The wiki is currently undergoing some major improvements. If you need some information and you don't know where to look, please come to #ecnet

Difference between revisions of "Daryl v ECnet"

From ECNet Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Majority Opinion)
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
We, the members of the ECNet appeals committee in concurrence on this date of June 24th hereby declare that we have decided in favor of the user Daryl.  Our reasoning is explained below.
 
We, the members of the ECNet appeals committee in concurrence on this date of June 24th hereby declare that we have decided in favor of the user Daryl.  Our reasoning is explained below.
  
1) Daryl did not violate the anti-spamming rules intent, which is to prevent advertisements and avoiding of /ignores.  Spam is to be considered that which is purely advertisements sent to more than 2 people, or messages which are sent while the user in question is avoiding a /ignore.
+
1) Daryl did not violate the anti-spamming rules intent, which is to prevent advertisements and avoiding of /ignores.  Spam is to be considered that which is purely advertisements which are unauthorized and sent via private message or messages which are sent while the user in question is avoiding a /ignore.
  
 
2) The ban made by operator hellstorm was made in good faith and in thought that Daryl was violating said rules.  As such, this issue shall not be referred for consideration to the abuse committee.
 
2) The ban made by operator hellstorm was made in good faith and in thought that Daryl was violating said rules.  As such, this issue shall not be referred for consideration to the abuse committee.

Latest revision as of 20:36, 24 June 2006

Majority Opinion

We, the members of the ECNet appeals committee in concurrence on this date of June 24th hereby declare that we have decided in favor of the user Daryl. Our reasoning is explained below.

1) Daryl did not violate the anti-spamming rules intent, which is to prevent advertisements and avoiding of /ignores. Spam is to be considered that which is purely advertisements which are unauthorized and sent via private message or messages which are sent while the user in question is avoiding a /ignore.

2) The ban made by operator hellstorm was made in good faith and in thought that Daryl was violating said rules. As such, this issue shall not be referred for consideration to the abuse committee.

Thus rules the majority of the ECNet appeals committee. This opinion written at the request of the majority by Heero.