12 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KewpieLOl it would be a darn nuisance , or remain a holy mess. It will all come out in the wash anyway, even if trouble does come in pairs, so let's leave it in the draw before somebody say stick a sock in it
I suppose it's defamation of the character of your sock-puppet ....
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by johnygIt would run the risk of becoming a new competition. Scoring issues would become complicated Eg, would the gross number of suspensions be counted, or would it be the net days suspended? Perhaps Academy award style categories .. "In the category the most offensive comment made in the Clans forum..... The winner is....." nominations would be interesting. Inconsistencies might lead to arguments and further suspensions.
As someone coming off a month ban (for making a (non-TOS-violating) suggestion in this forum), I would support a public list stating why and when someone was banned.
As for the 'privacy' issue.. seems like a weak excuse to protect repeat violators.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by johnygYou can't have a list under the data protection act.
As someone coming off a month ban (for making a (non-TOS-violating) suggestion in this forum), I would support a public list stating why and when someone was banned.
As for the 'privacy' issue.. seems like a weak excuse to protect repeat violators.
People are entitled to privacy and their good name.
No organization is going to jeopardize their legal
standing by introducing and maintaining such a list.
It would be illegal and would not withstand current
legislation.
Only institutions who are regarded as proper authorities
have the right to maintain such a list and are also subject
to the data protection act and the freedom of information
act. When I say freedom it's not actually free. You
have to pay for the information and there is no guarantee
that it will be furnished to you.
Some institutions are not subject to the freedom of information act.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyThey're not our real names, you know. Your username is just a word, it doesn't have the same legal rights as you do.
You can't have a list under the data protection act.
People are entitled to privacy and their good name.
No organization is going to jeopardize their legal
standing by introducing and maintaining such a list.
It would be illegal and would not withstand current
legislation.
Only institutions who are regarded as proper authorities
have the r ...[text shortened]... l be furnished to you.
Some institutions are not subject to the freedom of information act.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by KewpieWorking across numerous FOIjurisdictions might be difficult too? What a nightmare The same can be said of those suspended armchair lawyers who claim they have some sort of "right" to free speech on this site! Makes me smile each time I read indignant appeals to this "right"
They're not our real names, you know. Your username is just a word, it doesn't have the same legal rights as you do.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by KewpieIf you are associated with a name
They're not our real names, you know. Your username is just a word, it doesn't have the same legal rights as you do.
then you can say that is my pen name or trade mark.
It doesn't always have to be registered.
Not like a product or a brand of beans.
You could have a pen name as a fiction writer
or be a rock star like Elton John. His real name is Reg Dwight.
If you are associated with a name and can produce documented
evidence that you have used that name and someone then
besmirches it, then you have the right of redress.
That's why......no more banned list among other reasons.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by drdonFree speech is not a privilege on this site.
Working across numerous FOIjurisdictions might be difficult too? What a nightmare The same can be said of those suspended armchair lawyers who claim they have some sort of "right" to free speech on this site! Makes me smile each time I read indignant appeals to this "right"
You must comply and obey the terms of service.
Not to do so would result in a forum ban or
if serious enough an outright ban.
This is a site for playing chess and for social interaction.
It is not a soapbox for your personal views nor is it a
platform for political or religious or racist or abusive views.
The administrators have a code of practice and conduct
which must be upheld. You cannot and do not have the right
to step outside the terms of service.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by johnygThere used to be a published list of players who had been booted off the site for various violations mostly dual identies and engineers as I recall ( the paragraph of the TOS was cited in each instance. Why did this practice cease?
As someone coming off a month ban (for making a (non-TOS-violating) suggestion in this forum), I would support a public list stating why and when someone was banned.
As for the 'privacy' issue.. seems like a weak excuse to protect repeat violators.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by drdonFor privacy matters I would imagine.
There used to be a published list of players who had been booted off the site for various violations mostly dual identies and engineers as I recall ( the paragraph of the TOS was cited in each instance. Why did this practice cease?
You'll have to ask Russ as I suspect he would be the
one who has all the answers and knows where the
bodies are buried.
They would be open to legal challenge if left posted.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyI'm curious then.. If local newspapers can print lists (with real names) of people who were caught with prostitutes(in areas where that is illegal, what makes RHP so special that it can't have a list of shame too? Also, how is it a violation of privacy to have a list of what wrongs people have done? Do the crime pay the time, transparency. Not to mention perhaps violations might go down if the know they'd get on the list...
If you are associated with a name
then you can say that is my pen name or trade mark.
It doesn't always have to be registered.
Not like a product or a brand of beans.
You could have a pen name as a fiction writer
or be a rock star like Elton John. His real name is Reg Dwight.
If you are associated with a name and can produce documented ...[text shortened]... hen you have the right of redress.
That's why......no more banned list among other reasons.
All the players who would be on that list are also listed in the player tables, is that a violation of their privacy?
All the admins would need to do is amend the TOS to include the fact that this list would be generated.. poof no problem...
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by johnygThanks to Murdoch's shady practices and phone hacking
I'm curious then.. If local newspapers can print lists (with real names) of people who were caught with prostitutes(in areas where that is illegal, what makes RHP so special that it can't have a list of shame too? Also, how is it a violation of privacy to have a list of what wrongs people have done? Do the crime pay the time, transparency. Not to mention perh ...[text shortened]... is amend the TOS to include the fact that this list would be generated.. poof no problem...
the powers of the press are to be curbed.
The Levinson report in Britain was quite clear in it's recommendations.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by johnygNewspapers say they act in the public interest.
I'm curious then.. If local newspapers can print lists (with real names) of people who were caught with prostitutes(in areas where that is illegal, what makes RHP so special that it can't have a list of shame too? Also, how is it a violation of privacy to have a list of what wrongs people have done? Do the crime pay the time, transparency. Not to mention perh ...[text shortened]... is amend the TOS to include the fact that this list would be generated.. poof no problem...
They use this as a defence all the time when challenged
under privacy laws. If it is in the public interest that a
story be published then they might succeed in winning their case.
But if I published something about you johny g private individual,
then that is a breech of privacy and not in the public interest
because you would not be a public figure.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyhttp://www.npr.org/2012/12/10/166901345/maine-prostitution-scandal-makes-locals-anxious
Newspapers say they act in the public interest.
They use this as a defence all the time when challenged
under privacy laws. If it is in the public interest that a
story be published then they might succeed in winning their case.
But if I published something about you johny g private individual,
then that is a breech of privacy and not in the public interest
because you would not be a public figure.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/78-people-arrested-prostitution-florida_n_2479005.html
Not like I'm suggesting they post photos... but.. in that second link.. none of those are public figures yet I still see their names...
In any case it was just an example.. and if RHP wanted they could surely make a list of ppl who were banned from the site, and or who were banned from the forum..