Originally posted by !~TONY~!Well, I'm perfectly willing to give credit where credit is due; very obvious cheats mgbal and clivestraddle have been removed today along with Stephane. Kudos to the Game Mods (whoever they are).
Look at the date on that post before you start flaming me. I posted that when Russ posted in the former Game Mod Forum about a new proposed system. For what I know, it hasn't been implemented. Don't get salty with me - I posted it when I heard it to keep people updated and try to get people to relax. My apologies Norris, I didn't know you'd get so worked up over it.
Originally posted by NorrisBDon't tell me that either of these posts are polite. You asked the same question, sure, but how you said it was dramatically different. Don't play games with me. If you're rude to someone, man up and apologize, don't deny something that everyone can read at their leisure.
How the hell is this system an, "improvement"
Originally posted by NorrisB
I pm'd tony the guy who thinks it has improved
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Para 13 TOS wouldn't be much use as it would almost certainly fall foul of UCTA (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977).
Paragraph 13:
Further, you agree that all terminations for cause shall be made in RHP's sole discretion and that RHP shall not be liable to you or any third-party for any termination of your account, any associated email address, or access to the Service.
2. There is some caselaw that sort-of supports Squelchbelch's point (ie, that you could defame a "username" if it equates to a real name), eg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7523128.stm
--m
Originally posted by murrowThat case concerned someone posting false information under someone else's real name on Facebook. That has no similarity to the hypothetical SB was proposing.
1. Para 13 TOS wouldn't be much use as it would almost certainly fall foul of UCTA (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977).
2. There is some caselaw that sort-of supports Squelchbelch's point (ie, that you could defame a "username" if it equates to a real name), eg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7523128.stm
--m
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI think the very action of a contract declaring that no legal action can be taken against it could cause the contract to be annulled.
That case concerned someone posting false information under someone else's real name on Facebook. That has no similarity to the hypothetical SB was proposing.
It would need to be tested but I believe there is anecdotal evidence that RHP are concerned that they could be in trouble if this scenario occurred.
Originally posted by no1marauderI realise it's a different situation, but it surely shows that it is possible to defame a "name" on the internet where it equates to a real name.
That case concerned someone posting false information under someone else's real name on Facebook. That has no similarity to the hypothetical SB was proposing.