93 replies to this topic

[Galapo]

Hmmm. Confession: guess I'm a bit lazy and don't often read license agreements.

Done a bit of reading now though in light of this discussion. Found out that Foxit Reader can't be distributed, so I'll have to update my script. I'll be updating any else that I find like it. For these, I guess I'll move to the option of grabbing files from the local install and/or from a specified directory.

Regards,
Galapo.

[MedEvil]

Found out that Foxit Reader can't be distributed,

Are you really sure about that?
Before making such bold statements, please check the laws of the country the company is residentiary, the laws of the country you're residentiary, the laws of the state the boot-land server is located and last but not least, the laws of the country the end user is residentiary!

The laws of state always overrule EULA and licenses.
Here in Germany no small part of Microsofts EULA can be used as toiletpaper.

[Galapo]

Well, to tell you the truth, I just read here: http://www.foxitsoft...pdf/rd_eula.htm

I have no idea how to go about finding the applicable state law I am to submit to and whether it allows for freer distribution. I guess in the absence of a personal desire to do such research, I'll confine myself to the software's license (I suspect my own state law would not contradict the particular software license). It's a bit too complicated if taking all the option you list into account...

Regards,
Galapo.

[Alexei]

You see, even lite touching of this issue creates a lengthy discussion.
I'm not saying we don't need to discuss those issues, just that they are very complex.
The simplest solution seems to be just to refer existing installation, but that would reduce user friendliness of WB.
We definitely need "Provide Files"-scripts (better one generic script) that would:
- separate complexity of download/licensing from actual installation in WB
- allow user to choose between automated download or referencing existing installation
- take care of proper licensing
In general, issues that are different in nature (obtaining files and inclusion them into the Build) should be supported by separate scripts.
Of course, it's tempting to do it all together, but eventually that will create a lot of maintenance problems

Alexei

[MedEvil]

Do what you like, but i will stick to the simple system.

Buy software is not to be distributed, nor is shareware with licenses.
And that patched/cracked software is not to be uploaded here, goes without saying.

Everything else, i can freely download from the net, i will keep including as long as the developer doesn't ask for it not to be included/posted here.

Just like we have done, all the time.

[was_jaclaz]

Everything else, i can freely download from the net, i will keep including as long as the developer doesn't ask for it not to be included/posted here.

It is a definite statement, that requires as reply an equally plain one:

I will start deleting everything that you post (or everyone else does, for that matter) that does not complies to the Rules, (in this specific case as soon as they will be amended).
Repeated breaking of Rules will lead to temporary or permanent banning from the board.

The above also is not at all difficult to understand, is it?

About your suggestion:

Are you really sure about that?
Before making such bold statements, please check the laws of the country the company is residentiary, the laws of the country you're residentiary, the laws of the state the boot-land server is located and last but not least, the laws of the country the end user is residentiary!

What you state is perfectly correct, but applies only in a Court.

If an Author of Copyright holder expresses his will that his software should not be re-distributed or re-packed, it is morally binding, no matter whether he will not sue or that in case of an actual Court trial he would eventually lose the appeal because of local Laws.

In other words, I am more concerned about moral integrity than actual legal problems that may arise.

Also, you may be surprised by the number of Authors that state the general non re-distributability of their software and, upon a courteous rrequest, agree to allow re-distribution inside a given project.



jaclaz

[MedEvil]

I will start deleting everything that you post (or everyone else does, for that matter) that does not complies to the Rules, (in this specific case as soon as they will be amended).
Repeated breaking of Rules will lead to temporary or permanent banning from the board.

The above also is not at all difficult to understand, is it?

If King Nuno the 1st does grant you those powers, there is nothing i can do about it, except ask him to revoke your licence to kill (scripts).

What you state is perfectly correct, but applies only in a Court.

In other words, I am more concerned about moral integrity than actual legal problems that may arise.

If you so concerned about the wishes of the developer regardless of the legal site, would you please
stop fiddeling with PE and refrain from building something similar, not to mention that you should hurry to buy a license for each PE CD you have lying around.
And while you're at it, please upgrade all your computers to Vista, as M$ wishes!

You're an too easy target for marketing, one just has to wish and you jump. May i send you some spam?

Also, you may be surprised by the number of Authors that state the general non re-distributability of their software and, upon a courteous rrequest, agree to allow re-distribution inside a given project.

No i wouldn't. I 'm just surprised about this stupid do not post my file idea. Are those guys planing on doing some big multi million dollar campaigns to promote their site and software?

[online]

Are you really sure about that?
Before making such bold statements, please check the laws of the country the company is residentiary, the laws of the country you're residentiary, the laws of the state the boot-land server is located and last but not least, the laws of the country the end user is residentiary!

The laws of state always overrule EULA and licenses.

Hi all,

I premise that I haven't read all (nay, almost nothing ) , but maybe I can imagine the rest of contents...
I quote this post (hey, MedEvil!) because of I agree... totally.
I think that if a software-house as Acronis offers the availability of BartPE (official) plug-in it means that the protectionism actuated by some companies is a single approach that is not told it necessarily is legitimate: I think that a license-contract cannot impose anything... likely, then should be a magistrate (super partes) to determine the lowfulness of a clause.
Furthermore I think that nobody can ask to me that I don't set a registry entry (and... why exist those entries?)... the registry is of "mine", at any rate.
Better: anybody can ask to me that, then I'll not do it.
About software re-distributability: I think that the way to get it is irrelevant and I should like to know the thought of magistrates.
There are business interests if a software-house "offers" an application without costs*, and "end users" are not a flock of sheep (with all the respect for sheep).




*The same software-houses should must thank users (perpetually "beta" testers...).





Btw: imho.

[Alexei]

I will start deleting everything that you post (or everyone else does, for that matter) that does not complies to the Rules, (in this specific case as soon as they will be amended).
Repeated breaking of Rules will lead to temporary or permanent banning from the board.
The above also is not at all difficult to understand, is it?

@jaclaz,
From this forum I know you as a person who is very sensitive to slightly agressive tone, a hint of personal offence, and other things like that. In other words, you are a person with very high moral standards. I highly appreciate this quality of yours.

Unfortunately, your post surprized and dissapointed me. To me, it sounds like you ultimately declare your absolute power to judge and punish other members of WB Community. Was it your real intension or I just misunderstood you?

Anyway, as I already said, judgement and punishment are easy to declare, but very complex in implementation. And, of course, they would stress community and negatively influence its spirit.

Let's take a look at imaginary situation:
Suppose we have some judgement (regardless of it's source or authority).
80% members agree with it, but 20% disagree (it's separate issue of whom and how to count).
Minority 20% feel dissapointed and offended.
Obvious consequences: discussions, coalitions, petitions, arguments, alternative boards, etc.

So far, we've been living in "utopia"-world where everybody's happy and love (at least don't hate) each other.
The Rules you published were more a moral guidance than law.
"Utopia"-like societies are fragile and not very stable. It would be terrible mistake to destroy ours.

Once again, in my opinion, a technical solution is the only way to avoid potential conflicts.

Alexei

PS
Theoretically, there are other conflict-less solutions:
- Judgement by independent 3rd party judge who was accepted by community on consensus basis,
- Grant right to veto judgement and/or punishment to everybody,
- Move all application-scripts to sourceforge or other independent server,

[online]

In other words, I am more concerned about moral integrity than actual legal problems that may arise.

I had not read all the contents of this thread and maybe my previous post was not fully pointed.
I must tell that is not easy for me read in English about arguments of this type, however I think to have understood enough.
The final part of discussion has taken a particular turn.
I read about "moral integrity" and I am a bit surprise because of that is an inner concept (that I share with you) very difficult to approach, especially when we talk about contractual (commercial) requests.
Talking about "ethics" fatally produces reactions and conflicts... and we begin to talk about "justice", "democracy", "majority", etcetera, etcetera...
Abstract and noble concepts, that just a magistrate can materialize.
I think that multi-national companies (their bloated power, their power management and their profit-based "philosophy") are a real and concrete problem instead, and I think that there is only to fight (pacifically, of course), but this is another matter.
Here we talk about legal implications of certain action, I should left apart abstractions.
I think that the board management about this subject is neither simple nor can make everybody happy.
If it is true, and it's true, that certain actions must not be done I think that it's also true that certain other actions CAN be done irrespective of various EULAs.
Obviously an effective supervision is very hard.
A risk exists: that too little can "really" be done (too many EULAs, too many legal implications, too many objects to verify).
Flexibility and resolution are needed, but these two things are contrasting.
I am neither an administrator nor a moderator: don't ask me about how to do this!



Btw: I don't know why our attention is been focalized about FoxitReading EULA, but I ask myself: are all the programs that I see around in the forum right to embed?

And again about not-redistributable software and the workaround about its download from respective websites: I think that companies WANT that users connect to their websites because of it is a sort of FORCED pubblicity (users MUST read around webpages), but if you download it through a program and you NOT go to that website to read around I think that it is almost the same thing that to embed it in a script.

But so we are at the beginnings: our are "only" opinions... and on the other hand we cannot address constantly to magistrates... and sofware-houses claim... and we mediate... and... and...

[was_jaclaz]

@Alexei

I guess you give to that post more relevance than it really has, extending it's meaning beyond the original context.

I like to think about people as having multiple "hats".

If and when I wear the hat of "Admin" of a board it is my duty, and I will try to fulfill it to the maximum of my capabilities, to make other members respect the Rules and also enforce whatever the Owner of the board will see fit to make things go as smooth as possible.

This I will do in a completely independent way from my personal opinion of whether the Rules are just or unjust.

If anyone, including a friend like Medevil, states that he is going to intentionally break a rule, I have to warn him that this behaviour won't be accepted.

There is nothing "personal" and nothing whatsoever connected to judgement and punishment, I contributed to make the Rules, and did my best to make them simple and easily understandable exactly to avoid this impression.

Whenever I use the form "as I see it", AFAIK, IMHO, IMNSHO, or similars, this means that I have not my "Admin hat" on, and I am only providing a personal opinion, which is of course open to debate and discussion.

Should in my personal judgement any of the Rules, or any other behaviour carried on the board, found to be blatantly unjust, unfair or in any way contrary to my way of life, or my beliefs, I will promptly resign from the role that Nuno appointed me, and either continue being a "normal" member of the Board, or leave it alltogether.

However your post brings up another point, which is in itself very interesting, i.e. the "Constitution" of a Board like Boot-land.

As said in what I think are clearly enough terms:
http://www.boot-land...?...pic=82&st=9
this is not a democracy, you can think about it more like a patriarchat, where users' opinions and ideas are listened to by an intelligent and sensible monarch (Nuno), who is the Owner of this place, provides for 100% of it's costs, and moreover spends lots of time coding Winbuilder and providing help with it.

This board is not the "People's home", it's Nuno's.

Opinions, ideas, debates and discussions are welcome, any time.

Percentages, coalitions, petitions, compromises to keep people happy, are not only not wanted, they are also pretty much unuseful.

Vetoes and third-party judgement simply do not apply.

Everyone here, including me, are here only because Nuno was so kind as to open his house to us, and because they liked the place.

Most of the people here are thankful to Nuno and try to contribute what they can, i.e. some of their spare time, offering general advice and help to other members, or developing .scripts and sharing them with other users, or creating some nice graphics for the program, or contributing to testing and troubleshooting.

Everyone here, nonetheless, no matter how "important" he is inside the Community, and no matter how much has contributed, is subject to the Rules.

No one is a member here because of birth, race or faith, everyone is here by his own will, in perfect freedom, no one is forced to stay here, but no one but Nuno has ANY Rights on taking decisions about the way the Board is managed.

jaclaz

[Alexei]

@jaclaz,
Tyrants are unacceptable regardless of whatever
Your "hat"-theory is just an attempt to defend hypocracy
Are you fully aware of what you look like? I welcome everybody to have their own associations
Regarding the "house": Yes, walls and roof are Nuno's, but all goods inside belong to "people".

@Nuno, please show your ... its place and teach it some good manners
I believe, public apology would be appropriate.

Of course, in some particular "life-threatening" situations dictatorship is the only way to survive, but having it (even just proclamed) as a part of everydays life is just humiliating

BTW, I may be missing something, but I've never seen the authority to judge and punish have been officially granted to jaclaz. Best of my knowledge, he only wrote the rules. Anyway, no powery should be given to a person who's wearing "hats".


Alexei

[was_jaclaz]

Well, it seems like trying to explain things makes them worse.

It is EXACTLY because I don't want to be accused of arbitrary "judging and punishing" that I promoted a few simple Rules, that again, as said, are nothing more then normal politeness that is required in a Community.

To enforce the Rules as they are is my duty as Admin.

You also might want to check, besides the spelling of the word hypocracy hypocrisy, also it's meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Accusing me of it implies either of two things:
1) that I enforced rules in different ways on the same or similar misbehaviour of a member
2) that I, even only once, used the board for anything even remotely contrary to the said rules

Once you will bring me evidence of any of the above, your accusation will have a base; as is, I see it personally as an unneeded and unjust insult to me and to the work I am doing, for which you should produce an apology.

jaclaz

[MedEvil]

Ok, i think i have to say a few words too, since it seems that the discussion between jaclaz and myself can and has been misunderstood.

When you're on this - or any other board for any lenght of time, you will form closer relationships with some of the other members and get a sense for what kind of personality they have.
Some are real sensitive, while you can be blunt with others or even have to be, to get them to understnad the hint.

Jaclaz and i, to stick to the example, are friends and get along very well. I know for instance, that i can have a really heated discussion with him on one topic, without it affecting other discussions or our personal relationship.

Strange as it may sound, but while clashing in this thread we were having, at the same time, a friendly discussion via PM.
It's just like in real life, your friends can get away with things you would not take from a stranger.

So for those not as good in english, the bottom line is:
When jaclaz replied about deleting scripts period. He was just replying to me challenging him, not giving a general statement to everyone in this forum.
So there is really no need to attack him about this. He is very consideated and has always just the best interests of the board in mind. (If he has his hat on! )

[online]

So for those not as good in english

All right!

... and the real topic?

[Alexei]

Well, it seems like trying to explain things makes them worse.

It is EXACTLY because I don't want to be accused of arbitrary "judging and punishing" that I promoted a few simple Rules, that again, as said, are nothing more then normal politeness that is required in a Community.

To enforce the Rules as they are is my duty as Admin.

You also might want to check, besides the spelling of the word hypocracy hypocrisy, also it's meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Accusing me of it implies either of two things:
1) that I enforced rules in different ways on the same or similar misbehaviour of a member
2) that I, even only once, used the board for anything even remotely contrary to the said rules

Once you will bring me evidence of any of the above, your accusation will have a base; as is, I see it personally as an unneeded and unjust insult to me and to the work I am doing, for which you should produce an apology.

jaclaz

@jaclaz

1. Necessity to make sarcastic notes about minor things (such as spelling) reveils lack of serious arguments

2. Freedom of making decision about complience to the rules and determination of punishment create grounds for arbitrary judging and punishment. In another words, makes arbitrary judging and punishment possible. If they possible they will happen.

4. Anybody can call himself whtever he wants. Has you ever been publicly granted some special "Admin"-status with well defined rights and responsibilities? I'm afraid, not. That means either you do not have this status (and any specific rigts), or were granted this status in secrecy (as kind of secret police, and even in such case it should some secret document about that).

5. "Should in my .... , found to be..." - we don't have a rule of how it can be "found to be", how many members should say (what), should newbies cont, etc. So, it just can't be determined.

6. There is no such thing as "simple Rules" when we talk about judgement. Interpretation of each word may require many pages of complex explanations. How would we resolve conflicts with their interpretation? Do we have rules how to resolve such conflicts. The only thing you can offer is your personal opinion, which BTW is apriory not known.

7. Who's gonna determine your own complience to the rules? Where it is stated?

8. "no one but Nuno has ANY Rights on taking decisions about the way the Board is managed" - Doesn't it sound as intentional unsult to WB community? Please read about community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community

I can continue with such statements, but you should already see, that:
A. Enforcement of "simple" rules is not simple.
B. The problem is not with obvious situatuins (such as WAREZ in the script), but with gray area cases (such as interpretation of 3rd party licenses), where opinions about legality willl split, consequently, opinions about your judgement will split...

People generally accept the rules you wrote and voluntary follow thems (not because their are afraid of being punished). ANyway, your rules can not be enforced.

Most importantly, you should understand that we are here to have a good time together. Of course, Nuno has some specific rights as a site owner and author of WB, but Nuno is not above and the rest is not below, (just because we are working together). Your attempts to take position of "main slave" is just absurd. Please work on your monarchy illusion to make it dessapear.

@MedEvil,
This is not about what jaclaz said to you, but how his position unsults and humiliates WB community.


Alexei

[MedEvil]

@Alexei
I agree with jaclaz that this - just like any other forum needs protection. And this usually means rules and someone to enforce them. That's the job of admins or moderators.

It's just the amount of protection that we have greatly different opinions about. jaclaz seems to favour the idea of making sure we're 100% untouchable, while i think more, let's make sure we're not breaking any obviously around the world valid laws and let's deal with the rest on a per case basis.




PS:
Alexei like it or not, jaclaz is one of this forums admins even if he prefers the title Finder. (Which i find confusing by the way too.)
And just in case you wonder, admin rights are not automaticly granted along with being a member of any other group or being long enough in the forum active.

[Alexei]

Let me return to what I started with.

Organizational solution to the "copyright problem" will not go.
We need a technical solution to that. Just eliminate "encoding" feature, embed text files into scripts and host re-distributable freeware on the boot-land. It will work, it's simple, it's safe.

jaclaz disagreed and tried to assure me that he can successfully enforce the policy that would eliminate "copyright problem".

I argued that strong policy inforcement would harm WB community. I also questioned his ability and authority to do that.

jaclaz explained his view at WB community as a hierarchical structure with Nuno on the top, jaclaz at 2nd level, and all others below.
jaclaz proclaimed his absolute power over the rest of us (excluding Nuno).

I strongly disagreed with this approach.

Let's take a look at imaginable situation:
- Your friend invited many people to a party in the hose he built.
- Everybody's having fun, though occasionaly people bring in some "controlled substance" (drugs).
- Some person (X) placed a rules on the wall that says "no drugs here". Nobody objected.
- I said: we'll have a problem enforcing that, let's rip off our pokets so nobody could bring this stuff in.
- X said: We don't need that because the person who invited us let me kill anybody who disobeys the rules on the wall.
- I said: Who you think you are? We all having fun here! That's absolutely incompatible with the knowledge that somebody can shoot you at any time at his own discretion (regardless of how good he is).
- X replied: The rules are on the wall, the gun is in my pocket. I don't care how you feel. You're free to go away.
- I said: That's just not right. Let's better rip off our pockets, and don't you ever think about frightening people again. You owe us apology.
- X said: If I kill somebody unjustly I would resignate. It's you, who owe me an apology because I don't kill unjustly.

There is an absolute moral principle: One man justice is always

PS
I tried to be unbiased in my summary of previous discassion and the "imaginable situation". Please let me know if I failed with that.

[TheHive]

I lean more to most of "Alexei" point of views.

[windrv]

The point is:

Why should we or script-writers have to embed third-party software, be it commercial, share, free, open-source ware with or without license?

1. because winbuilder provides such a function;

2. because PE without using with other third-party software is a lame duck;

3. because PE's registry cannot be saved and has to be pre-configured; etc.

Allowing embedding scripts with third-party software and hosting such scripts in the server of this community makes the owner(s) and administrator(s) legally (& morally) responsible.

But a good community should be administered in a fair, open and accepting manner for members to have a sense of belonging.

Despite the heated arguments in the above postings, who is right or who is wrong is not significant. What is significant is the respect for freedom of speech and mutual respect despite of different opinions.

Since this is a technical board, if we could resolve disputes through technical ways, that is the best.

As I suggested in other threads, it is time for WB to move along the route of supporting the making of universal mini 2K/XP/2K3/Vista proper so that the problems arising from 2 & 3 above could be solved and users can also be encouraged to use "Green/Portable" applications as far as possible.

The embedding function provided by WB is better to be removed and if Nuno wishes to allow this site to host whatever kind of software, just a download page for such allowable software as determined by Nuno is enough. Community members or script-writers could put up request to Nuno for their upload/download or site link requests.

[online]

Openly I think that I should have done better at not posting here...
This part of discussion is not only completely off topic, but still to read it is rather boring (with all the real respect for all participants).
I have attended some forums (in Italian) and I always have seen, before or after, these types of encounters...
Are these useful to community?
I think of not.
It seems to me as an exercitation, an exibition of dialectical capability and few other (with all the respect).
I see a community as a place (created by others) where I am a host one, maybe I will can be useful at something, but I am a host one, from my humble point of view.
A hierarchy must exist: here, as in the real society, otherwise it will call itself anarchy (and it not seems to me the case, aside the fact that exist other places where do this).
We can criticize who manage this hierarchy, but imho we must do in the appropriate places and with appropriate manner, otherwise we are damaging the community.
A question. before I go: I perfectly understand both points of view of both "alignments", but what have done (not told) jaclaz (that sure have not need to be defended by nobody) to trigger all this?
Seems to me: nothing of wrong...

And a hierarchy must exist: anybody that subscribe to a community knows this fact before his subscription...

[was_jaclaz]

Hmmm, let's try to go back to topic.

We need a technical solution to that. Just eliminate "encoding" feature, embed text files into scripts and host re-distributable freeware on the boot-land. It will work, it's simple, it's safe.

jaclaz disagreed and tried to assure me that he can successfully enforce the policy that would eliminate "copyright problem".

(bolding is mine)

Did I?

It has come to my attention that some .script developers have embedded in their .scripts non-redistributable files.

As you might know I have always been contrary to this feature of Winbuilder as I foresaw the possibility that someone could use it in the "wrong" way.

So, I had a talk with Nuno, which proposed to put any uploaded .script "on hold" until approved by him or by a selected "board of testers".

I expressed my concern that this procedure may:
1) put an additional load of work or pressure on Nuno or to the "testers"
2) could cause a delay to the actual release of a new .script
3) could be seen by the "good" .script developers, which I believe to be the vast majority, as a form of censorship or unneeded centralized control over their work

The idea from Alexei seems to me a good alternative for non-redistributable files, Winbuilder could show a messagebox like "trying to download program from homepage".
If the download does not work, another messagebox could pop up like "Download failed, please type another Internet address to download from or local path to the program program".

I guess there are some serious misunderstandings in this thread, but what puzzles me is why this non-existant disagreement can have caused this sort of nasty discussion.

To use the drug-at-the-party example, what I originally proposed was:
1) We cannot search every guest for concealed drugs on their body
2) We cannot tell every guest to completely empty their pockets before entering
3) We can put a sign saying "No Drugs in this house", and ask all guests to use transparent purses and pockets, so that everyone can see what's in them. If any drugs is seen, we have the right to politely escort these people out of our house, they can come back at any time, as long as they got rid of the drugs.

No one is killed, no-one is harmed.


jaclaz

[Brito]

I think this community has been brought here by the need of a place free from pressures where people can discuss and expose their thoughts within a base of mutual respect.

Most of us have experience from other forums where things are somewhat different from here and you might notice that the titles below the member details don't exactly provide senseless "power" on the board - above anything else they give each entitled member extra responsability to ensure that the community is kept safe.

Where else would you find a community where all developers are also moderators?

Now imagine Jaclaz's perspective - he's really trying to keep things safe and avoid any possible court action from companies claiming their (rightfull) compensation for finantial losses while distributing their copyrighted software without proper permission, tomorrow it could be any of us worried about the same matter and what would happen to boot-land.net then?

I've also posted scripts with copyrighted software as any other human person would - there is no censorship but I'll surely remove it to avoid any complications in the future or just post the script without the respective files inside.

There are no restrictions on scripts or developments - just good sense is advised and whatever else needed can always be brought up for discussion..

[Alexei]

I guess there are some serious misunderstandings in this thread, but what puzzles me is why this non-existant disagreement can have caused this sort of nasty discussion.

It all began with "I will start deleting everything... "

"transparent purses and pockets" correspond to inclusion of 3rd party files, which is not possible for EXEs
On the other hand, having numerous 3rd party files along with scripts would be inconvenient.
In another words, 3rd party files need to be separated and embedded.
The only possible solution is to have them separated at boot-land and embedded on client end.
That requires additional step at upload/download, i.e. extract at upload and embed at download.
Some work is necessary, but in return we would have worry-free, but backward compatible system.
Which is important because

Do what you like, but i will stick to the simple system.

In addition scripts may have "commercial" indicator for each embedded file to strip it at upload automatically.

Alexei

[was_jaclaz]

It all began with "I will start deleting everything... "

Yes, I understand where it began, but what I wrote is not something like:
"I will start deleting everything as it pleases me because I have the power to do so", like you seem to have understood, but something really different:

I will start deleting everything that you post (or everyone else does, for that matter) that does not complies to the Rules, (in this specific case as soon as they will be amended).

I hope that now it is clear.

NO censorship, NO arbitrary judgements, NO killing people, only respect of the Rules and fulfilling of my duty as Admin.

Now, even if you disagree with the above, this does not grant you the right, not even morally, to personally attack me or my work with unsupported accusations of hypocrisy or of generic insulting the boot-land Community.

The above is simply unpolite.

I'll give you however some basis for some future accusations of arbitrary judgements made by me, by reminding you of Rule #7:

7. You are expected to be mature when discussing in threads. Racism, pornography, threatening, profanity, or excessive vulgarity is not tolerated. This community is built upon mutual respect. You are not allowed to flame other members. People who do not respect personal opinions and/or personal work will be warned in first instance. If you ignore the warning and keep on flaming, you will be banned without notice.

(bolding is mine)
Consider this as first warning for user Alexei.

jaclaz