members" only. The end result is, if we said "because it is private it does not count" we would turn into a warez and porn host over night :police: This is the biggest reason "everything counts".

It's important to remember that though we have a GREAT RESPECT for everyone's privacy, if the content is on the Internet its security is not guaranteed. If the content is on our servers and it is affecting us somehow (a complaint directed that way or a script gone haywire) then we must investigate to see what it is so we can solve the specific problem.

Deb
- Uh no, we don't have time to sneak a peak so no worries as long as it causes no worries %)

[Mandi]

That's exactly what I was hoping; mine was a poorly worded inquiry worrying that you somehow wouldn't/couldn't TOS-enforce "private forum" material. Thanks :)!