[TimG]

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

Obviously, these are not the IRS definitions, but BBO certainly fits this description. I think there are a few around here who would know for sure, but I'd guess yes.

I'd guess no, especially considering the recent investment in (purchase of a portion of) the company by a couple of individuals.

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think the mere fact that an entity is incorporated as a 501©(3) would make it immune to discrimination laws. And, even more likely, they would still be subject to ADA regulations.

[TimG]

From BBO's website:

Quote

We log most lobby and table chat. BBO members who are suspected of using private chat for the purposes of harassment, abuse, or any type of illegal activity may have their private chat logged.

We examine chat logs only for the purposes of resolving disputes when a member is suspected of breaking the rules of our site.

[mike777]

TimG, on Feb 21 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

From BBO's website:

Quote

We log most lobby and table chat. BBO members who are suspected of using private chat for the purposes of harassment, abuse, or any type of illegal activity may have their private chat logged.

We examine chat logs only for the purposes of resolving disputes when a member is suspected of breaking the rules of our site.

This sounds like it was option three, private chat, not lobby or table chat.
If it was lobby or table chat then many others would have seen it.

[TimG]

mike777, on Feb 21 2008, 08:38 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 21 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

From BBO's website:

Quote

We log most lobby and table chat. BBO members who are suspected of using private chat for the purposes of harassment, abuse, or any type of illegal activity may have their private chat logged.

We examine chat logs only for the purposes of resolving disputes when a member is suspected of breaking the rules of our site.

This sounds like it was option three, private chat, not lobby or table chat.
If it was lobby or table chat then many others would have seen it.

I mentioned it because it tends to support the notion that part of the BBO user agreement includes a provision for BBO to monitor private chat (as had been speculated earlier in the thread).

[bid_em_up]

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 08:18 PM, said:

Really? Personally I can't begin to guess whether the money they take in would even cover the costs, let alone produce a profit worth the endeavor. Honestly though, I doubt it.

Wiki's definition:

Quote

A nonprofit organization (abbreviated "NPO", also "non-profit" or "not-for-profit") is a legally constituted organization whose primary objective is to support or to actively engage in activities of public or private interest without any commercial or monetary profit purposes. NPOs are active in a wide range of areas, including the environment, humanitarian aid, animal protection, education, the arts, social issues, charities, early childhood education, health care, politics, religion, research, sports or other endeavors.

Obviously, these are not the IRS definitions, but BBO certainly fits this description. I think there are a few around here who would know for sure, but I'd guess yes.

Anyway, the tangents are interesting to me, but perhaps inappropriate here...I will cease my digressions before they become transgressions.

Setting aside the Wikipedia definition of non-profit organization for a moment, there is a big difference between a non-profit organization and a "for profit" company that is simply not making a profit.

I could be mistaken, but it appears (to me) that you think that just because BBO is likely to not be making a profit, that it is by default, a non-profit company. That inference cannot be made.

Now, returing to the definition, just because a company participates in the activities listed, again does not mean that any particular company is a "non-profit" organization.

The ACBL is a non-profit organization (or at least it used to be, I think it still is). Charities are usually non-profit organizations. They have no intention of making a profit (and in fact, they are not allowed to do so by law/IRS regulations). They can take in an amount of money equal to their expenses (and maybe slightly more for budgeting purposes, not sure) but there is some limit on how much it can be.

I would have to believe that Fred would be thrilled if BBO was actually making a profit, even if there was no expectation of being able to do so. That would make BBO a "for-profit" company. (Of course, this is strictly my opinion, only the powers that be could actually answer the question).

[finally17]

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 02:10 AM, said:

Setting aside the Wikipedia definition of non-profit organization for a moment, there is a big difference between a non-profit organization and a "for profit" company that is simply not making a profit.

I could be mistaken, but it appears (to me) that you think that just because BBO is likely to not be making a profit, that it is by default, a non-profit company. That inference cannot be made.

UGHHH!!!! Long explanatory rant thought better of and shortened (none of these smilies look frustrated).

<sarcasm> No kidding?!?!?! You must be joking? </sarcasm>

If you read more carefully what I write, I think you'll find that I am one of the more articulate and clearly spoken posters around. I go much farther out of my way than most people to be detailed and explicit, as a general rule, and not just on this forum. That's the primary reason my posts tend to be so long. And your poor assumptions about what I'm saying here are denied by things I've already said. I explicitly said that this definition doesn't match IRS tax codes. I'm well aware that there's a specific application process for the status, that it has certain exacting standards, and that it can be pulled (notably the IRS has recently asked for the financial records of a handful of so-called "mega-churches" because of questions regarding the mishandling of funds).

Here's the important point: CONCEPTUALLY, that definition matches my understanding of BBOs raison d'être. In combination with my guess that BBO hasn't turned a profit, this implies (to me) that their aim is to be non-profit (or not-for, I've never been clear on the distinction).

But I was already perfectly well aware of everything you wasted your time saying.

[finally17]

mike777, on Feb 21 2008, 08:22 PM, said:

and how your competition(for profit) sues you..yes they sue.

Johnson & Johnson went after the Red Cross last year for use of the red cross symbol:

J & J sues Red Cross - NYT

Before you think "what bad bad people J&J must be to sue the Red Cross over a stupid symbol," it's actually an interesting story and I'm not at all sure they weren't justified.

[finally17]

TimG, on Feb 21 2008, 08:30 PM, said:

I'm not an attorney, but I don't think the mere fact that an entity is incorporated as a 501©(3) would make it immune to discrimination laws.  And, even more likely, they would still be subject to ADA regulations.

The ADA is directed at employment opportunity and public access. I am without doubt that most private (I hesitate to say all because there may be exceptions) entities can deny service strictly on the basis of disability. A private school can deny enrollment to a kid in a wheelchair even if she passes all tests with flying colors. A social club can deny membership to a man with turret's syndrome just because they don't like uncontrollable outbursts of swearing. These groups might fold to social pressure, but the US government won't stop them. Consult a lawyer friend or read the ADA (text found here). You'll find that it has nothing to do with this.

Here are the key portions:

Quote

Section 202
Subject to the provisions of this title, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

Section 302
General Rule.--No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

The word public is intentional there, referring to a variety of things: businesses and publicly owned buildings and land, etc, but not including private clubs and schools and churches.

The ADA, like many legal standards in the USA, is not nearly as all-encompassing as people think it is. Take for instance free speech, which is at issue in this very thread. Generally, the only entity that can't curb what you say is the government. Your employer can fire you, even if you're off the clock, and BBO can deny you access to its servers. They can't stop you from saying it, but private entities can generally modify or end their relationships with you (which is what firing and denial of service amounts to) on the basis of what you choose to say. There's just no such thing as "free speech" as it's often believed.

[TimG]

finally17, on Feb 22 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

The word public is intentional there, referring to a variety of things: businesses and publicly owned buildings and land, etc, but not including private clubs and schools and churches.

Are you suggesting that all 501©(3) entities are private?

[helene_t]

finally17, on Feb 22 2008, 01:47 AM, said:

helene_t, on Feb 21 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

finally17, on Feb 21 2008, 04:14 AM, said:

Considering it further, I think I honestly believe that, without involving the woman, BBO should figure out who did this on their own and take action.

I think that would generally be a bad policy, although it could be appropriate if there is some evidence that the woman had been threatened not to report.

If the policy is to investigate on the basis of forum rumors, the one who spread the rumor could be considered as having violated confidentiality if the case is later identified an dealt with against the will of the woman.

I'm not sure what you mean by "violating confidentiality." If you're worried about legal issues, there's no such thing as "confidentiality" between friends, and BBO isn't burdened by issues of hearsay like an agent of the law would be.

If you just mean you consider it "ethically questionable" I can buy that. I realize my suggestion was extreme, and I'm not even sure I would implement it if it were my system and completely up to me.

Yes, I was not arguing that it might be illegal (as a non-USian the thought of ever taking anything to court is alian to me, lol) I was just arguing that it would be a bad idea.

As for this non-profit thing, BBO is obviously a for-profit organization. It is possible that it was originally set up as a hobby project so maybe it used to be non-profit, but not these days.

[bid_em_up]

finally17, on Feb 22 2008, 03:24 AM, said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 02:10 AM, said:

Setting aside the Wikipedia definition of non-profit organization for a moment, there is a big difference between a non-profit organization and a "for profit" company that is simply not making a profit.

I could be mistaken, but it appears (to me) that you think that just because BBO is likely to not be making a profit, that it is by default, a non-profit company. That inference cannot be made.

UGHHH!!!! Long explanatory rant thought better of and shortened (none of these smilies look frustrated).

<sarcasm> No kidding?!?!?! You must be joking? </sarcasm>

If you read more carefully what I write, I think you'll find that I am one of the more articulate and clearly spoken posters around. I go much farther out of my way than most people to be detailed and explicit, as a general rule, and not just on this forum. That's the primary reason my posts tend to be so long. And your poor assumptions about what I'm saying here are denied by things I've already said. I explicitly said that this definition doesn't match IRS tax codes. I'm well aware that there's a specific application process for the status, that it has certain exacting standards, and that it can be pulled (notably the IRS has recently asked for the financial records of a handful of so-called "mega-churches" because of questions regarding the mishandling of funds).

Here's the important point: CONCEPTUALLY, that definition matches my understanding of BBOs raison d'être. In combination with my guess that BBO hasn't turned a profit, this implies (to me) that their aim is to be non-profit (or not-for, I've never been clear on the distinction).

But I was already perfectly well aware of everything you wasted your time saying.

You know Aaron, for all the arrogance contained in this post, I think if you go back and read your supposedly well written verse, you will find that it says exactly what I stated that it appeared to. I admit I was surprised by it, and was trying to make sure that you weren't actually saying what I was reading, and simply clarifying just in case.

Especially since more than one of us apparently thought it said the same thing. It wasnt just me.

[fred]

Our home page (www.bridgebase.com) contains a link for our privacy policy. It also contains link to a "letter from Fred" that explains the history of BBO and the nature of our (for profit) company.

I am sure no harm was intended, but IMO only harm can result from public speculation on our own web site about:

- BBO's legal rights or lack thereof
- BBO's profitability or lack thereof

If you feel like you must discuss these issues, I would appreciate it if you could take this discussion somewhere else. I do not want to be put in a position where I have to either ignore the (mostly) incorrect speculations about our business or correct them by providing information that my business partners and I consider to be sensitive and/or private.

Thanks,

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[finally17]

TimG, on Feb 22 2008, 07:44 AM, said:

finally17, on Feb 22 2008, 03:48 AM, said:

The word public is intentional there, referring to a variety of things: businesses and publicly owned buildings and land, etc, but not including private clubs and schools and churches.

Are you suggesting that all 501©(3) entities are private?

No, I'm suggesting that it sounded like you thought the ADA was indiscriminately applied. If you're not, no matter, it was still interesting information to post.

Anyway, edited after having read Fred's post. Sorry, don't see why it's harmful but I'll stop.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Feb 22 2008, 07:54 AM, said:

As for this non-profit thing, BBO is obviously a for-profit organization. It is possible that it was originally set up as a hobby project so maybe it used to be non-profit, but not these days.

In the US, it takes jumping through some hoops in order to establish an entity as a non-profit and non-profit and hobby are two very different things.

[HedyG]

hmmmmmmm..................
what was this thread about?
maybe you should start a new one or get back to the subject or stop

[mr1303]

Getting back to the original point, as a general rule I would say that obviously it is inappropriate behaviour if sent to someone who found it offensive.

However, a second point was made by someone who said that BBO should investigate without an official complaint being made. This I am against since say (for example) I was playing on here with my girlfriend/wife. I then (for example) sent her a private message suggesting something intended for her ears only (I won't go into details for obvious reasons). This conversation may be perfectly normal in the circumstances of our relationship.

2 weeks later I find myself banned from BBO for sexual harrassment or similar. This idea smacks of Big Brother (as in 1984, not the TV programme) and the Thought Police.

I think it would set a very dangerous precident to start monitoring private chat before a complaint is formally made.