I am not sure If I will upset anyone here by duplicating my post, but I want my view heard by the staff. This is what I wrote in Flight forum in response to the severe scolding I got. I would appreciate a counter view or a response from Tom or anyone else in the staff.

 

The following is what I got in response to exchange of views in the threat:

 

 

"[Alert]A forum member that includes ANY reference to the P3D EULA, especially dissection or interpretation, will be suspended or banned depending on prior incidents. AVSIM is NOT a court room or a legal office. This is not appropriate discussion here. Consider yourself warned![/alert]

 

The following is my response:

 

"I am stunned at the level of your scolding. Even though I am not sure I understand the offence (which I really don't ), I am sorry for breaking any rules. However, it feels lousy to be threatened with a ban and scolded like a little child when I didn't even know that what I was saying was wrong. So, that I avoid walking in this mine field again, please explain what EULA is and if the ban on discussion of its kind is unique to P3D? Furthermore, please let me know if I was warned about this rule in any of the agreements I made when I joined AVSIM, so I can go back and refresh my memory of the terms of use.

 

While I appreciate that AVSIM is a privately owned community and we are all guests here at AVSIM, this place has become a lot less welcoming and a lot less tolerant since I joined over 6 years ago. While us members need to be gracious guests, one would think that AVSIM, as a host, has a moral obligation to not offend and alienate its guests. As your above reaction is an indication of the recent attitude in AVSIM, I feel very not welcomed.

 

Sincerely,

Frank Lavizadeh"

I'll reply to this one. EULA = End User License Agreement and is the agreement packaged with MOST commercial "payware" software. Because of the legalese language involved with that software title, and other misgivings of previous posts, AVSIM has HAD to take a FIRM stance on that title. I am sorry you feel slighted in any way, but we HAD to, and our hand was forced to, be less then cordial when dealing with posts for which you are upset by.

 

You're still posting, so I can only assume because I have not looked into it that our mods felt your infraction only warranted a warning. But a simple email back to our staff, rather then trying to flame us publicly would have been in better order.

 

Enjoy your weekend.

I must have missed that message aswell. I had know idea you were not allow to discuss a EULA of P3D, what did they take down their forum aswell? I don't see it anymore.

 

Edit yes I see the forum is still here, so Avsim promotes it but we are not allowed to discuss certain aspects of it. Man its Good Friday and Im too full of beer and fish so I think I just let this one ride. :drinks:

While I appreciate that AVSIM is a privately owned community and we are all guests here at AVSIM, this place has become a lot less welcoming and a lot less tolerant since I joined over 6 years ago. While us members need to be gracious guests, one would think that AVSIM, as a host, has a moral obligation to not offend and alienate its guests. As your above reaction is an indication of the recent attitude in AVSIM, I feel very not welcomed.

Are you a lawyer? Are you privy to the communications between LOMAC and MS? Do you know the details of those discussions, if they are taking place at all? Do you know what MS has agreed to or not? Can you explain with total accuracy the reasoning behind the new "acadmic" license? Are you one of the dozen or so lawyers on boths sides that put together a contract between the two and drove the EULA?

 

Of course not. Speculating about anything to do with LOMAC's EULA is more fuel on a fire that is not going to be allowed to continue here. We listened to the BS long enough.

 

Why the harsh tone? Because we have made numerable posts where our position has been made clear... Leave the arm chair lawyering at the door. If you continue to insist on speculating about the EULA and MS' reaction or LOMAC's response / position / legal standing, etc., you are not going to be welcome, and in fact, if you continue, you will be shown the door. That's a pretty straightforward statement and not open to much interpretation.

 

Why are we sensitive to this? Simple... as I said in my earlier post on the subject. Ignorant speculation puts jobs and future products at risk. We are not going to allow a minority here, who have not a clue of what they are speaking of, put people, programs and future offerings in our hobby at risk. Simple. And if that makes you feel unwelcome, then you probably have it right.

 

And, as for your comment; "AVSIM, as a host, has a moral obligation to not offend and alienate its guests."... well, I suspect you know my response to that.

Wow...

 

 

 

DJuan Carter

Does the prohibition on discussing the published Prepar3d EULA extend to the discussion of all EULAs.

Does the prohibition on discussing the published Prepar3d EULA extend to the discussion of all EULAs.

P3D's EULA is a special case which has resulted from a lot (and I mean a lot) of ignorant speculation taking place on the forums. Keep in mind we are trying to clamp down on the ignorant speculation part.

Tom did post about this all over the place in the Flight and P3D forums; including a big notice post pinned at the top of the P3D forums:

http://forum.avsim.n...ad-eula-notice/

(this one did appear 'forums wide' in fact)

 

People just kept ignoring all the warnings and in the end we're left with little choice but to clamp down on it hard.

 

Of course, REASONABLE discussion of other EULAs is allowed.

The formum wide notice refers to "the EULA provided by MS to Lockheed" - not to the published EULA provided by Lockheed Martin to Prepar3d licencees.

The formum wide notice refers to "the EULA provided by MS to Lockheed" - not to the published EULA provided by Lockheed Martin to Prepar3d licencees.

That was intended to be the EULA provided by LMOC to its users. There is no EULA between MS and LMOC that I have seen.

 

Are you a lawyer? Are you privy to the communications between LOMAC and MS? Do you know the details of those discussions, if they are taking place at all? Do you know what MS has agreed to or not? Can you explain with total accuracy the reasoning behind the new "acadmic" license? Are you one of the dozen or so lawyers on boths sides that put together a contract between the two and drove the EULA?

 

Of course not. Speculating about anything to do with LOMAC's EULA is more fuel on a fire that is not going to be allowed to continue here. We listened to the BS long enough.

 

Why the harsh tone? Because we have made numerable posts where our position has been made clear... Leave the arm chair lawyering at the door. If you continue to insist on speculating about the EULA and MS' reaction or LOMAC's response / position / legal standing, etc., you are not going to be welcome, and in fact, if you continue, you will be shown the door. That's a pretty straightforward statement and not open to much interpretation.

 

Why are we sensitive to this? Simple... as I said in my earlier post on the subject. Ignorant speculation puts jobs and future products at risk. We are not going to allow a minority here, who have not a clue of what they are speaking of, put people, programs and future offerings in our hobby at risk. Simple. And if that makes you feel unwelcome, then you probably have it right.

 

And, as for your comment; "AVSIM, as a host, has a moral obligation to not offend and alienate its guests."... well, I suspect you know my response to that.

 

Tom,

 

It's too bad certain addon developers/publishers don't heed your words. Those same addon devolopers and publishers are telling anybody that will listen that P3D is not for us "mere mortals". Unfortunately those voices carry a lot of weight. So does yours which is why your response in this thread makes good reading.

It's too bad certain addon developers/publishers don't heed your words. Those same addon devolopers and publishers are telling anybody that will listen that P3D is not for us "mere mortals". Unfortunately those voices carry a lot of weight. So does yours which is why your response in this thread makes good reading.

 

While the term "agenda" is most frequently used with respects to comments disparaging add on products, it can also reflect other situations or viewpoints. It would be very naive for anyone to think there are not other agendas out and about the Flight Simulation communities. And people will tend to promote that which best suits their needs, or their business model. Just thinking out loud here...

I feel the urge to write a long Blog editorial coming on...

That was intended to be the EULA provided by LMOC to its users. There is no EULA between MS and LMOC that I have seen.

But there is a licencing agreement between Lockheed Martin and Microsoft to which it was reasonable to assume AVSIM was referring when it wrote "the EULA provided by MS to Lockheed" . I's very diffuicult to read that as meaning "the EULA provided by Lockheed to its users."

 

Lockheed Martin and Microsoft Corp. entered into an intellectual property (IP) licensing agreement

 

http://www.prepar3d....to-warfighters/

Perhaps there is a good reason the EULA isn’t supposed to be discussed, An official request was made and Tom , privy to its contents saw good reason to do something not done before, refrain from having discussions on the subject of the P3D EULA .

 

 

 

WE were asked for our own benefit to refrain from causing legal ramifications through continued discussions on this topic , it must be a touchy subject, and WE were asked DIRECTLY NOT TO DISCUSS IT, that is the only point that we need to be clear on here,

But this matter is discussed on other forums and the sky hasn't fallen in.