🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7 Jul 1998 19:25:41 GMT, dragnet@internalysis.com (Marc
Bissonnette) wrote:

>In article <EvqLDK.EF.0.bloor@torfree.net>, quirk@torfree.net says...
>>
>
>>As long as our actions are based on the inerpretation of *OUR* rules, not 
>>interpretations of the law.
>
>That's really splitting hairs, since we can simply regurgitate any relevant 
>section of the criminal code and adopt them as *OUR* rules. 

No Marc, it's not splitting hairs at all, there is a rather dramatic
difference for several reasons.

1) If we "regurgitate" sections of the criminal code, then as we add
new rules to our By-laws or an AUP or whatever, we have the
opportunity to discuss and debate each rule, and if a rule is to be
made, it is made with *OUR* wording, once consensus is achieved. In
addition if we decide that a rule is bad or problematic *WE* can
change the rule. This alone is a huge difference over a blanket pledge
to enforce "the law."

2) We do have the jurisdiction to interpret our own rules, we do not
have the jurisdiction to interpret Canadian Law.

3) Accusing a user of violating one of our rules has far fewer
implications than accusing a user of being a *CRIMINAL*, especially if
the user is never actually convicted of the alleged crime, in which
case the TFN can be seen as libellous at the least.

4) And last but not least; by creating specific rules for our users to
follow we reduce the chances of the Board using an unsubstantiated
charge of illegality to unfairly silence a user, forcing the user into
the Napoleonic predicament of *PROVING* they did *NOT* break the law,
and failing an actual criminal charge, without even the forum to prove
their innocence -- leaving litigation against TFN as their only avenue
to "clear their name," so to speak. Remember, this *HAS* happened
before.

I hope you will try to understand these not so subtle differences.

>Either way, see the revised AUP currently circulating.

Seen it, still not good enough.

Cheers,