Originally posted by RevRSleeker
Although I'm not sure anything has really changed, and taken in the context of that period of time, the clan forum had had 'many' warnings from the moderation team. Maybe it was a single moderator, I'm unsure, but the fact remains that 'he' was only posting in the manner that that forum had become accustomed to...basically, it was positively TAME in comp ...[text shortened]... d to just walk away and set our minds on something more positive.

At the end of the day, your assumption about rights is probably incorrect. The site operates across many jurisdictions in which "rights" are established in common law. No organisation, public or private is exempt. Any issues may be subject to civil action. No organisation is above the laws of the jurisdictions in which it operates. Eg international " private clubs"that exploit children are subject to the same laws as anybody else. The fact that they are cross jurisdictional or are private is usually irrevant. The advice that I have received informally here ( in Australia) is that failure to apply the TOS re abuse of players would be dealt with as a civil matter around breach of the duty of care the owners of the site have towards protecting members from abuse. Players also have a duty of care not to harass moderators to the point of fragility.

But why would anybody bother taking action? Why not just leave? This is a great site and I have had similar problems with moderators re transparency, consistency and accountability.

They do a tough job and while I believe there have been a couple of bad apples among them, most do a good job with little thanks.
Without bullying or harassing mods in any way, I believe it is better to keep working away from within the site for improvement.
One improvement would be to have decisions subject to appeal and limit appeals to 1 per year from each player to discourage flippant or groundless appeals.

Originally posted by drdon
[b]At the end of the day, your assumption about rights is probably incorrect. The site operates across many jurisdictions in which "rights" are established in common law. RHP in my limited understanding is not an unincorporated private club. It is a business organisation may be subject to civil action. No organisation is above the laws of the jurisdictions in which it operates.

Further to my previous post, I am reminded following further discussion that many football clubs are "private clubs" too and are frequently the subject of litigation for various reasons including failure to exercise duty of care towards members, irrespective of membership conditions or agreed terms of service entered into. "private" schools is a further example.... Just a point of general interest.