[B]BOI about to be NO more![/B]

[Foschi Exotic Serpents]

Do the admins on BP-net really want a BOI here?

There is a potential financial liability that comes with running a forum like the BOI.

Hopefully you ran your post by the admins before you asked people to use this site as an alternate BOI.............

Well Skip, we already have an Inquiries/Feedback section.. Isnt this what its for? To pass on info about good or bad transactions between others? It is already being used to some extent in the exact same way the BOI is used. I know if i purchase from someone (like i just did & awaiting shipment) I will post a good rep on him right here on bp.net. So why not?

People are allowed to give their opinions about others. This site is very closely moderated and when someone is obviously out of line, the situation is addressed immediately.

If this area of bp.net were to become more like the BOI it would need obvious rules. To prevent people just bashing others for no reason. This rule is already in affect. Every post is read by a moderator. How would it be any different than it is now?

Maybe a better idea would be like kingsnake.com posting rules.. Only paid members can post. Lowering the chances of scammers.

Its just very hard to grasp the fact that we may lose the BOI.

[Foschi Exotic Serpents]

Here is the exact post with the link below it..

"A couple of days ago I shut down all of the BOI forums on this site in order to get a message across that seemed to be lost in all the static here. I have been dropping hints for months now, but I guess most people didn't put two and two together to realize what they really meant.

In effect, there is a very strong chance that the BOI will be going away permanently. I am retiring my reptile breeding business no later than January 1, 2010, and at that time this site needs to be financially self sufficient to cover the legal and financial liabilities that the BOI is exposing me to for YOU benefit. Let's face it, when I have retired from my reptile breeding business, I really won't need the BOI at all, and if it still exposes me to a lot of financial liability afterwards, it just doesn't make sense for me to bear up under that threat just to help out everyone else here. I just am not willing to shoulder that burden alone when my income will be limited to pretty much my retirement savings. I expect I can make enough money from this site via advertising and the like to help a little with making ends meet, but that could all be wiped out (and then some) if I should have to hire an attorney to fight a lawsuit filed by someone who gets incensed enough over something someone else has posted HERE about them. Yes, I am protected by federal law against legal liability for third party posts, but that only helps me WIN a court case, it is not a protection against the expenses that will be incurred FIGHTING that lawsuit. I would still need to hire an attorney and go to court, regardless. Which could be very expensive. Definitely more than I would want to have to draw out of my retirement funds, let me tell you.

Sorry, but I have no intention of mine and Connie's retirement RUINED because I have given you all the ability to post here in this capacity. So if you aren't willing to pick up most of that burden, then quite frankly, the BOI will be gone. I'm still working on the details of how to do that shutdown in an orderly fashion, and much of that conversation takes place in this thread in the FEEDBACK forum -> http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=139468

So the ball is in your court now. Between now and January 1, I will have to come to a decision on whether the BOI stays or goes, and quite frankly, that decision will be based on the number of paying memberships this site has which I consider a DIRECT measure of the members support for this site and the BOI.

Sorry it has to be this way, but I have looked at this from every angle I can think of, and there appears to be no other alternative.

Thank you all for being here over the years, whichever way this goes.
__________________
WebSlave"

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=139742

[Skiploder]

Here is the exact post with the link below it..

"A couple of days ago I shut down all of the BOI forums on this site in order to get a message across that seemed to be lost in all the static here. I have been dropping hints for months now, but I guess most people didn't put two and two together to realize what they really meant.

In effect, there is a very strong chance that the BOI will be going away permanently. I am retiring my reptile breeding business no later than January 1, 2010, and at that time this site needs to be financially self sufficient to cover the legal and financial liabilities that the BOI is exposing me to for YOU benefit. Let's face it, when I have retired from my reptile breeding business, I really won't need the BOI at all, and if it still exposes me to a lot of financial liability afterwards, it just doesn't make sense for me to bear up under that threat just to help out everyone else here. I just am not willing to shoulder that burden alone when my income will be limited to pretty much my retirement savings. I expect I can make enough money from this site via advertising and the like to help a little with making ends meet, but that could all be wiped out (and then some) if I should have to hire an attorney to fight a lawsuit filed by someone who gets incensed enough over something someone else has posted HERE about them. Yes, I am protected by federal law against legal liability for third party posts, but that only helps me WIN a court case, it is not a protection against the expenses that will be incurred FIGHTING that lawsuit. I would still need to hire an attorney and go to court, regardless. Which could be very expensive. Definitely more than I would want to have to draw out of my retirement funds, let me tell you.

Sorry, but I have no intention of mine and Connie's retirement RUINED because I have given you all the ability to post here in this capacity. So if you aren't willing to pick up most of that burden, then quite frankly, the BOI will be gone. I'm still working on the details of how to do that shutdown in an orderly fashion, and much of that conversation takes place in this thread in the FEEDBACK forum -> http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=139468

So the ball is in your court now. Between now and January 1, I will have to come to a decision on whether the BOI stays or goes, and quite frankly, that decision will be based on the number of paying memberships this site has which I consider a DIRECT measure of the members support for this site and the BOI.

Sorry it has to be this way, but I have looked at this from every angle I can think of, and there appears to be no other alternative.

Thank you all for being here over the years, whichever way this goes.
__________________
WebSlave"

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=139742

The money shots are bolded.

The question remains - do the admins here want a BOI?

[nixer]

here is the actual code(i cant link to it so its copyed from http://uscode.house.gov ):
-CITE-

47 USC Sec. 230 01/03/2007

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 47 - TELEGRAPHS, TELEPHONES, AND RADIOTELEGRAPHS

CHAPTER 5 - WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION

SUBCHAPTER II - COMMON CARRIERS

Part I - Common Carrier Regulation

-HEAD-

Sec. 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of

offensive material

-STATUTE-

(a) Findings

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other

interactive computer services available to individual Americans

represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of

educational and informational resources to our citizens.

(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over

the information that they receive, as well as the potential for

even greater control in the future as technology develops.

(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer

a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique

opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for

intellectual activity.

(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have

flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of

government regulation.

(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for

a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment

services.

(b) Policy

It is the policy of the United States -

(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and

other interactive computer services and other interactive media;

(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that

presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer

services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;

(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize

user control over what information is received by individuals,

families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive

computer services;

(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization

of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to

restrict their children's access to objectionable or

inappropriate online material; and

(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to

deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and

harassment by means of computer.

(c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of

offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be

treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided

by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be

held liable on account of -

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict

access to or availability of material that the provider or user

considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively

violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not

such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to

information content providers or others the technical means to

restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).(!1)

(d) Obligations of interactive computer service

A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of

entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of

interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by

the provider, notify such customer that parental control

protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering

services) are commercially available that may assist the customer

in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such

notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to

information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e) Effect on other laws

(1) No effect on criminal law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the

enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71

(relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation

of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2) No effect on intellectual property law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand

any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3) State law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State

from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this

section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may

be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with

this section.

(4) No effect on communications privacy law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the

application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986

or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State

law.

(f) Definitions

As used in this section:

(1) Internet

The term "Internet" means the international computer network of

both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data

networks.

(2) Interactive computer service

The term "interactive computer service" means any information

service, system, or access software provider that provides or

enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server,

including specifically a service or system that provides access

to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by

libraries or educational institutions.

(3) Information content provider

The term "information content provider" means any person or

entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation

or development of information provided through the Internet or

any other interactive computer service.

(4) Access software provider

The term "access software provider" means a provider of

software (including client or server software), or enabling tools

that do any one or more of the following:

(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;

(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or

(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search,

subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

-SOURCE-

(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, Sec. 230, as added Pub. L. 104-

104, title V, Sec. 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub.

L. 105-277, div. C, title XIV, Sec. 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112

Stat. 2681-739.)

-REFTEXT-

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, referred to in

subsec. (e)(4), is Pub. L. 99-508, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1848,

as amended. For complete classification of this Act to the Code,

see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 2510

of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and Tables.

-COD-

CODIFICATION

Section 509 of Pub. L. 104-104, which directed amendment of title

II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) by

adding section 230 at end, was executed by adding the section at

end of part I of title II of the Act to reflect the probable intent

of Congress and amendments by sections 101(a), (b), and 151(a) of

Pub. L. 104-104 designating Secs. 201 to 229 as part I and adding

parts II (Sec. 251 et seq.) and III (Sec. 271 et seq.) to title II

of the Act.

-MISC1-

AMENDMENTS

1998 - Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 105-277, Sec. 1404(a)(3), added

subsec. (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e).

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 105-277, Sec. 1404(a)(1), inserted "or

231" after "section 223".

Subsecs. (e), (f). Pub. L. 105-277, Sec. 1404(a)(2), redesignated

subsecs. (d) and (e) as (e) and (f), respectively.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1998 AMENDMENT

Amendment by Pub. L. 105-277 effective 30 days after Oct. 21,

1998, see section 1406 of Pub. L. 105-277, set out as a note under

section 223 of this title.

-FOOTNOTE-

(!1) So in original. Probably should be "subparagraph (A)."

[nixer]

The money shots are bolded.

The question remains - do the admins here want a BOI?

and yes thats a cop out it! wouldnt cost much to petition for dismissal
and it doesnt typically require a court visit. not to mention that he should already have a lawyer on retainer.

[Foschi Exotic Serpents]

(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be

held liable on account of -

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict

access to or availability of material that the provider or user

considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively

violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not

such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to

information content providers or others the technical means to

restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).(!1)

So what your saying, Nixer, is that there cannot be any legal action taken against users or providers of info posted by others? All the legal jargon is a bit confusing but this looks like there should be no financial liability involved. Please correct me and clarify if im wrong.

[nixer]

So what your saying, Nixer, is that there cannot be any legal action taken against users or providers of info posted by others? All the legal jargon is a bit confusing but this looks like there should be no financial liability involved. Please correct me and clarify if im wrong.

what this section of the Communications Decency Act was to protect the internet service providers when someone does something while using their service. before this section was added you were only not liable if you didnt edit (hence author) posts.

they can attempt to sue and may actually get a scumsucker to attempt to file it but there is already many cases that have been dismissed without going to court under this clause.

now this does not stop a person who is flaming someone else from being sued

[Foschi Exotic Serpents]

what this section of the Communications Decency Act was to protect the internet service providers when someone does something while using their service. before this section was added you were only not liable if you didnt edit (hence author) posts.

they can attempt to sue and may actually get a scumsucker to attempt to file it but there is already many cases that have been dismissed without going to court under this clause

Huh.. Well my post on this in the forum feedback section was removed. So i guess someone is not happy with the idea of any "BOI" related threads on this forum. Legal liability or not. I wonder what kind of limits will be put on THIS forum for posting rep's for someone if the BOI does disappear.

Its still very disappointing to think we may lose it. If we do, we will just need to rely on fellow breeders/buyers/sellers to give us permission to post them as a referral if we post animals for sale etc..

Which many im sure would do, but this seems a bit self defeating as well. It would be like advertising for someone else on your own add.

[nixer]

Huh.. Well my post on this in the forum feedback section was removed. So i guess someone is not happy with the idea of any "BOI" related threads on this forum. Legal liability or not. I wonder what kind of limits will be put on THIS forum for posting rep's for someone if the BOI does disappear.

Its still very disappointing to think we may lose it. If we do, we will just need to rely on fellow breeders/buyers/sellers to give us permission to post them as a referral if we post animals for sale etc..

Which many im sure would do, but this seems a bit self defeating as well. It would be like advertising for someone else on your own add.

yes but feedback posts should be kept to to a point and not just turn into a flame war like so many do which is where members open themselves up for poss. legal ramifications

[Foschi Exotic Serpents]

yes but feedback posts should be kept to to a point and not just turn into a flame war like so many do which is where members open themselves up for poss. legal ramifications

Which is why it should be a thread similer to the for sale threads here.. Meaning no replies are allowed. The member should simply be able to say so-n-so is good seller/good buyer etc.. Thats it. No chances for recourse.