I would say that unreasonable would be trying to offend them. But reasonable harassment could even be placing out a well thought out argument that proves them wrong. I would say the best way for you to know is if you know the posters intention if this is malicious then it could be unreasonable but if the intent is not then it should be ok.
The concept of (unlawful) harassment in the Australian Sex Discrimination Act talks about:
- conduct being unwelcome
- in circumstances in which a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.
So, it has both a subjective part and an objective part: the person feels harassed, and the person who caused them to feel that way really should have know that was going to be the result.
I think it's the second part that's reflected in the notion of UNREASONABLE harassment. You're not expected to account for some people's unusual sensitivities, but if the administrators look at what you've done and can say "well, really, what did you expect would happen?" then you're looking at a 3(c) violation.
- orfeo the semi-lawyer who just happens to have the Sex Discrimination Act sitting on his desk.
Originally posted by ivangriceReasonable = sending someone a few messages/reminders/etc.
"Section 3(c) : The Chess At Work administration team have concluded that a person has unreasonably harassed another member of this site."
Can one 'reasonably' harass someone? Is that OK? Or is unreasonable harassment actually being nice to someone?
Is there a lawyer in the house?
If someone continues badgering a person past the point where the other person says it's unwelcome, or spams them with excessive messages, or includes content of an offensive nature, then this would be unreasonable and thus harassment.
The "unreasonable" term was probably added because sending another player a few messages is generally okay.