spoogs

  • Posts: 417
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #45, on May 10th, 2011, 04:42 PM »
Quote from Road Rash on May 10th, 2011, 04:38 AM
Just some legal observations.

1) Article 1 has no sections. Even in the State of Nevada where many questionable incorporation's occur, a designated section is to be declared, not omitted as "Article I Section 1"

2) Article II is missing Section 1.0 through 2.0.

I could go on with all the legal infractions and questionable declarations here, suffice it to say the whole Bylaw is questionable and would be a fools arrand to defend if ever challenged.
I wont for a moment pretend to know much (if anything) about this stuff... but for the hell of it i checked out a few little things
My uncle is on the BoD of an NPO (Florida) and no sections are declared in any article of the bylaws that only has 1 section... mind you this company has been around over 10 years.
- Is this right or wrong I dont know... but it makes sense to me.

I'm sure section 2.1 actually means Article 2, section 1 what as 2.2 is Article 2, section2
- I've seen other legal docs written like this (only they didn't pertain to a bylaws)
Stick a fork in it SMF

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,063
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #46, on May 10th, 2011, 05:29 PM »
Pete, I'd noticed about texasguy and I thought I wouldn't mention it because, errr, I wasn't sure whether it would a laughing matter, given how ridiculous this is :P
OTOH, it's just... What? 'Support helper of the month for a dying platform'? No wonder 60 posts are enough to get you the title... Plus, with you around, why would they need a support guy? And giving you the SHOTM title every month would be the equivalent of admitting they're in deep shit :P

CJ Jackson

  • I got myself a new iPad, a different world to the iPhone!
  • Posts: 241
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #47, on May 10th, 2011, 05:49 PM »
would a laughing matter? I think you mean "was a laughing matter or not:D

Road Rash Jr.

  • Posts: 76
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #48, on May 10th, 2011, 05:53 PM »
@spoogs
Articles are declared with Roman Numerals ie: Article I, II, III etc.
Sections are declared by numeric value and sequence ie: Section 1, 2, 3, etc under the given Article.
Proper declaration
Article I
Section 1)
Section 2)
Article II
Section 1)
Section 2)
etc.
 
Stick a FORK in it, it's done.
(Error 69) No Seniors Porn Found Here

spoogs

  • Posts: 417
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #49, on May 10th, 2011, 06:02 PM »
I get that much.. my statement was more based on whether a section needed to be declared if there is only 1 section... and that where they have section 2.1 is referring to Article II, section 1 opposed to section 1.0 being missing.

I took a look at a few corporate filings just out of curiosity and noticed that many do not declare section to an Article if there is only 1. As a far as Section 2.1 and I didnt come across any corporate filings using that format (admitted I dont care enough about the situation to search more than I already did) but I've seen a few other legal doc that used that format.

Lex

  • Posts: 31
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #50, on May 10th, 2011, 06:17 PM »
Road Rash, there are multiple valid ways to write legal documents, and like spoogs pointed out - If the content of an article is a single item, no section heading/number is needed. And the numbering goes by article.subsection, so the 2.1 is article 2 section 1. ;)

Road Rash Jr.

  • Posts: 76
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #51, on May 10th, 2011, 06:23 PM »
Yes it is proper to declare Section 1) in the case of one section for that article.
Quote
and that where they have section 2.1 is referring to Article II, section 1 opposed to section 1.0 being missing.
Section 2.1 declares second section of the article which contains a subsection .1 of section 2.

You might even find some without (Section) but simply 1), 2), 3) etc under the article.

 

Nao

  • Dadman with a boy
  • Posts: 16,063
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #52, on May 10th, 2011, 06:30 PM »
Erm... Anyway, I don't believe a document could be nulled in courts just because it doesn't have pretty section numbers... (???)

Lex

  • Posts: 31
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #53, on May 10th, 2011, 06:32 PM »
Quote from Nao/Gilles on May 10th, 2011, 06:30 PM
Erm... Anyway, I don't believe a document could be nulled in courts just because it doesn't have pretty section numbers... (???)
Yeah, my thoughts exactly - plus it's a paper that only affects the members of the NPO, so if someone wished to argue it's validity it should be someone within the NPO.. I see no real reason for anyone to argue over them, when they don't affect you at all.

spoogs

  • Posts: 417
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #54, on May 10th, 2011, 09:02 PM »
Quote from Bloc on May 10th, 2011, 08:48 PM
The new "styles" now are titlebg/windowbg variations I've seen used in portals mods, even from SimpleDesk..and while they are nice in themselves(suiting Curve better than the previous styles which wasn't Curve-based at ALL)
[OT]
Feel free to offer some help or suggestions on SD, we have discussed changing bits of the layout here and there, Arantor has done some awesome things getting it to where it is but we certainly welcome a designer's touch ;)
[/OT]

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #55, on May 10th, 2011, 09:24 PM »
To be fair, when that variation was done originally (at least when SD really pushed it), that was a whole year ago ;)

I'm slightly more amused at the typos, almost as though no-one proof-read it first... I suspect I know who did that, and honestly, it's a shade embarrassing that it wasn't proof read ahead of time, and that it wasn't tested on 1024 wide where it would definitely be misaligned.

I have the unnerving feeling of it being how can I put this... rushed and ill-prepared?
When we unite against a common enemy that attacks our ethos, it nurtures group solidarity. Trolls are sensational, yes, but we keep everyone honest. | Game Memorial

MultiformeIngegno

  • Posts: 1,337
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #56, on May 10th, 2011, 10:31 PM »
SMF 2.0 final release is going to be the same day PSN will be available again I think.. delayed and delayed.. :P :eheh:

Arantor

  • As powerful as possible, as complex as necessary.
  • Posts: 14,278
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #57, on May 10th, 2011, 10:38 PM »
And it's claiming to beat Duke Nukem Forever...

:edit: I see Fustrate had the same idea, haha

Road Rash Jr.

  • Posts: 76
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #58, on May 11th, 2011, 06:40 AM »
Quote from Lex on May 10th, 2011, 06:32 PM
Quote from Nao/Gilles on May 10th, 2011, 06:30 PM
Erm... Anyway, I don't believe a document could be nulled in courts just because it doesn't have pretty section numbers... (???)
Yeah, my thoughts exactly - plus it's a paper that only affects the members of the NPO, so if someone wished to argue it's validity it should be someone within the NPO.. I see no real reason for anyone to argue over them, when they don't affect you at all.
@Nao, you're right it would not nullify the document. But there are many other legal infraction of an NPO that will cost them dearly if challenged.

@Lex, it was more drawing attention to the syntax of the document, which I later discovered was written by Kindred. Yes there are many ways of entering the Articles and Sections, not all are the correct format however. I don't program but in legal circles, like a programmer correcting improper syntax, I am a stickler for format and dotting all i's and crossing all t's. 
 

Lex

  • Posts: 31
Re: SMF 2.0 final THIS MONTH?
« Reply #59, on May 11th, 2011, 09:39 AM »
Quote from Road Rash on May 11th, 2011, 06:40 AM
@Lex, it was more drawing attention to the syntax of the document, which I later discovered was written by Kindred. Yes there are many ways of entering the Articles and Sections, not all are the correct format however. I don't program but in legal circles, like a programmer correcting improper syntax, I am a stickler for format and dotting all i's and crossing all t's.
That I can understand - Nothing wrong with being a bit pedantic about something you care about.

But, honestly if you wished to point out weaknesses or errors in said articles, you could have given constructive feedback to the people behind it, and made a difference perhaps - instead of starting to bad mouth the validity and contents of the articles publicly, in a place where most of the team won't even visit to see your comments.

It is this kind of approach from you, that makes many believe you are a troll and nothing more.
Please note, I'm not calling you a troll here - just making a point.