Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680381)

Yes, it's not the GDPR that's a problem, IMO, but some of the other laws, and the coming DSA. For example, we're actually committing a crime in the Netherlands by insulting the royal family, or the heads of state of allied countries. So, due to my activities in P&R on a Dutch-hosted site, I should probably be serving multiple consecutive life sentences. :p

My point is just that if we're freely picking a new jurisdiction, let's avoid that sort of thing, and also laws on forum owners that might put them under undue stress about legal liabilities for things their communities post. If it were me in that situation, I'd want to keep the forum a civilized place, but not worry about legal penalties if someone decides the standard was wrong.

Originally Posted by Myrthos (Post 1061680375)

For the record, I have been contacted during the weekend about a potential hosting of RPGWatch somewhere else, with the whole technical and financial side being managed by the hoster.
The site would still need a team of news editors and moderators though.

As far as a more or less seamless transition is going, this could be an option.

We had a bit of a discussion, but nothing has been decided yet.

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680379)

When I read the "End Is Nigh" thread, I actually found some of comments quite affecting, and starting thinking about ways to sort it out.

Originally Posted by Eye (Post 1061680387)

I suggest Mars, no rules there, and @pibbuR will be on his way soon, we'll pick him to be site owner. ;)

En serio (I'm learning Spanish), every country has rules, and down sites. Like Pibbur I am not keen on sites not abiding to the GDPR, among other things.

As for King and foreign heads of state of allied countries, I already said somewhere in a recent thread it was fine to call Biden an idiot (and in case he gets re-elected: Trump).
Three or four years ago (can't remember) someone saying 'fuck the king' was arrested, load uproar from the population, prosecution decided to drop the case.

Originally Posted by Kos (Post 1061680395)

The physical location of the data has nothing to do with it, if the web/app can be reached in EU and stores EU citizen data it's covered by GDPR and must respect it.

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680403)

It really just comes down to whether you trust the owners, regardless of where they're based.

Originally Posted by Eye (Post 1061680399)

Hence my suggestion of Mars to Ripper. Though he still seems to think if everything will be located in the US, it will be decided on our own terms, but in fact he is ignoring laws he thinks that do not matter. :)
And that is just the GDPR. The DSA might change a few things as well.

Originally Posted by Myrthos (Post 1061680375)

For the record, I have been contacted during the weekend about a potential hosting of RPGWatch somewhere else, with the whole technical and financial side being managed by the hoster.
The site would still need a team of news editors and moderators though.

As far as a more or less seamless transition is going, this could be an option.

We had a bit of a discussion, but nothing has been decided yet.

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680410)

Not necessarily in the US. But there's an important distinction there. If I run a site in the US that is not GDPR compliant, and someone in he EU decides to access my site, I am breaking no law which I am beholden to respect. The EU could decide my site must be blocked for non-compliance if they get really excited about it, but there is no criminal liability for me.
:p

Originally Posted by Kos (Post 1061680431)

Life is not that easy :)
To give you an example Chicago Tribune or the Los Angeles Time had to block EU IP for few months because they were not ready.
Obviously they are in the US, but they are running ads, and it was judged a big enough risk for their customers.
Anyway the trend is to copy this kind of law like California, Colorado or Virginia did.

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680437)

Sure, but that's a much more complex cross-border situation with large companies and advertisers. But the point I'm making is that if were a US site owner, there would be no EU law applicable to me running a site like this in the US; it wouldn't be a case of ignoring a law I didn't like, because it's not a law to me there.



But what I'm really getting at, is that I've seen a lot of discussion and debate about the Watch's legal position over the years (not GDPR issues), and it's something I've seen the admins express concern about many times. My take is that it would be a good thing to choose a jurisdiction that has the least onerous legal conditions, and set our terms without that stress or risk, as tiny as it probably is in reality.



In terms of confidence in data handling - a policy of no tracking or unnecessary gathering and sale of data, and no adverts either. Have trusted members of the community involved in the backend that can vouch for the fact that the policy is respected and there's no funny business going on. That's a far greater assurance than a compulsory and unverified GDPR statement on a small site.

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680437)

Sure, but that's a much more complex cross-border situation with large companies and advertisers. But the point I'm making is that if were a US site owner, there would be no EU law applicable to me running a site like this in the US; it wouldn't be a case of ignoring a law I didn't like, because it's not a law to me there.



But what I'm really getting at, is that I've seen a lot of discussion and debate about the Watch's legal position over the years (not GDPR issues), and it's something I've seen the admins express concern about many times. My take is that it would be a good thing to choose a jurisdiction that has the least onerous legal conditions, and set our terms without that stress or risk, as tiny as it probably is in reality.



In terms of confidence in data handling - a policy of no tracking or unnecessary gathering and sale of data, and no adverts either. Have trusted members of the community involved in the backend that can vouch for the fact that the policy is respected and there's no funny business going on. That's a far greater assurance than a compulsory and unverified GDPR statement on a small site.

Originally Posted by Morrandir (Post 1061680374)

Because imho the main problem at this point isn't a technical one but an organisational one.
There needs to be one person who is in charge and thus legally responsible. Then he/she could find a team and proceed.

Originally Posted by Pladio (Post 1061680441)

That's not entirely correct, the EU and the US are negotiating a data transfer agreement which will allow EU citizens to pursue data privacy violations in the US.

Search for Privacy Shield 2
Or I think its new name will be Transatlantic Data Privacy Framework.

Originally Posted by SveNitoR (Post 1061680439)

I get your point, but it seems like the biggest hurdle is getting people willing to do the work to start and maintain a site at all, and who can also take the initial economic risk (or be trusted enough by the community to donate money beforehand).

Maybe someone from the US wants to do it, but maybe not. I'm going to guess that we won't be able to pick and choose.

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680444)

Well, it's probably easier to explain what I will actually do if this isn't sorted out in a more official way, and the Watch is going to die.

I already have a couple of VPS running various services, and I've tested some forum and CMS solutions, just out of interest and to see if I like them.

I would acquire a suitable domain, but I would maintain my anonymity that has always been important to me. That makes me the legal entity responsible for any issues, and I am then fine with that risk.

But, being anonymous doesn't do a great deal to inspire trust. So, I would invite trusted members of the community to help with the backend - partly to help with the chores, but also to confirm the integrity of what we're doing.

Initially I'd pay for it myself, but in the future I would have nothing to do with the money. I would ask a highly trusted member of the community to act as bursar, and any fundraising and its usage would go purely through them, with transparent accounting, and nowhere near me.

There would be a policy of no adverts, trackers, or data-dealing shenanigans of any kind.

I would consult the community on what our rules of conduct should be, and I'll bear whatever vanishingly small legal risk there is after whatever we agree.

I would set up the news site and a forum separately, as I see an advantage in them being independent entities. In part, it's a case of Keep It Simple Stupid - running services as close as possible to what they provide out of the box is what keeps maintenance headaches to a minimum. Then, depending on whether people get on board and want to take it forward, the news site could developed with as much or as little fancy Watch database stuff as we care to do.

First, I'd see if I could get some newsposters on board, because there's no site without them, and I would see if I could persuade people to be moderators, because that's a pain in the arse. [emoji14]

And then we'd see what happens.

But, as I say, I'd like to see if there's an official solution first, as I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the community would go with that option first, and I would have wasted my time, weeping in an empty forum. [emoji14] And I don't think it would be good to create a schism between competing options, if that can be avoided.

Originally Posted by SveNitoR (Post 1061680449)

Ok. So this is more your backup plan if other good options fail?

And for you to do that, you'd go that route to protect yourself and others who are responsible for the site?

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680444)

Well, it's probably easier to explain what I will actually do if this isn't sorted out in a more official way, and the Watch is going to die.

I already have a couple of VPS running various services, and I've tested some forum and CMS solutions, just out of interest and to see if I like them.

I would acquire a suitable domain, but I would maintain my anonymity that has always been important to me. That makes me the legal entity responsible for any issues, and I am then fine with that risk.

But, being anonymous doesn't do a great deal to inspire trust. So, I would invite trusted members of the community to help with the backend - partly to help with the chores, but also to confirm the integrity of what we're doing.

Initially I'd pay for it myself, but in the future I would have nothing to do with the money. I would ask a highly trusted member of the community to act as bursar, and any fundraising and its usage would go purely through them, with transparent accounting, and nowhere near me.

There would be a policy of no adverts, trackers, or data-dealing shenanigans of any kind.

I would consult the community on what our rules of conduct should be, and I'll bear whatever vanishingly small legal risk there is after whatever we agree.

I would set up the news site and a forum separately, as I see an advantage in them being independent entities. In part, it's a case of Keep It Simple Stupid - running services as close as possible to what they provide out of the box is what keeps maintenance headaches to a minimum. Then, depending on whether people get on board and want to take it forward, the news site could developed with as much or as little fancy Watch database stuff as we care to do.

First, I'd see if I could get some newsposters on board, because there's no site without them, and I would see if I could persuade people to be moderators, because that's a pain in the arse. [emoji14]

And then we'd see what happens.

But, as I say, I'd like to see if there's an official solution first, as I think it's overwhelmingly likely that the community would go with that option first, and I would have wasted my time, weeping in an empty forum. [emoji14] And I don't think it would be good to create a schism between competing options, if that can be avoided.

Originally Posted by Redglyph (Post 1061680420)

Just to be sure, what would be still left for us to do, in that case? I mean in our to-do list to transfer the site (choice of software, custom code, transfer the the db, …)? I suppose they wouldn't handle everything themselves?

Originally Posted by Myrthos (Post 1061680466)

In this specific case everything would be taking care of. Transferring all the files of the site, the database and getting it operational. RPGWatch would be fully operational, but hosted by someone else. In this case I would probably assist with the transfer to make it more efficient.


There are still discussion topics though and nothing is certain.

Originally Posted by Pladio (Post 1061680465)

So we have a volunteer? [emoji14]

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680472)

I might do it anyway, and keep it in reserve, just in case our new overlord turns out to be a wrongun'. :p

Originally Posted by Couchpotato (Post 1061680486)

That rules me out. Anyway just be careful with that slang term.:p

It just doesn't mean what people reading it think it means.:biggrin:

On a side note I'm starting to think your someone high on the command chain. I remember you alluding to this when talking about the English Government.:salute:

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680487)

Lol. Over here wrongun' is fairly common slang that means a dodgy person, or sometimes, literally a rectum. Is there some worse version I should know about? :p

Originally Posted by Couchpotato (Post 1061680488)

Check the urban dictionary for slang use of the word.:biggrin:

Link - https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wrongun

Originally Posted by HiddenX (Post 1061680505)

Who is this?
http://rpgwatch.net/

Originally Posted by henriquejr (Post 1061680506)

Ripper, are you already working on the new site? :)

Originally Posted by Ripper (Post 1061680489)

I'm kind of curious, though, who is considering taking on the whole old codebase, which Myrthos said had no future. The amount of hassle and resources involved would make me wondwr if it's someone who sees an opportunity in monetising the Watch.