Thanks Kevin.
-
Scam Alert. Members are reminded to NOT send money to buy anything. Don't buy things remote and have it shipped - go get it yourself, pay in person, and take your equipment with you. Scammers have burned people on this forum. Urgency, secrecy, excuses, selling for friend, newish members, FUD, are RED FLAGS. A video conference call is not adequate assurance. Face to face interactions are required. Please report suspicions to the forum admins. Stay Safe - anyone can get scammed.
New forum category idea - project plans?
- Thread starter Janger
- Start date
I like the idea. No different that what Miller Welding does, or PA does in their Project Showcase really.
I worked in the Intellectual Property area for government for years, so my anal two cents would be as noted below. I think you can over-analyse this and get carried away to the point of ruining the good idea here, but a few simply statements demonstrate reasonable intent on the part of the Forum.
There should be a sticky on the sub-forum (at least) that references a new paragraph in the Terms and Rules for the Forum that state:
I worked in the Intellectual Property area for government for years, so my anal two cents would be as noted below. I think you can over-analyse this and get carried away to the point of ruining the good idea here, but a few simply statements demonstrate reasonable intent on the part of the Forum.
There should be a sticky on the sub-forum (at least) that references a new paragraph in the Terms and Rules for the Forum that state:
- The Forum assumes no liability, wholly or in part, for injury or damage as a result of plan usage. This is applicable to both members and non-members alike.
- Submitters of plans acknowledge that posting of any plans constitutes a public disclosure by the Submitter themself, and by posting the Submitter acknowledges that the Forum is not to be deemed having made a public disclosure of the Submitter's plan(s) for the purposes of any patent, trademark, or other legal dispute.
- The Submitter acknowledges that they are the owner of the intellectual property contained within the plan(s) posted.
- "Posting" is inclusive of a draft post, whether saved electronically by the Forum software, or purposely saved on the Forum by the Submitter.
- Items 1 to 4 inclusive apply to any plans posted by the Submitter, as well as any edits or modifications made by others in response to the posted plans, such as replies to the post, or subsequent comments that appear in other threads or parts of the Forum relating to the post.
Last edited:
Good points CPT. I've stayed clear of any rules/admin input because its not my forte. But particularly in light of recent news events involving 3DP things that go bang, maybe need a clear message up front of what is not permitted. I doubt we would even attract that, but you never know. I hope our guidelines aren't so onerous that people throw their hands up, but we also want to avoid obvious adverse issues.
That's always the danger and not my intent to be a killjoy, but I've seen this go south before. That's why I suggest it goes in the Terms with just a stickie to link to it. It's not overbearing then. Having said this, the risk is small for this forum and I totally defer to the Admins with no hard feelings how they handle it. You know what they say about opinions and southern orifices right? Everyone's got one
I think it is a great idea and have no issue with implementing as is. 'nuff said.
That's always the danger and not my intent to be a killjoy, but I've seen this go south before. That's why I suggest it goes in the Terms with just a stickie to link to it. It's not overbearing then. Having said this, the risk is small for this forum and I totally defer to the Admins with no hard feelings how they handle it. You know what they say about opinions and southern orifices right? Everyone's got one
I think it is a great idea and have no issue with implementing as is. 'nuff said.
Ok those are great terms and conditions. Thanks for writing those up Peter.
Should we also disallow certain project types up front? Eg no weapons, no firearms or accessories. No projects where personal safety is the primary purpose like climbing equipment. ???
Thanks Peter, Added to the site terms now!
Clearly stated terms can only be good for everyone, though of course the goal is to never need them! haha.
@CalgaryPT , how does John's proposed rules work with the whole safety officer thing?
Any recommendation how to handle content which clearly is unsafe, without taking that responsibility? Like "80% lowers", which could potentially popup?
Clearly stated terms can only be good for everyone, though of course the goal is to never need them! haha.
@CalgaryPT , how does John's proposed rules work with the whole safety officer thing?
Any recommendation how to handle content which clearly is unsafe, without taking that responsibility? Like "80% lowers", which could potentially popup?
Admins can set any rule they want to disallow things, but it has to be upfront and applied equally. If Admins go down the path of saying "yes" to Poster A, and "no" to Poster B on the fly or on a whim, that's a rabbit hole.
Here's why: let's say you just wing it. Project Plan A gets posted, but Project Plan B is rejected for no upfront reason (just because an Admin thinks it may be unsafe). Someone sadly gets injured after building Project Plan A that appeared safe and was posted. A legal argument could be made that because Admins had a history of exercising discretion with Project Plan B (by rejecting it), then they should have done their jobs better and evaluated Project Plan A so as to prevent injury.
Basically you are better off by staying hands off, and stating that the Forum assumes no liability (as in our Terms now). The moment you jump in and say A is allowed, but B is rejected, you've presented yourself as an authority on the safety aspect of projects, and that's a potential liability issue.
There is a logical exception—and that is a plan that a "reasonable individual" would consider dangerous or illegal. An average Joe on the street—with no knowledge of metalworking—would consider plans to make a guillotine dangerous, or a plan to manufacture a pipe bomb illegal. Admins can reject or remove these outright either based on observation or someone using the "Report" feature. You can't predict craziness, and thus it would be difficult to list ALL things like this upfront. But I can't imagine this exercise of discretion being problematic to a reasonable person or in a lawsuit. In fact a reasonable person would expect Admins to use their awesome powers for good in such cases.
I know little about climbing equipment but I suspect there are many modifications that enhance safety as well as reduce it. And not being an expert I'd not want to exercise discretion as an Admin. That sounds like the proverbial rabbit hole. In the case of lowers, I know little there as well except that in some cases it is illegal to manufacture, import, transport, possess or use (pick one or more category). Add to this ever-changing legislation (such as what's happening in Ottawa now), and you create a situation where Admins must keep current to make the right decision. I wouldn't want that responsibility.
So WRT specific areas of interest, if Admins wish to set additional rules for firearms, or "personal safety" devices that's up to them, and we shouldn't push back. These are volunteer positions and the goal should be to minimize the hassle factor to Admins. "Personal Safety" is a tougher call as this is subjective. I think this is where we will build on experience and watch feedback carefully. If a pattern emerges—like a bunch of people say Project Plan C is really unsafe, then Admins can consider removing it and adding it to a list in the Terms that are unacceptable so they never have to worry about justifying the decision in the future.
The "Report" feature should be encouraged here, just like FaceBook and Twitter do. This makes safety a shared responsibility amongst all of us, just as it should be.
Again, I think risk is low with these provisions in place. It's easy to get carried away with what-if's, but this isn't the USA. If Admins want to disallow certain types of plans upfront that's their call and we should respect it. If there is that much concern then rather than letting users post it should be submitted to Admins first—which is unfair in a volunteer group like ours, and self-defeating to the initiative at large. Otherwise, let's watch it play out, allow for Admin discretion to ban certain things upfront as they see fit, and respond as a reasonable individual would if anything dangerous or illegal shows up. If this were a commercial Forum, it would be a different discussion, just as expectations are higher for FaceBook due to their size and influence. But we're no FaceBook.
Here's why: let's say you just wing it. Project Plan A gets posted, but Project Plan B is rejected for no upfront reason (just because an Admin thinks it may be unsafe). Someone sadly gets injured after building Project Plan A that appeared safe and was posted. A legal argument could be made that because Admins had a history of exercising discretion with Project Plan B (by rejecting it), then they should have done their jobs better and evaluated Project Plan A so as to prevent injury.
Basically you are better off by staying hands off, and stating that the Forum assumes no liability (as in our Terms now). The moment you jump in and say A is allowed, but B is rejected, you've presented yourself as an authority on the safety aspect of projects, and that's a potential liability issue.
There is a logical exception—and that is a plan that a "reasonable individual" would consider dangerous or illegal. An average Joe on the street—with no knowledge of metalworking—would consider plans to make a guillotine dangerous, or a plan to manufacture a pipe bomb illegal. Admins can reject or remove these outright either based on observation or someone using the "Report" feature. You can't predict craziness, and thus it would be difficult to list ALL things like this upfront. But I can't imagine this exercise of discretion being problematic to a reasonable person or in a lawsuit. In fact a reasonable person would expect Admins to use their awesome powers for good in such cases.
I know little about climbing equipment but I suspect there are many modifications that enhance safety as well as reduce it. And not being an expert I'd not want to exercise discretion as an Admin. That sounds like the proverbial rabbit hole. In the case of lowers, I know little there as well except that in some cases it is illegal to manufacture, import, transport, possess or use (pick one or more category). Add to this ever-changing legislation (such as what's happening in Ottawa now), and you create a situation where Admins must keep current to make the right decision. I wouldn't want that responsibility.
So WRT specific areas of interest, if Admins wish to set additional rules for firearms, or "personal safety" devices that's up to them, and we shouldn't push back. These are volunteer positions and the goal should be to minimize the hassle factor to Admins. "Personal Safety" is a tougher call as this is subjective. I think this is where we will build on experience and watch feedback carefully. If a pattern emerges—like a bunch of people say Project Plan C is really unsafe, then Admins can consider removing it and adding it to a list in the Terms that are unacceptable so they never have to worry about justifying the decision in the future.
The "Report" feature should be encouraged here, just like FaceBook and Twitter do. This makes safety a shared responsibility amongst all of us, just as it should be.
Again, I think risk is low with these provisions in place. It's easy to get carried away with what-if's, but this isn't the USA. If Admins want to disallow certain types of plans upfront that's their call and we should respect it. If there is that much concern then rather than letting users post it should be submitted to Admins first—which is unfair in a volunteer group like ours, and self-defeating to the initiative at large. Otherwise, let's watch it play out, allow for Admin discretion to ban certain things upfront as they see fit, and respond as a reasonable individual would if anything dangerous or illegal shows up. If this were a commercial Forum, it would be a different discussion, just as expectations are higher for FaceBook due to their size and influence. But we're no FaceBook.
GlenG
Glen
I'm an old 2D AutoCad user from decades ago so I've looked for cheap (ie free) alternative for a while for 2D drafting and have settled on QCAD and LibreCAD
Thanks GlenG appreciate your suggestions, shall explore both programs to see where and how it goes as learning curve is always a struggle for this old codger.
Have a look at nanoCAD as well. I found it a bit easier to use than QCAD or LibreCAD.
Some good suggestions here for CAD apps. Fusion3D is overkill for me and I have been looking for a simple app I can use. Thanks @YYCHobbyMachinist and @GlenG for the suggestions.
GlenG
Glen
I'll give it a try, for sure, thanks.
Clearcutter
Member
I was a Tinkercad user for a few years. It's free and a great starting point. I finally ended diving into Fusion360 though. The learing curve is steep but so worth it.
It comes down to the fact that no Cad program is easy. They all have a steep steep learning curve, So finding one with great tutorials is the way to go. Fusion360 has an absolute treasure trove of tutorials and help online. So I went with that. I have never had a problem I couldnt solve in Fusion360 with a litte Youtube help.
It comes down to the fact that no Cad program is easy. They all have a steep steep learning curve, So finding one with great tutorials is the way to go. Fusion360 has an absolute treasure trove of tutorials and help online. So I went with that. I have never had a problem I couldnt solve in Fusion360 with a litte Youtube help.