When are unwritten rules enforceable?

[DeaconDean]

During the cource of discussion in a thread, I quoted an article which reputed another persons POV.

Because I quoted the entire article, the (Blank) Team, after i was reported, decided that my quote was more than 20% of the whole. They asked that I edit my post down to 20%.

Let me say, nowhere is it in writting that when quoting material, it has to be less than 20% of the total content.

According to the 5 Principles: "Three Relevant Commandments from the Ten Commandments - Exodus 20:7,15-16 (NIV), to be specific: 4. You shall not steal. (No illegal activities promoted, no copyright infringement, no contractual breaches etc) and: RULES: Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal."

According to these basic rules, I did nothing wrong. I gave the authors name, gave the authors work (title), and gave a link to the work.

Also, according to the rules for this area, it says: "When quoting material from another site, you must provide a link to your source material for authentication."

I was told that my post exceeded the 20% rule and was requested to edit it down.

Now, where in these rules does it say specifically that quoted material has to be limited to only 20% of the whole?

Why are some teams allowed to enforce unwritten rules?

Now I try my darnedest to be obediant to each individual rooms rules, but when is an unwritten rule an enforceable rule?

There seems to be a double standard here. Now I also realize that individual rooms may rules that are stricter than the general rules, but here again, when a rule is not in writting, when is it enforceable?

Why? (If this is the wrong area for this, please move it to an accptable area.)

God Bless

Till all are one.


Copying on the Internet (http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor555555)

Most of copyright law was formulated in terms of books, audiovisual works (e.g., motion pictures), and sound recordings. While the basic principles of copyright law are the same for all media, it is not yet clear how some of these principles apply to the Internet.

The act of viewing a page on the Internet automatically involves making a copy, since the material is transferred to the user's computer and stored there in semiconductor memory (RAM = random access memory). This copy is arguably not infringement, because authors post documents on the Internet with the intent of having other people read the documents, so there may be an implied license to copy web pages during the reading of them. Moreover, the copy in RAM evaporates when the machine is switched off and the copy in RAM is overwritten when the next document is read, so the copy in RAM is not permanent.

Some browsers, such as Netscape, make a second copy of a document on the hard disk drive (e.g., for Netscape running under Windows 3.1, typically as a file in C:\NETSCAPE\CACHE\*.*). The purpose of this second copy is to make access quicker when the user presses the Back button on the browser. Retrieving a copy from the hard disk on the user's machine is much faster than reading the document again from the source machine and again transmitting the document through the Internet. While this second copy is a convenient feature of a browser, the designer and programmer probably gave no thought to the implications of this copy under copyright law. The cache directory on the user's hard disk is set by default in Netscape 3 to five megabytes of the most recently accessed documents. Once this limit is reached, the browser automatically deletes the oldest document to make room for the current document. The copies in cache on the hard disk will survive switching off the user's machine, but the copies will not survive repeated accessing of more documents from the Internet. The copy in cache is arguably acceptable practice under copyright law, provided that this copy is not used for any other purpose.

A third way to make a copy with a browser is to use the Print command to make a paper copy of the document. Such copying may be infringement of a copyright or there may be an implied license from the author for such paper copies. If a court finds that there is an implied license, a court could still find infringement, if the licensee's use exceeded the scope of the implied license.

A fourth way to make a copy with a browser is to use the Save As command from the File menu. This command saves the HTML, JPEG, or other file on the user's hard disk with a filename chosen by the user. Such copying may be infringement of a copyright.

Servers operated by local Internet Service Providers obviously transmit a copy of documents requested by their users. A new section of the copyright law, 17 USC § 512(a) (1998), provides immunity from infringement to Internet service providers who automatically transmit or route copies of material in response to requests from users. Another new copyright law provides immunity from infringement to Internet service providers who maintain a temporary copy (called caching) of a frequently requested document on their server, to reduce the amount of long-distance communications and to decrease response time. 17 USC § 512(b) (1998).

Internet service providers (ISPs) and colleges should be aware of amendments to the copyright statutes in 1998 that provide the corporation or college with immunity from infringement by their customers or students if the ISP or college complies with certain requirements prior to the infringement. Consult a local attorney who is familiar with copyright law for details.

A user who copies text or pictures from one web site and then posts the material among the user's own web pages is generally infringing a copyright. Even if the user makes some changes before posting the material, the act of posting can be copyright infringement, as explained above in the section on plagiarism (http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor222222).

Aside from legal implications of copyright infringement, reposting of material from other web sites can be an inconvenience to other users. The author may revise the original document frequently, but copies posted by other users will not be revised (indeed, the author may not know of the existence of these copies). The easiest way for everyone on the Internet to have the freshest information is to have only the author post the document. Other people can post a hypertext link to the author's document, to refer their readers to the most recent version of the document at the author's site.

Copying illustrations or diagrams or photographs (e.g., scanning a printed image or copying a GIF or JPEG file) always requires permission of the copyright owner, unless the works are clearly in the public domain (e.g., either a work produced by the U.S. Government or a work that was initially published before 1922 and was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office).

Posting a document on the world wide web is not publication. Publication is defined in the U.S. Copyright statute as
... the distribution of copies ... of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. .... A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.17 U.S.C. §101.
Posting a document on the world wide web is a "public display" of the work, which is among the rights exclusively reserved to the owner of the copyrighted work. 17 USC §106(5).

I have seen many web sites with collections of images that contain a notice similar to the following:
If you find an image that belongs to you and you do not want it displayed here, send me an e-mail and I'll remove it immediately.That may be a pleasant statement, but it shows a serious misunderstanding of copyright law. The law requires that the author of a web site, book, etc. ask permission of the copyright owner before displaying any copyrighted work. The burden is on the copier to ask permission. It is not the duty of the copyright owner to cruise the Internet and ask authors to stop infringing a copyright. In fact, the copyright owner can file copyright infringement litigation immediately on discovering the unauthorized use of copyrighted material.

[arborvita]

DeconDean maybe this is a chance for you to contact a member of the reconciliation team and let them work things out to see what the correct procedure is. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist you.

[DeaconDean]

DeconDean maybe this is a chance for you to contact a member of the reconciliation team and let them work things out to see what the correct procedure is. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist you.

Thanks for the offer, but it still does not address the question of when are unwritten rules enforceable?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[ravenscape]

I'm just quoting the article for ease of reference.

During the cource of discussion in a thread, I quoted an article which reputed another persons POV.

Because I quoted the entire article, the (Blank) Team, after i was reported, decided that my quote was more than 20% of the whole. They asked that I edit my post down to 20%.

Let me say, nowhere is it in writting that when quoting material, it has to be less than 20% of the total content.

According to the 5 Principles: "Three Relevant Commandments from the Ten Commandments - Exodus 20:7,15-16 (NIV), to be specific: 4. You shall not steal. (No illegal activities promoted, no copyright infringement, no contractual breaches etc) and: RULES: Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal."

According to these basic rules, I did nothing wrong. I gave the authors name, gave the authors work (title), and gave a link to the work.

Also, according to the rules for this area, it says: "When quoting material from another site, you must provide a link to your source material for authentication."

I was told that my post exceeded the 20% rule and was requested to edit it down.

Now, where in these rules does it say specifically that quoted material has to be limited to only 20% of the whole?

Why are some teams allowed to enforce unwritten rules?

Now I try my darnedest to be obediant to each individual rooms rules, but when is an unwritten rule an enforceable rule?

There seems to be a double standard here. Now I also realize that individual rooms may rules that are stricter than the general rules, but here again, when a rule is not in writting, when is it enforceable?

Why? (If this is the wrong area for this, please move it to an accptable area.)

God Bless

Till all are one.

[arborvita]

Well I think when you were on staff we did have that rule. I can say that the areas can have forum specific guidlines in addition to the site rules. Does the team in question have those in place?

[DeaconDean]

Well I think when you were on staff we did have that rule. I can say that the areas can have forum specific guidlines in addition to the site rules. Does the team in question have those in place?

No, it doesn't. It simply says that a link be included for authentication.

I have, however, sent a PM to the Admins over this certain room asking them this question.

And I promise, that whatever their response is, I'll abide by that.

If it is in writting, I have no problem trying to abide by it, however, I detest unwritten rules being enforced.

And if I have not said it before, thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I do appreciate it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[arborvita]

No, it doesn't. It simply says that a link be included for authentication.

I have, however, sent a PM to the Admins over this certain room asking them this question.

And I promise, that whatever their response is, I'll abide by that.

If it is in writting, I have no problem trying to abide by it, however, I detest unwritten rules being enforced.

And if I have not said it before, thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. I do appreciate it.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Well I can understand the frustration of a rule that is being enforced and its unknown and/or unwritten. If they do not have the rule written somewhere then I would contact a member of the Reconcilation Team and ask for your post to be reinstated.

You are welcome for the help. Its what I like doing is trying to help where I can.

God Bless,

AV

[mnphysicist]

The latest rule published in the faq is
Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal.

Thus, there is a ton of discretion on staffs part as to what a copyright violation is.

In some cases more than a few sentences could be a copyright violation (ie AP articles), in other cases, 20%, and in other cases, ie if we were to get a DMCA takedown notice, even a few sentences could result in a violation. There are no doubt a number of other situations which could result in articles of significant length being left alone as well.

Short of repeated actions and a demonstrated intent to violate the copyright of others, I can't see staff issuing a warning or infraction for such occurrences, but edit requests and the like are quite likely.

As far as getting such info in guidelines, Lee is pretty clear, our rules are to be open ended and vague in nature, and we are to depend upon staff discretion. This also applies to guidelines... thus even they need to be open ended a bit. He specifically does not want narrow and legalistic rules nor does he want guidelines acting as defacto narrow and legalistic rules.

I guess in some ways this does foster a environment of unwritten rules, and certainly based upon CF's past where rules were quite narrow, this is a huge change for all concerned.

Thus, as we transition from the old ways to the new ways, there no doubt will be a number of these types of scenarios. Its going to be a while until folks, both staff and members feel comfortable in such an environment.

[DeaconDean]

The latest rule published in the faq is


Thus, there is a ton of discretion on staffs part as to what a copyright violation is.

In some cases more than a few sentences could be a copyright violation (ie AP articles), in other cases, 20%, and in other cases, ie if we were to get a DMCA takedown notice, even a few sentences could result in a violation. There are no doubt a number of other situations which could result in articles of significant length being left alone as well.

Short of repeated actions and a demonstrated intent to violate the copyright of others, I can't see staff issuing a warning or infraction for such occurrences, but edit requests and the like are quite likely.

As far as getting such info in guidelines, Lee is pretty clear, our rules are to be open ended and vague in nature, and we are to depend upon staff discretion. This also applies to guidelines... thus even they need to be open ended a bit. He specifically does not want narrow and legalistic rules nor does he want guidelines acting as defacto narrow and legalistic rules.

I guess in some ways this does foster a environment of unwritten rules, and certainly based upon CF's past where rules were quite narrow, this is a huge change for all concerned.

Thus, as we transition from the old ways to the new ways, there no doubt will be a number of these types of scenarios. Its going to be a while until folks, both staff and members feel comfortable in such an environment.

I still object.

I understand your confusion that the rules no longer explicitly state 20%. However, the (blank intentionally) has reached consensus that we will continue to maintain the 20% restrictions as our forum-specific guidelines, under the site-wide copyright rule:

Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal.
I repeat, an unwritten rule is not a rule.

That's like kicking your child out of the house because they didn't get an "A" on their report card.

Well, hey, its an unwritten rule that unless you get an "A" on your report card, you can't be part of this family.

Non-sense.

And furthermore, this would not hold up in a court of law neither.

According to "Disipline and Discharge in Arbitrition" by Norman Brand, Patricia Thomas Bittel, BNA Books, Published and Copyrighted 1998, Theory of Just Cause, A: The Seven Tests, Section 3: Employee Notice of Rules, p. 77-78:

"A rule will not be enforceable unless the employee has either actual or constructive notice of that rule. Likewise, management must provide written notice of any change to existing rules. If a rule has not been adequately dissiminated, disiplineary action may be set aside.

b. Clairity of Rules: A rule must clearly and unambigously establish a scope of prohibitied conduct, as well as its consequences of violations, in order to be enforceable."

Also covered under The Bureau of National Affairs Inc., Washington, D.C.

So I'm sorry, but I cannot, and I will accept that arbitrary rules can be enforced.

If the rules say it, well that is one thing, but when they don't, you can't enforce it. Period.

And that brother, is the Law.

And nowhere is this the "rule." Not on this site, not in the separate areas, and most certainly not in the FSR's, nowhere. It is not a written policy nowhere. And in light of the recent announcement that FSR's are now done away,

http://foru.ms/t6377770-announcement-forum-specific-rules-will-no-longer-be-used.html

well....

Also, I submit:

"...in the 17th and 18th Circuit Court Ordered Mediation Programs. Specifically, 18th Circuit Rule 14.04c states:..

These rules suggest an issue whether unwritten or partially written settlement agreements are enforceable. Superficially it would seem not. The combination of desire for confidentiality and the express requirement of a writing would likely lead to the conclusion that unwritten and partially written agreements are not enforceable, but the rules do not as explicitly so provide as a similar statute in Florida. See Hudson v. Hudson, 600 So.2d 7 (Fla. App. 1992). Some courts have concluded that confidentiality should preclude enforceability of an unwritten or partially written mediation agreement. E.g., Ali Haghighi v. Russian-American Broadcasting Co., 945 F.Supp. 1233 (D.Minn.1996); Hudson, supra; Ryan v. Garcia, 27 Cal. App. 4th 1006 (1994). Other courts have ruled the other way. Datapoint Corp. v. Picturetel Corp., 1998 WL 25536 (N.D. Tex 1998); Vo v. Honeywell, 1998 WL 15909 (Minn. App. 1998)."

http://www.dcba.org/brief/augissue/1998/art10898.htm

So, unwritten rules are not enforceable. Period.


And lest we forget:

"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." -Rom. 4:15 (KJV)

Or are we going to set aside scripture and jurious prudence?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I repeat, an unwritten rule is not a rule.

"Thou shalt not steal."

[arborvita]

Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal.

Whoops... I guess I missed that rule when glancing over them last night.

[Bombila]

Exerpted: As far as getting such info in guidelines, Lee is pretty clear, our rules are to be open ended and vague in nature, and we are to depend upon staff discretion. This also applies to guidelines... thus even they need to be open ended a bit. He specifically does not want narrow and legalistic rules nor does he want guidelines acting as defacto narrow and legalistic rules.

I guess in some ways this does foster a environment of unwritten rules, and certainly based upon CF's past where rules were quite narrow, this is a huge change for all concerned.

Thus, as we transition from the old ways to the new ways, there no doubt will be a number of these types of scenarios. Its going to be a while until folks, both staff and members feel comfortable in such an environment.

I hope it is acceptable to move from copywrite rules to the more general aspects of mnphysicist's post.

Is there somewhere on the site where LeeD states publicly that rules are to be "open ended and vague in nature, and we are to depend upon staff discretion" and "He specifically does not want narrow and legalistic rules nor does he want guidelines acting as defacto narrow and legalistic rules"?

I must say that is far from the impression I have been getting from staff in rules commentary. Half the reason I and other members are feeling extremely uncomfortable with the forum direction right now is that LeeD has been subtly presented to us as hardline, dictatorial, and insistent on very set-in-stone beliefs, rules, and controls.

The return to closed reports, lack of staff accountibilty to members except through other staff, with no way for members to know what is actually being discussed, and Byzantine punishment codes, does not suggest anything being remotely 'open'.

It is my opinion that the only way to justify giving staff the power to broadly interpret rules in this fashion is to make reports and other staff deliberations visible to the membership. Otherwise, staff will be inundated with reports, appeals, and endless bickering over whose interpretation is right.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

And furthermore, this would not hold up in a court of law neither.

According to "Disipline and Discharge in Arbitrition" by Norman Brand, Patricia Thomas Bittel, BNA Books, Published and Copyrighted 1998, Theory of Just Cause, A: The Seven Tests, Section 3: Employee Notice of Rules, p. 77-78:

"A rule will not be enforceable unless the employee has either actual or constructive notice of that rule. Likewise, management must provide written notice of any change to existing rules. If a rule has not been adequately dissiminated, disiplineary action may be set aside.

b. Clairity of Rules: A rule must clearly and unambigously establish a scope of prohibitied conduct, as well as its consequences of violations, in order to be enforceable."

Also covered under The Bureau of National Affairs Inc., Washington, D.C.




And that brother, is the Law.




Also, I submit:

"...in the 17th and 18th Circuit Court Ordered Mediation Programs. Specifically, 18th Circuit Rule 14.04c states:..

[FONT=Arial]These rules suggest an issue whether unwritten or partially written settlement agreements are enforceable. Superficially it would seem not. The combination of desire for confidentiality and the express requirement of a writing would likely lead to the conclusion that unwritten and partially written agreements are not enforceable, but the rules do not as explicitly so provide as a similar statute in Florida. See Hudson v. Hudson, 600 So.2d 7 (Fla. App. 1992). Some courts have concluded that confidentiality should preclude enforceability of an unwritten or partially written mediation agreement. E.g., Ali Haghighi v. Russian-American Broadcasting Co., 945 F.Supp. 1233 (D.Minn.1996); Hudson, supra; Ryan v. Garcia, 27 Cal. App. 4th 1006 (1994). Other courts have ruled the other way. Datapoint Corp. v. Picturetel Corp., 1998 WL 25536 (N.D. Tex 1998); Vo v. Honeywell, 1998 WL 15909 (Minn. App. 1998)."

http://www.dcba.org/brief/augissue/1998/art10898.htm




Yeah. Umm. You know that none of that applies here, right?

[Gwenyfur]

Well I can understand the frustration of a rule that is being enforced and its unknown and/or unwritten. If they do not have the rule written somewhere then I would contact a member of the Reconcilation Team and ask for your post to be reinstated.

You are welcome for the help. Its what I like doing is trying to help where I can.

God Bless,

AV
av...
Theology did not delete DD's posts...he self deleted them rather than trimming them down to the requested 20%

with the current rule of "don't break laws" and the standard 20% of a work isn't copyright infringement it's not an unwritten rule...as the law I posted into the discussion states...

Our site wide CF Rule (http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0):
Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal.


balanced with the copyright explanation below
Copying on the Internet (http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor555555)

Most of copyright law was formulated in terms of books, audiovisual works (e.g., motion pictures), and sound recordings. While the basic principles of copyright law are the same for all media, it is not yet clear how some of these principles apply to the Internet.

The act of viewing a page on the Internet automatically involves making a copy, since the material is transferred to the user's computer and stored there in semiconductor memory (RAM = random access memory). This copy is arguably not infringement, because authors post documents on the Internet with the intent of having other people read the documents, so there may be an implied license to copy web pages during the reading of them. Moreover, the copy in RAM evaporates when the machine is switched off and the copy in RAM is overwritten when the next document is read, so the copy in RAM is not permanent.

Some browsers, such as Netscape, make a second copy of a document on the hard disk drive (e.g., for Netscape running under Windows 3.1, typically as a file in C:\NETSCAPE\CACHE\*.*). The purpose of this second copy is to make access quicker when the user presses the Back button on the browser. Retrieving a copy from the hard disk on the user's machine is much faster than reading the document again from the source machine and again transmitting the document through the Internet. While this second copy is a convenient feature of a browser, the designer and programmer probably gave no thought to the implications of this copy under copyright law. The cache directory on the user's hard disk is set by default in Netscape 3 to five megabytes of the most recently accessed documents. Once this limit is reached, the browser automatically deletes the oldest document to make room for the current document. The copies in cache on the hard disk will survive switching off the user's machine, but the copies will not survive repeated accessing of more documents from the Internet. The copy in cache is arguably acceptable practice under copyright law, provided that this copy is not used for any other purpose.

A third way to make a copy with a browser is to use the Print command to make a paper copy of the document. Such copying may be infringement of a copyright or there may be an implied license from the author for such paper copies. If a court finds that there is an implied license, a court could still find infringement, if the licensee's use exceeded the scope of the implied license.

A fourth way to make a copy with a browser is to use the Save As command from the File menu. This command saves the HTML, JPEG, or other file on the user's hard disk with a filename chosen by the user. Such copying may be infringement of a copyright.

Servers operated by local Internet Service Providers obviously transmit a copy of documents requested by their users. A new section of the copyright law, 17 USC § 512(a) (1998), provides immunity from infringement to Internet service providers who automatically transmit or route copies of material in response to requests from users. Another new copyright law provides immunity from infringement to Internet service providers who maintain a temporary copy (called caching) of a frequently requested document on their server, to reduce the amount of long-distance communications and to decrease response time. 17 USC § 512(b) (1998).

Internet service providers (ISPs) and colleges should be aware of amendments to the copyright statutes in 1998 that provide the corporation or college with immunity from infringement by their customers or students if the ISP or college complies with certain requirements prior to the infringement. Consult a local attorney who is familiar with copyright law for details.

A user who copies text or pictures from one web site and then posts the material among the user's own web pages is generally infringing a copyright. Even if the user makes some changes before posting the material, the act of posting can be copyright infringement, as explained above in the section on plagiarism (http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor222222).

Aside from legal implications of copyright infringement, reposting of material from other web sites can be an inconvenience to other users. The author may revise the original document frequently, but copies posted by other users will not be revised (indeed, the author may not know of the existence of these copies). The easiest way for everyone on the Internet to have the freshest information is to have only the author post the document. Other people can post a hypertext link to the author's document, to refer their readers to the most recent version of the document at the author's site.

Copying illustrations or diagrams or photographs (e.g., scanning a printed image or copying a GIF or JPEG file) always requires permission of the copyright owner, unless the works are clearly in the public domain (e.g., either a work produced by the U.S. Government or a work that was initially published before 1922 and was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office).

Posting a document on the world wide web is not publication. Publication is defined in the U.S. Copyright statute as
... the distribution of copies ... of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. .... A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.17 U.S.C. §101.
Posting a document on the world wide web is a "public display" of the work, which is among the rights exclusively reserved to the owner of the copyrighted work. 17 USC §106(5).

I have seen many web sites with collections of images that contain a notice similar to the following:
If you find an image that belongs to you and you do not want it displayed here, send me an e-mail and I'll remove it immediately.That may be a pleasant statement, but it shows a serious misunderstanding of copyright law. The law requires that the author of a web site, book, etc. ask permission of the copyright owner before displaying any copyrighted work. The burden is on the copier to ask permission. It is not the duty of the copyright owner to cruise the Internet and ask authors to stop infringing a copyright. In fact, the copyright owner can file copyright infringement litigation immediately on discovering the unauthorized use of copyrighted material.
''
What Is Not Protected by Copyright? (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp)


Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:
Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

Make this a quite visible rule...

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Seriously... Netscape?

The Fair Use clauses should be mentioned, and they typically only give a 10% upper range for reproduction. Twenty percent of anything is likely in violation of the statutes.

[arborvita]

av...
Theology did not delete DD's posts...he self deleted them rather than trimming them down to the requested 20%

with the current rule of "don't break laws" and the standard 20% of a work isn't copyright infringement it's not an unwritten rule...as the law I posted into the discussion states...

Our site wide CF Rule (http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0):

balanced with the copyright explanation below''
[/LIST]
Make this a quite visible rule...
:doh: I made a mistake please refer to post #10

Thanks for the clarification though Gweny! :hug:

[Gwenyfur]

;)

:hug: av

[DeaconDean]

"Thou shalt not steal."

Brother, with all due respect, you don't know the situation so I really resent your accusation.

I did not steal. I credited the Author, gave his name. I credited the work, gave the title. And I gave the link to the work. Furthermore, there was no posted Copyright date or published date, and by Law, I was covered.

Like I said, I resent your accusation of "Thou shalt not steal."

I did not steal anything.

av...
Theology did not delete DD's posts...he self deleted them rather than trimming them down to the requested 20%

with the current rule of "don't break laws" and the standard 20% of a work isn't copyright infringement it's not an unwritten rule...as the law I posted into the discussion states...

Our site wide CF Rule (http://foru.ms/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule_0):

balanced with the copyright explanation below''
[/list]Make this a quite visible rule...

Gweny, you know that I respect you as a person and a moderator more than anybody else on this site. So it is with all due respect that i say I still disagree with you.

Here is the rule as it stands:

Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal.

Foru.ms Rules Ver 1.4 2 November 2007 04:00PM CDT

This rule became "offical" on November 1st, my post was november 3rd.

Now I ask you, show me where it says I absolutely must limit my qouting of material to 20%?

Notice here it says:

"A user who copies text or pictures from one web site and then posts the material among the user's own web pages is generally infringing a copyright."

Emphasis on generally, not always, but generally.

And as I quoted from "A Manual for Writers" it is the courts and not the publishers, or writters who enforce the copyright.

Even with all your rules you quoted, nowhere, and I do mean nowhere is it in writting, that quoted material be limited to only 20%.

And that is the whole point, if its not in writting, then you can't arbritarily enforce a rule that is not written.

And another point, since the rule is not in writting, I violated no rules, so no RFE should have been sent.

So I ask you, Gweny, where did I break any rule?

An unwritten rule is not a rule.

The Bible says:

"...for where no law is, there is no transgression." -Rom. 4:15 (KJV)

By Paul's statement in Romans, and according to scripture, if there is no law (rule) then there is no transgression.

So, tell me where did I break any rule?

If your going to enforce a 20% rule, then PUT IT IN WRITTING.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Tonks]

DeaconDean,

Mel or I will address the specific issue...there is just a bunch of stuff to chew through. Historically CF has tolerated a post which includes 20% of a work plus a citation to the full-text...regardless of whether or not there is permission to copy the full text of the remarks.

[DeaconDean]

DeaconDean,

Mel or I will address the specific issue...there is just a bunch of stuff to chew through. Historically CF has tolerated a post which includes 20% of a work plus a citation to the full-text...regardless of whether or not there is permission to copy the full text of the remarks.

You know Matt, I respect you and the position you hold here. i know we personally may not have seen eye to eye on some things, but i do like the fact that we have worked together to resolve our differences.

But I tell you what, some pretty strong accusations have been brought up against me even in this discussion.

So here's the deal, don't worry about it. Since I'm a theif, stole somebody else's work, then my character is destroyed, my creditibility gone. no longer can my word be trusted.

I just want to thank those who done this.

Moderators, close this thread.

I respectfully ask that this be closed. My credibility shot, my word destroted, my ministry gone.

The point has now been rendered moot.

CLOSE THIS THREAD AS NO FURTHER GOOD CAN COME FROM THIS DISCUSSION PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER.

I'm outta this discussion.

God Bless you all.

Till all are one.

[Tonks]

Hi DeaconDean,

I'm not sure what you're referring to...I don't consider your credibility shot....merely that I read the PM at 4AM yesterday morning and haven't had time to chew through all the stuff yet.

I just gotta get smart on the issues.

Matt

[arborvita]

Dean for what its worth I also do not consider your creditability to be shot.

If you wish I will close this thread.

[Gwenyfur]

Dean?
How is your credibility shot? your ministry gone?
an' all the rest?

[constance]

The 20% "rule" is not a rule, it is a guideline, a rule of thumb.

If the work that was quoted has been released to the public domain, or if the author has given explicit permission to quote in the source, then we should revisit this. Otherwise, 20% is a good rule of thumb.

I don't believe anyone is accusing you of plagiarism, or even of doing something wrong. This rule is there to protect the site - we have received DMCA takedown notices and they are a lot of work to resolve.

[DeaconDean]

Dean?
How is your credibility shot? your ministry gone?
an' all the rest?

on page 1:


Originally Posted by DeaconDean
I repeat, an unwritten rule is not a rule.

"Thou shalt not steal."


This person is saying I stole something. he is essecentially calling me a thief. And you say my creditibilty isn't shot?

:mad:

I'm a thief, I stole something. If this were to come up in a school or college, even if it proved to be wrong, my credibility would still be shot.

:mad:

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRG!

The 20% "rule" is not a rule, it is a guideline, a rule of thumb.

If the work that was quoted has been released to the public domain, or if the author has given explicit permission to quote in the source, then we should revisit this. Otherwise, 20% is a good rule of thumb.

I don't believe anyone is accusing you of plagiarism, or even of doing something wrong. This rule is there to protect the site - we have received DMCA takedown notices and they are a lot of work to resolve.

And I'll say it one last time, an unwritten rule is not a rule. It isn't enforceable.

lets say you own a business, an employee comes in drunk. you fire him because he's drunk. You can get sued for this action. take it to a court of law and tell the judge that its a "rule of thumb," or "its an unwritten rule' that you don't come to work drunk. The judge will laugh you out of court and rule in the other persons favor.

my whole point is, if you want to say 20% of any article is all you can quote, fine, PUT IT IN BLACK AND WHITE!

Otherwise, its no rule, unwritten, or understood.

And as Tonks said earlier, sometimes, entire quotes have been allowed in the past. I have done this numerous time debating with a certain individual in the Soterology room and nothing was ever said, and no RFE's were ever issued.

I have qouted an article by John Gill that was so long it took three posts to include it, but no RFE was sent, and nothing was said about it. but one individual gets their butt on their shoulders, reports me, and suddenly, an unwritten rule is to be enforced?

Please.

The rules, which went into effect November 2007, say absolutely nothing about the 20%.

If your going to enforce it, put it in black and white and enforce it site wide, not just arbitrarally.

PUT IT IN WRITTING, PUT IT IN BLACK AND WHITE!

But as I said before, since I'm in the wrong, who the ______ cares, I'm wrong, its been said so many times previously.

Rarely have I gotten so worked up over something, but this is way over the line. Enforcing unwritten rules.

I'm outta here.

No more posting in this discussion as far as I'm concerned.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[tapero]

Hi Dean,

Him saying that doesn't mean a thing Dean. It's no different than what we see in christian only or old co only forums. People say things they should not.

you didn't steal anything, of course your credibility is not shot.

There's not a more admirable man on this site that I know than you Dean.

It's just that the 20 percent isn't explicitly written in the rules any longer but we still go by it. It's the way the new owner has kind of set things up as he probably is the one who listed the rules, tho not sure, and just didn't think to include the 20 perecent but we know to enforce it.

It's only an edit and says nothing about your credibility at all Dean.

you know that God knows who you are and that's what counts but just cause that one poster wrote that Dean, means nothing, we see this type of writing all the time in the forums,someone saying things they ought not, so please don't give that any creedance. No one on the team Im sure thinks anything more than an edit needs be made as evidenced by the postings here by those on the team.

you are awesome and dont let what one poster in here said make you feel badly because brother, i'm in d and d all the time and i get it all the time and it doesn't stick, Christ does, what He says matters and your credibility isn't shot at all. You didn't steal anything and had no clue of course to 20 percent as is not written.

Not only that even when it was written,we always still would get reports on such and we merely just asked peopleto cut em down to 20 percent, never is a biggie.

Of course how could you know when it wasn't written.

Hugs and love,
tapero

[Gwenyfur]

:sigh:

ok...I don't think he intended to call you a thief...

:sigh:

men ....

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Dean...

You, personally, are not a thief. A thief is someone who intends to steal, and you're not that kind of person. You're just a fellow who is trying to do his best, but who has been misinformed.

Attribution isn't sufficient.

Copyright exists from the moment of creation, regardless of notice or lack thereof.

By law, you were not covered. Fair Use generally defines what you can use, how much you can use, and how you can use it... it doesn't clearly define it, not by any means, but using more than 10% is, if not theft, at least copyright infringement.

A weak analogy might be me using your lawnmower without your permission. I take it, I cut my lawn with it, I put it back in your garage when I'm done. I tell everyone that it belongs to Dean and that it was built in a factory in 2006. But I never asked for your permission to use it.

I don't think you'd be too happy with me.

[DeaconDean]

Dean...

You, personally, are not a thief. A thief is someone who intends to steal, and you're not that kind of person. You're just a fellow who is trying to do his best, but who has been misinformed.

Attribution isn't sufficient.

Copyright exists from the moment of creation, regardless of notice or lack thereof.

By law, you were not covered. Fair Use generally defines what you can use, how much you can use, and how you can use it... it doesn't clearly define it, not by any means, but using more than 10% is, if not theft, at least copyright infringement.

A weak analogy might be me using your lawnmower without your permission. I take it, I cut my lawn with it, I put it back in your garage when I'm done. I tell everyone that it belongs to Dean and that it was built in a factory in 2006. But I never asked for your permission to use it.

I don't think you'd be too happy with me.

Nobody in this thread has understood the point of this discussion, not one of you.

The whole point of asking was to understand why unwritten rules are enforced.

The rules, the Five principles, the rules for the Theology area, and the Soterology area say not one single word about limiting quotes to 20%.

Nowhere!

Now, if you can show me in black and white where this is, I'll change my POV, but I have supplied the links, and unless they have been changed since last week, there is no rule about "20%."

And you keep throwing the phrase "Thou shalt not steal" in my face.

How many times do I have to keep repeating:

I DID NOT STEAL! I DID NOT STEAL! I DID NOT STEAL!

I credited the author, the title, the work, and the web-site.

The whole point is, we have to follow scripture. And Paul said:

"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." -Rom. 4:15 (KJV)

From Adam down to Moses, until the Law was given on Mt. Sinai, nobody could be charged with transgression of God's Law's because there were no Laws.

No law, no transgression.

And that is the whole point. The 20% rule is not in the rules or laws of this web-site/Forum.

And since it isn't, I can't be forced to edit.

It does not matter whether its arbitrition, or mediation, or whatever, unwritten rules are not enforceable, period.

And all I'm asking is that if your going to enforce a 20% rule, put it in writting.

We had this rule in place before the 7/7/07 reforms, why can't it be added back?

Is it impossible?

Is it too much trouble?

What?

And still, the whole point has been missed by everybody.

An unwritten rule is not a rule!

An unwritten rule is not enforceable.

And once again, I plead what Paul said:

"... where no law is, there is no transgression." -Rom. 4:15 (KJV)

Since the 20% "unwritten rule" is not in the laws/rules, then I committed no transgression, therefore, I should not have been asked to edit.

Its just that plain, I violated no law/rule, ergo, I committed no transgression.

Therefore, no RFE should have been issued. Period.

If your going to enforce this, put it in black and white!

It used to be in the rules.

Put it back if your going to enforce it.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I just asked about this, you can see the response I got here (http://foru.ms/t6375118&page=7)

If I were you, I wouldn't hold your breath.

[DeaconDean]

I just asked about this, you can see the response I got here (http://foru.ms/t6375118&page=7)

If I were you, I wouldn't hold your breath.

As much as I hate it, it would seem that you are correct.

Evidently, unwritten rules will be enforced without due consideration, or an amendment to the rules.

This is truly sad, this is nothing more than despostism.

WE made the rules, and since it is an "understood" "unwritten" rule, there is nothing that can be said or done about it.

This is indeed a sad condition.

And I guess this point is now rendered moot.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Gwenyfur]

Dean...
I answered your question in this thread
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40664961&postcount=13

with both the rule, and the copyright laws and their interpretation.

I'm sorry it wasn't sufficient for you. :(

[DeaconDean]

Dean...
I answered your question in this thread
http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40664961&postcount=13

with both the rule, and the copyright laws and their interpretation.

I'm sorry it wasn't sufficient for you. :(

Sister, you still miss the point.

The rules for your area, do not include a 20% rule.

In fact, all your rules say is that link to the quoted material be included to varify.

Rules - General Theology
2: When quoting material from another site, you must provide a link to your source material for authentication.


http://foru.ms/t5917221-rules-general-theology.html

Now show me where in this rule it says 20%.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Gwenyfur]

the law says 10%

the CF rule, which is over all areas states:
Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal.

By quoting more than the law given 10% you are not only breaking the rules of CF but the law as well (though not intentionally)

While CF has generally stuck to a 20% (dunno why?) it's still in violation of the law...which is violating a CF rule...which supercedes any and all FSG's created.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

I think that the 20% figure was arrived at due to Associated Press's somewhat quirky allowances. Normally, they'll allow up to 20% of an article to be used, but there are certain other restrictions, such as if Reuters sources are likewise quoted. That's from memory, though, so take it for what it's worth.

[DeaconDean]

the law says 10%

the CF rule, which is over all areas states:


By quoting more than the law given 10% you are not only breaking the rules of CF but the law as well (though not intentionally)

While CF has generally stuck to a 20% (dunno why?) it's still in violation of the law...which is violating a CF rule...which supercedes any and all FSG's created.

Gweny, I read this 3 times and nowhere do I see a 10% rule.

Most of copyright law was formulated in terms of books, audiovisual works (e.g., motion pictures), and sound recordings. While the basic principles of copyright law are the same for all media, it is not yet clear how some of these principles apply to the Internet.

The act of viewing a page on the Internet automatically involves making a copy, since the material is transferred to the user's computer and stored there in semiconductor memory (RAM = random access memory). This copy is arguably not infringement, because authors post documents on the Internet with the intent of having other people read the documents, so there may be an implied license to copy web pages during the reading of them. Moreover, the copy in RAM evaporates when the machine is switched off and the copy in RAM is overwritten when the next document is read, so the copy in RAM is not permanent.

Some browsers, such as Netscape, make a second copy of a document on the hard disk drive (e.g., for Netscape running under Windows 3.1, typically as a file in C:\NETSCAPE\CACHE\*.*). The purpose of this second copy is to make access quicker when the user presses the Back button on the browser. Retrieving a copy from the hard disk on the user's machine is much faster than reading the document again from the source machine and again transmitting the document through the Internet. While this second copy is a convenient feature of a browser, the designer and programmer probably gave no thought to the implications of this copy under copyright law. The cache directory on the user's hard disk is set by default in Netscape 3 to five megabytes of the most recently accessed documents. Once this limit is reached, the browser automatically deletes the oldest document to make room for the current document. The copies in cache on the hard disk will survive switching off the user's machine, but the copies will not survive repeated accessing of more documents from the Internet. The copy in cache is arguably acceptable practice under copyright law, provided that this copy is not used for any other purpose.

A third way to make a copy with a browser is to use the Print command to make a paper copy of the document. Such copying may be infringement of a copyright or there may be an implied license from the author for such paper copies. If a court finds that there is an implied license, a court could still find infringement, if the licensee's use exceeded the scope of the implied license.

A fourth way to make a copy with a browser is to use the Save As command from the File menu. This command saves the HTML, JPEG, or other file on the user's hard disk with a filename chosen by the user. Such copying may be infringement of a copyright.

Servers operated by local Internet Service Providers obviously transmit a copy of documents requested by their users. A new section of the copyright law, 17 USC § 512(a) (1998), provides immunity from infringement to Internet service providers who automatically transmit or route copies of material in response to requests from users. Another new copyright law provides immunity from infringement to Internet service providers who maintain a temporary copy (called caching) of a frequently requested document on their server, to reduce the amount of long-distance communications and to decrease response time. 17 USC § 512(b) (1998).

Internet service providers (ISPs) and colleges should be aware of amendments to the copyright statutes in 1998 that provide the corporation or college with immunity from infringement by their customers or students if the ISP or college complies with certain requirements prior to the infringement. Consult a local attorney who is familiar with copyright law for details.

A user who copies text or pictures from one web site and then posts the material among the user's own web pages is generally infringing a copyright. Even if the user makes some changes before posting the material, the act of posting can be copyright infringement, as explained above in the section on plagiarism (http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor222222).

Aside from legal implications of copyright infringement, reposting of material from other web sites can be an inconvenience to other users. The author may revise the original document frequently, but copies posted by other users will not be revised (indeed, the author may not know of the existence of these copies). The easiest way for everyone on the Internet to have the freshest information is to have only the author post the document. Other people can post a hypertext link to the author's document, to refer their readers to the most recent version of the document at the author's site.

Copying illustrations or diagrams or photographs (e.g., scanning a printed image or copying a GIF or JPEG file) always requires permission of the copyright owner, unless the works are clearly in the public domain (e.g., either a work produced by the U.S. Government or a work that was initially published before 1922 and was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office).

Posting a document on the world wide web is not publication. Publication is defined in the U.S. Copyright statute as
... the distribution of copies ... of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. .... A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.17 U.S.C. §101.
Posting a document on the world wide web is a "public display" of the work, which is among the rights exclusively reserved to the owner of the copyrighted work. 17 USC §106(5).

I have seen many web sites with collections of images that contain a notice similar to the following:
If you find an image that belongs to you and you do not want it displayed here, send me an e-mail and I'll remove it immediately.That may be a pleasant statement, but it shows a serious misunderstanding of copyright law. The law requires that the author of a web site, book, etc. ask permission of the copyright owner before displaying any copyrighted work. The burden is on the copier to ask permission. It is not the duty of the copyright owner to cruise the Internet and ask authors to stop infringing a copyright. In fact, the copyright owner can file copyright infringement litigation immediately on discovering the unauthorized use of copyrighted material.

I read this several times, and I still yet fail to see the 10% rule.

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)
Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

So please show me where in the rules anywhere where 10% or even 20% is stated.

Even the sections you quoted do not say that.

I give up. you still don't understand, United States Circuit Court Laws state that an unwritten rule, whether its arbitration, or mediation, or anything else, is not enforceable.

But yet, here it is.

I give up.

I'm outta here as this is going nowhere.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Gwenyfur]

follow the links Dean...you can read it in it's entirety

[DeaconDean]

Alright Sister, since you are going to totally dogmatic about this, consider this.

Technically, according to the Law, the quote post button, has to be done away with.

Yes, thats right, you heard me.

Anytime a person uses this function, even here on the fourms, to quote another members post, then, technically, and by Law, they have committed copyright infringement.

Even here on the forums, anything I post technically becomes copyrighted to me. And if you don't believe it, I went through this exact same thing last year with RaggedRobin over an article I submitted for the wiki.

Here is the discussion: http://foru.ms/t3831153-the-21st-century-doctrine-of-hell-wiki-being-brought-in-hq.html

I submitted my article on the doctrine of Hell for the wiki. She pulled it so it could be edited and made to reflect the NPOV policy. I objected, and asked that that not happen. A long argument ensued. But the bottom line was, according to the United States law, once I hit the "submit reply" button, that work became copyrighted to me. Nobody could change it, edit without my expressed consent, and because I did not give my consent, she eventually had to delete the whole thing.

So, the point here is, whenever a person hits the quote post button, or even posts anything, that post, according to United States law, automatically becomes copyrighted to the poster.

Copyright attaches when the expression is fixed in a medium. Registration is no longer required for the right to attach to the work. 17 U.S.C. §§ 104 & 201.

And this forum, whether you like it or not, is a "fixed medium."

Even if I post two words, that particular post becomes mine, and nobody has the right under United States law to use it without my expressed witten or verbal consent.

Yet here on the Fourms, this is by-passed.

I mean, if your going to get technical, lets get technical.

We had this rule of quoted material being limited to 20% of the whole before Erwin brought the "reforms' of 7/7/07, why can't we have it back?

It was in writting prior to 7/7/07, why can't we put it back in writting now, or is to much trouble?

You know what? This is getting nowhere. this 20% "rule" is going to an "unwritten rule," that is "enforceable." Nothing is going to change. Even according to scripture: no law, no transgression" (cf. Rom. 6:14) is being ignored.

Just drop it.

Expect no further replies from me.

I'm outta here.

Somebody close this thread.

Unsubscribing.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Gwenyfur]

:sigh:

have it your way Dean...
I'm in no mood to quibble...you self deleted your posts anyhow...so this is all moot...

you win okay?

:(

[DeaconDean]

As I understand it, this very topic, having the 20% rule, is going to be brought up to the policy committee, and see if it can be written into the rules.

Mission accomplished!

YEA!

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Yay, Dean!

[Amoranemix]

DeconDean maybe this is a chance for you to contact a member of the reconciliation team and let them work things out to see what the correct procedure is. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist you.He could invite members of the RT to join the discussion, but I am not aware they require an invitation. What is keeping them away ? Is this too public ?

As far as getting such info in guidelines, Lee is pretty clear, our rules are to be open ended and vague in nature, and we are to depend upon staff discretion. This also applies to guidelines... thus even they need to be open ended a bit. He specifically does not want narrow and legalistic rules nor does he want guidelines acting as defacto narrow and legalistic rules.I disagree. Power abuse by staff should not be promoted. The different levels of secrecy are already bad enough. There is no excuse for adding insult to injury. If a rule is unclear than it should be interpreted in favour of the membership. It would however be preferable for the Powers That Be ensure the message board has good rules and not to keep them secret.

Thus, as we transition from the old ways to the new ways, there no doubt will be a number of these types of scenarios. Its going to be a while until folks, both staff and members feel comfortable in such an environment.At least you are admitting a disadvantage : discomfort for staff and members. I hope LeeD doesn’t feel any discomfort though. That would be terrible.

I understand your confusion that the rules no longer explicitly state 20%. However, the (blank intentionally) has reached consensus that we will continue to maintain the 20% restrictions as our forum-specific guidelines, under the site-wide copyright rule:
Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal.Who posted that and where ?

If the rules say it, well that is one thing, but when they don't, you can't enforce it. Period.They can. What are you going to do about it ?

"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." -Rom. 4:15 (KJV)I think you have a case here. Enforcing an unwritten rule would be unchristian.

Is there somewhere on the site where LeeD states publicly that rules are to be "open ended and vague in nature, and we are to depend upon staff discretion" and "He specifically does not want narrow and legalistic rules nor does he want guidelines acting as defacto narrow and legalistic rules"?

I must say that is far from the impression I have been getting from staff in rules commentary. Half the reason I and other members are feeling extremely uncomfortable with the forum direction right now is that LeeD has been subtly presented to us as hardline, dictatorial, and insistent on very set-in-stone beliefs, rules, and controls.[1]
The return to closed reports, lack of staff accountibilty to members except through other staff, with no way for members to know what is actually being discussed, and Byzantine punishment codes, does not suggest anything being remotely 'open'.[2]
It is my opinion that the only way to justify giving staff the power to broadly interpret rules in this fashion is to make reports and other staff deliberations visible to the membership. Otherwise, staff will be inundated with reports, appeals, and endless bickering over whose interpretation is right.[3][1] That is not my impression. Members seem most to object to the secrecy and a bad set of rules, both making the site being run like a dictatorship. The rules are vague and/or secret and some rules are ignored. The wiki process produced much more detailed rules and they and their design were for everyone to see.
[2] Open means open to interpretation. It has nothing to do with freedom or availability of information.
[3] That would not be enough as staff would still have many places to hide and remain unaccountable to the members.

av...
Theology did not delete DD's posts...he self deleted them rather than trimming them down to the requested 20%Then those who sent the RFE are responsible for 80%.

Mel or I will address the specific issue...there is just a bunch of stuff to chew through. Historically CF has tolerated a post which includes 20% of a work plus a citation to the full-text...regardless of whether or not there is permission to copy the full text of the remarks.What is your conclusion ?

I respectfully ask that this be closed. My credibility shot, my word destroted, my ministry gone.Now that we all know you are a loathsome thief, I wonder how you still dare show yourself here. :P

my whole point is, if you want to say 20% of any article is all you can quote, fine, PUT IT IN BLACK AND WHITE!
Otherwise, its no rule, unwritten, or understood.What is the original post ? What article has been copied ?
It appears that to appeal to the rule
‘Don't break the law, don't violate copyright, threaten others, or do or promote anything illegal.’
for copyright violations one must demonstrate for each case that copyright law has indeed been violated. If that is too much of a hassle, then a 20% rule would make work easier for staff. However, that rule could be counterproductive as it could prevent legally providing interesting information.

It's just that the 20 percent isn't explicitly written in the rules any longer but we still go by it. It's the way the new owner has kind of set things up as he probably is the one who listed the rules, tho not sure, and just didn't think to include the 20 perecent but we know to enforce it.That is wrong. Quoting more than 20% isn’t always a violation.

I know next to nothing about copyright, so when quoting material from outside the forum, I pay attention to the following : Would the owner mind that I post the material ? If the answer is no, then I give myself green light.
I post sometimes from the Encyclopedia Britannica and I think the company likes the visibility, which is a reason that applies often. In addition, I can’t link to the rest of the article.

What about Bible quotes ? I notice most people provide a source. Yes, I know it is from the Bible, but should the publication or site be mentioned as well ?