Russ, do you protect people from banning?

The above post makes more sense if you read this:
http://www.clausjensen.com/

Originally posted by Fat Lady
The above post makes more sense if you read this:
http://www.clausjensen.com/

I guess that'll get deleted again though...

Originally posted by Nordlys
I guess that'll get deleted again though...

I don't see why, the post doesn't accuse anyone of cheating.

Originally posted by Fat Lady
I don't see why, the post doesn't accuse anyone of cheating.

I don't know why either, but the last post giving that link was deleted.

Originally posted by Nordlys
I don't know why either, but the last post giving that link was deleted.

The wording of the earlier post was unacceptable, this wording is OK.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Would it be alright to explain what the (most recent) moderated post explained, substituting names?

My last 2 posts were removed.. in short these posts said:

The team that decides whether somebody is guilty of using an egine had reached a verdict: not guilty..

That was removed removed because I quoted the source of that..
And because I mentioned the name of the accused (although 'accused' approved to mention his name)

Second post that was removed contained the website / weblog of the 'accused'..

Mods honestly you are exagerating. Sheesh!

Originally posted by Forum Moderator
Users are reminded again NOT to name users when discussing cheating allegations in the forums.

Could you show me where in the TOS it says that this is not allowed in the forums. I'm sure I saw it there somewhere.....

Originally posted by saffa73
Could you show me where in the TOS it says that this is not allowed in the forums. I'm sure I saw it there somewhere.....

Probably covered under section 6 which is all encompassing !!!

Originally posted by adramforall
Probably covered under section 6 which is all encompassing !!!

Prob this then...

Post, email or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

I guess it might be seen as libelous or defamatory...

Originally posted by Amsterdamn
The team that decides whether somebody is guilty of using an egine had reached a verdict: not guilty..

That is not what the source said. The source (and I, earlier) said that no verdict had yet been reached. In other words, he had not been found guilty.

There is a very big difference between not reaching a verdict, and reaching a verdict of not guilty.

Originally posted by Gatecrasher
That is not what the source said. The source (and I, earlier) said that no verdict had yet been reached. In other words, he had not been found guilty.

There is a very big difference between not reaching a verdict, and reaching a verdict of not guilty.

I disagree. The initial presumption is NOT GUILTY. Not reaching a verdict means the initial presumption stays=NOT GUILTY

Originally posted by vipiu
I disagree. The initial presumption is NOT GUILTY. Not reaching a verdict means the initial presumption stays=NOT GUILTY

If the defendant flees before the trial concludes, that is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.

Originally posted by vipiu
I disagree. The initial presumption is NOT GUILTY. Not reaching a verdict means the initial presumption stays=NOT GUILTY

Well, of course, there is always a presumption of innocence. That goes without saying. But that is very, very different to "reaching a verdict of not guilty." Surely, you can see the huge difference.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If the defendant flees before the trial concludes, that is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt.

...and I guess if the chair the defendant is sitting on is set ablaze that is telling something too...