>>>>But that would be in the future. Anything in the past shouldn't have been affected with anything so drastic as a ban. Right?
>>>
>>>Everything new in there would apply from that point and it may requires a checkbox somewhere to be checked by each member to demonstrates the ongoing agreement with a new set of rules, if that would ever be the case.
>>
>>I remember enough business law from college to save you a step there. For a contract or element of a contract to be legally enforceable, there must be "consideration" -- each side must give something and get something. What you are describing is the classic example of one party not getting anything in return. A more typical case is where a company wants to modify employee contracts to add a new requirement or restriction. Unless they give the employee(s) something in return, such modifications are not enforceable.
>
>I'm not sure that's applicable in this case. If the current Terms of Service state that they can be changed, then that may be sufficient. Kind of like when your credit card company changes the rules.
>

I need to give myself a refresher on contract law. It's been 30 years, after all ;-) Another thing I remember, specifically in regard to bailments, is that not all legal responsibilities can be abdicated simply by stating in writing that you are not responsible. Some things you are inherently responsible for. For example, if you run a parking garage and state on the claim ticket that you are not responsible for lost or damaged cars, you as the owner may indeed be responsible for a car stolen out of the garage if you did not exercise reasonable care.

Anyway, I need to poke around a bit. Will follow up later....