21 Dec 07
Originally posted by jonamendallA decision was made. Count the number of people in this thread that agree vs. don't agree. It may be near 50/50.
I'm sorry, but DD is clearly a kid who made a mistake. A total ban is disproportionate and the people who lose are the people interested in his ideas about Chess. It is not good enough to write that RHP is not a democracy. Most people do not believe in such an obvious lack of accountability; people demand more. Subscribers have views; I'm not one yet (12 ...[text shortened]... hould be reviewed. No organisation can afford unhappy clients/customers/users. Think about it.
P-
21 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jonamendallMost people couldn't care less. In fact, I bet most people on this site have never even heard of DD, let alone have an opinion about his ban.
I'm sorry, but DD is clearly a kid who made a mistake. A total ban is disproportionate and the people who lose are the people interested in his ideas about Chess. It is not good enough to write that RHP is not a democracy. Most people do not believe in such an obvious lack of accountability; people demand more. Subscribers have views; I'm not one yet (12 ...[text shortened]... hould be reviewed. No organisation can afford unhappy clients/customers/users. Think about it.
Only a small fraction of the site's users post in or read the forums. A few of the more vocal members kicking up a fuss about their friend being banned isn't grounds for reviewing a deserved ban.
21 Dec 07
Phlabibit
By the way, RHP may be a private site run by two guys in England but it is still subject to the laws of that land. People who terminate contracts (which is what a permanent ban constitutes) are subject to the law I believe. All decisions of this sort could be reviewed in court (if DD chose to sue for Breach of Contract - unlikely I would have thought) as I am sure you are aware. Incidentally, this comment constitutes friendly advice and not harassment. And, I am sure that you do not mean that I am a troll.
21 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by jonamendall
Phlabibit
By the way, RHP may be a private site run by two guys in England but it is still subject to the laws of that land. People who terminate contracts (which is what a permanent ban constitutes) are subject to the law I believe. All decisions of this sort could be reviewed in court (if DD chose to sue for Breach of Contract - unlikely I would h ...[text shortened]... tutes friendly advice and not harassment. And, I am sure that you do not mean that I am a troll.
6. MEMBER CONDUCT
You agree to not use the Service to:
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;
Yeah, DD going to court to defend his rights to the ToS he breached?
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by jonamendallYou gotta pay to have an opinion, spanky.
Phlabibit
By the way, RHP may be a private site run by two guys in England but it is still subject to the laws of that land. People who terminate contracts (which is what a permanent ban constitutes) are subject to the law I believe. All decisions of this sort could be reviewed in court (if DD chose to sue for Breach of Contract - unlikely I would h ...[text shortened]... tutes friendly advice and not harassment. And, I am sure that you do not mean that I am a troll.
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by Daemon Sin[b]6. MEMBER CONDUCT
You agree to not use the Service to:
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;
Yeah, DD going to court to defend his rights to the ToS he breached?[/b]The point is it is not your decision whether DD breached the ToS, or the website owners' decision or my opinion, but ultimately the decision of a judge in England who could interpret these events as he or she chooses (though very unlikely that will happen I agree).
The point I am trying to make is that a permanent ban is disproportionate, unnecessary and arbitrary. My opinion.
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by jonamendallI was calling myself a troll, believe it or not.
Phlabibit
By the way, RHP may be a private site run by two guys in England but it is still subject to the laws of that land. People who terminate contracts (which is what a permanent ban constitutes) are subject to the law I believe. All decisions of this sort could be reviewed in court (if DD chose to sue for Breach of Contract - unlikely I would h ...[text shortened]... tutes friendly advice and not harassment. And, I am sure that you do not mean that I am a troll.
As for the rest of your post, see Daemon Sin's post.
Also also... Russ did the right thing if he wants to maintain his site as viewed as family friendly, rather than adults only... who wants to run an x-rated chess site?
P-
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by Daemon Sin[b]6. MEMBER CONDUCT
You agree to not use the Service to:
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;
Yeah, DD going to court to defend his rights to the ToS he breached?[/b]He only breached 4 or 5, FFS!
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by jonamendallThere is no case at all. Any business owner can tell anyone for any reason they are not welcome.
The point is it is not your decision whether DD breached the ToS, or the website owners' decision or my opinion, but ultimately the decision of a judge in England who could interpret these events as he or she chooses (though very unlikely that will happen I agree).
The point I am trying to make is that a permanent ban is disproportionate, unnecessary and arbitrary. My opinion.
P-