New Policies (were "Rules")

I have seen how there are new Policies stated on the site.
The announcement is here:
http://reboot.pro/forum/27/
http://reboot.pro/16422/

The Policies are here:
http://reboot.pro/about/policies
(linked to on every page bottom right)

Apart the Legalese, I see with dismay that old Rule #12 (as well as the "Common sense Advice") are not there anymore .

I personally doubt that most members - even the very few that will actually read the new Policies will be able to understand them (unless of course they are very fluent in English, and know some legalese).

The final clause is particularly interesting:

Changes to this Policy

We may revise this Policy at any time by amending this page. You are expected to check this page from time to time to take notice of any changes we make as they are legally binding on you. Some of the provisions contained in this Policy may also be superseded by provisions or notices published elsewhere on our website.

and actually perfect if the scope is to have members (actually only those that actually read Polocies and understand them) living with fear of breaching some policy/rule because they missed reading some amendment posted somewhere else but nonetheless legally binding them.

UGC definition may need IMHO to be better explicited:

We expect participants of our managed user-generated content ("UGC") forum (the "Forum") to stick to issues related to the lead discussion topic.

http://en.wikipedia....nerated_content

This is simply (still IMHO) NONSENSE:

If the content is made by someone else, you must have that person/organisation's permission for it to be used on the Forum.

as it doesn't take into consideration, just to name a few, material that falls in one or more of the following (example, NOT exhaustive):

• Public Domain
• Freeware
• Creative Commons
• BSD and GNU
• General Laws about quoting/citing

where at the most a correct attribution is required. (i.e. NOT mis-representing the Source or Author).

I take for granted that "old" Rules are effectively abrogated since 1st March 2012.




Wonko

Not to criticize any particular Policies or comment on previous post, but to further the Policies topic in general:

A website Policy is a sort of Contract that its owners, content contributors and readers are assumed to have entered into while working with that site. Such Contract is always presented by the site owners, so expected to preference their interests. According to Contract and Tort Law of any civilized country, if any clauses (including Jurisdiction) of such Contract are in breach of a local law (i.e. the law of geographic jurisdiction where a certain event deemed to occur that resulted in a dispute), they are considered Null and Void regardless whether a participant signed or otherwise assumed to agree with the Contract as a whole or not. Only clauses that comply with the local law are treated as enforceable. The law of venue prevails over Contract clauses - this is often written into text of such Contracts, but is true regardless. Besides, such Contract can not have retroactive effect for previously created content.

Determining the Law of which Jurisdiction (international, federal or state, and of what particular country and its locality, enforceable by what Government body) is applicable and the most suitable (if several Jurisdictions may be chosen) for a certain dispute is beyond this comment's scope, but its usually not that difficult as recent Megaupload case shown (i.e. where the complainant or violator resides, or the server is located), and in most cases is in the hands of the complainant, claimant or enforcement body (within applicable law provisions). Similar rules apply to selecting a method and pathway to resolve the issue - not all issues require law enforcement , most are peacefully resolved between parties.

So lets not concentrate that much on Legalize, since its always imperfect: look at active fight of Privacy Groups against new Google Rules despite the company hired the best lawyers money can buy to craft such Rules - of course aiming at Google profit grows first and foremost. There is always a way to deal with Contract issues in a manner that ensures fair outcome. And of course any Policies verbatim is expected to be polished over time, because one of Policies goals is to educate members on legal and ethics issues they may not be familiar with, while by law are expected to study and abide.

Lets concentrate on the spirit of this community to promote knowledge and treat others fairly and with respect, and the rest will follow. It doesn't mean, participants can't actively promote and defend their ideas, believes, contributions or rights - this is expected and only facilitates learning spirit and developing better solutions. But a site administration also has the right to enforce lawful and fair Policies, including limiting scope of topics, removing unrelated or rude talk, banning violators, and maintaining certain technical level of projects to ensure steady progress and meet high user expectations. Generally aiming at developing knowledge about the world we live in is always a better idea than trying to propagate hate or engage members into criminal activities. So everyone just need to control themselves, use common sense, treat others the way you want to be treated, and the Rules enforcement won't be required.

Just for the record, on Nuno's blog there is a "reason why" and "actual original source":
http://nunobrito1981...al-page-at.html

@Sambul61
Why don't you add a link in your signature pointing to your blog?


Wonko

Why don't you...

Referencing the "based on" source and trying to give some justification, that may or may not be true cause of anything, is irrelevant to the subject, and doesn't make that source an ideal or even valid in its entirety from legal standpoint of any jurisdiction. No-one compared 2 texts either. Do you attest they are identical?

Sorry, forget to ask you what I should or should not do. Btw, why don't you post your photo on this forum - so opinionated girl teaching everyone, even imposed (former) Rules everyone must follow, yet suddenly equivalent to a... suffusion of blue... photographically and literally given her factual contributions (linked and explained in her Signature).

I don't get it.

I just noticed that your signature mentions your Blog but does not contain a link to it, and thought it would be nice if you provided a link, so that one can read it directly.
(I presume that the Tutorials you reposted here are only part of the contents of your Blog, which may contain additional interesting material , not necessarily related to booting or VHD, or more generally to technical matters)


Wonko

Pls don't flood in the Policies thread, and then complain when your flood is properly deleted.

Pls don't flood in the Policies thread, and then complain when your flood is properly deleted.

I still don't get it.

If you don't feel like posting a link to your Blog, you are perfectly free to not do so , it's only IMHO "queer" , as Blogs are usually made to have other people read them. but anyway de gustibus....:
http://en.wikipedia....est_disputandum





Wonko