On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 23:32 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: > > I agree with your extension of "via"; the message would have to go from a > > source, through the forum, to the destination. There is no requirement > > every > > player receive the message (as was abused to great effect when the > > Registrar > > made an IRC channel a public forum). If the lists are down or have no one > > on > > the recipient list, then the message does not travel via those lists. > > So where is the line drawn, if I as the Distributor configure the list > to send messages: > 1. To /dev/null or bouce them as spam (not "via" already, by precedent). > 2. To send them to spam folder, but save them so I can read them . > 3. To send them to myself only, at a different email account (how is > that different than #2?) > 4. To send them to myself and one other co-conspirator. > 5. To send them to N co-conspirators, where N is less than the > number of players who made every reasonable effort to ensure > they were receiving messages? > > This is one of those cases where I don't see the clear dividing line > here, so I'm just very curious where you (or anyone else) thinks it > lies.
In the current case, where G. made reasonable efforts to receive messages via the public fora yet did not receive the messages when they were sent, I'm beginning to wonder if the mailing list was in fact a forum at that time; imagine configuring a-b to send or not send messages at random. Is it still a forum? It's also worth noting that G. could have sent messages via backup fora and received them via looking at the online archives. I think that that effort is not unreasonable; however, the issue is that there was no information to let G. know that that's what he should have been doing in the first place. This is an interesting comparison with an attempted scam at B, where a group of conspirators first established an initially-open-access forum as the only forum in which game actions could be taken, then (some time later) closed it down such that only the conspirators could post. (In the end, the discussion of whether this was possible or not was mooted when one of the conspirators caved into pressure from the outside and reverted to the original forum, which any of the conspirators in question could have done unilaterally at the time.) -- ais523
