On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Jun 2008, comex wrote: >> How about Rule 101 (vi), the right of participation in the fora? > This all rather depends on the definition of "participation". As you > found in your spam scam there's a difference between sending something to > a forum and "via" a forum. One sensible definition of "participation" > might be "a players ability to send messages via a forum and to receive > messages from a forum", a definition that has nothing to do with protecting > message content.
Perhaps, but see CFJ 1738. >> Similarly with the right of refusing to agree to things. We do and >> can prosecute people for violating the Rules even if they have not >> agreed to them (see CFJ 2003), but not contracts. This distinction >> exists only because Rule 101 says it does. > > This was broken when the Rules = contracts was removed. And even broken, > there's no precedent there yet. All we know at the moment is that someone > can allege an infringement. And can be prosecuted, what's stopping them? If they never read the rules, like in CFJ 2003, maybe UNAWARE or EXCUSED is appropriate, but not in the case of, say, a watcher who has never become a player (but lied in the public forum). > I agree we don't have a privilege precedent yet, and that the thing was > made extremely unclear when Rules = contracts was removed (trivial fix needed: > add "or Rule" after "binding agreement"). But as it stands, while the > precedence in the final clause is important, I think the operative piece to > consider is the "assumed to exist" clause, which is not strong. If we > "assume" that something exists, we give it the a priori benefit of the doubt > UNTIL OTHER EVIDENCE SHOWS WE ARE INCORRECT. We don't will it into being > (create or grant it) the way we would if we affirmed outright that something > exists (as we do for Rights). Well, I think I agree with you here, but how do the two sentences interact? "A person's defined privileges are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to the contrary." "Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt." The former sentence clarifies, explains, and probably regulates the latter, but the latter does say that everyone *has* (not just is assumed to have) the privilege of doing what e wilt.
