🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30 Jun 1998 04:57:19 GMT, dragnet@internalysis.com (Marc
Bissonnette) wrote:


>How can the re-stating of Canadian Laws, already in existance, get us into 
>trouble or make us liable?


Simply restating the laws is fine, however unnecessary, but saying
that *WE* will take *ACTION* and *DISCIPLINE* users based on our own
*INTERPRETATION* of the laws is thuggery, no better than a lynch mob.

>We already reserve the right to terminate accounts for any reason we see fit 
>(though that power has only been excercised a couple of times, to my knowledge, 
>and apparantly for (what the board felt was) good reason. 

Reserving rights and exorcising them are two different things,
*STATING* that these rights will be used to set up a kangaroo court,
is much worse.

>The draft AUP sets out a list of actions the board MAY take, if any action is 
>taken at all. The actions are, IMO, quite reasonable, including; warnings, 
>referral to enforcement agencies, referral to legal experts, arbitration, 
>suspension, and termination. (I feel like I should be saying all of this with a 
>Schwarzzennegellian accent)

Thereby creating expectations and with them liabilities.

>How does this make us *more* liable?

It certainly doesn't make us *LESS* liable does it?