Board Lawsuits

[_Pokatator]

I guess I don't understand the desire to always sue someone or even entertain the thought of dealing with "bottom feeders", the attorneys. I avoid it and them like the plague that they are. And even weirder still post it all over the internet??????

If I was going to sue someone I wouldn't post a thing about it, I would just do it.

[_Kevin Graham]

It's obvious that you're starving for male attention. It is clear in the way you lament over the loss of your male doppleganger and the way you and Jersey Girl gently [Telestial-level commentary deleted by Shades].

Not surprisingly, Goodk is still shooting himself in the foot. This is more worthy of a libel suit than anything DCP ever said. Can GoodK prove anyone here had [Telestial-level commentary deleted by Shades]?

[_Tarski]

It's obvious that you're starving for male attention. It is clear in the way you lament over the loss of your male doppleganger and the way you and Jersey Girl [Telestial-level commentary deleted by Shades].

Not surprisingly, Goodk is still shooting himself in the foot. This is more worthy of a libel suit than anything DCP ever said. Can GoodK prove anyone here had [Telestial-level commentary deleted by Shades]?

Welcome back. Recovered?

[_Kevin Graham]

Thanks. Somewhat recovered.

Disturbed at how we let the village idiot ruin this forum to serve his own ego.

[_The Dude]

Thanks. Somewhat recovered.

Good to hear, man. I'm glad you survived Brazilian medicine. A guy from my MTC group was hit in Rio and went home to the states with no legs.

Disturbed at how we let the village idiot ruin this forum to serve his own ego.

Yeah, it feels like a low point.

OTOH, if DCP is gone, there's no point for Scratch. If Scratch is gone, there's no point for DCP. Maybe it's a wash.

[_Yong Xi]

Can GoodK prove anyone here had [Telestial-level commentary deleted by Shades]?

Apparently, Will Schryver is the only one who has confessed to it. It didn't happen, but Will confessed nonethless.

[_William Schryver]

Can GoodK prove anyone here had [Telestial-level commentary deleted by Shades]?

Apparently, Will Schryver is the only one who has confessed to it. It didn't happen, but Will confessed nonethless.

I'm quite certain there is no crime under heaven of which I am innocent when it comes to the pious participants on this message board.

Still, I do have some scruples!

[_Ray A]

I'm quite certain there is no crime under heaven of which I am innocent when it comes to the pious participants on this message board.

Of course not, considering you'd hang all apostates in the public square, and probably castrate gay men. "Pious participants" is what you find on MAD. You've got your boards mixed up.

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades, can we do anything to cut down on this? It's all fun and games until someone loses in court. I have a hard time justifying participation here if that's what this board comes to. Maybe that's precisely what many of you want.

I am not asking for you to remove a poster's legal right to sue another (much as I'd love to make that difficult because I feel it's overused). I am asking for some better boundaries to help make this nonsense much less frequent.

asbestosman, please take a look at this post. In it, I said the following:

"When this board incarnated its second time (it's currently on its third incarnation), I posted a bolded and highlighted message at the top of the rules page. It went something like this:

'This message board is a free speech zone. As such, by reading and participating on this board, you hereby waive your right to pursue legal action against anyone for any reason.'

Now, why did I put up such a unique rule? I did it because I strongly believe that the threat of lawsuits would serve to stifle free speech (hear me out) almost as much as a trigger-happy moderator would, whereas a lawsuit-free zone would foster free speech just as much.

I dropped that rule when our attorney informed us that it was legally untenable and, even if it weren't, it'd bind our hands against any malicious hacker who sought to do us harm (or something like that)."

Now, I'm not thrilled about any of this. But, at the end of the day, should someone be banned for merely announcing something that they're planning on doing in real life? Is the alternative to just let a hammer drop in real life, absent any prior chances to hash things out and possibly come to some sort of understanding beforehand?

[_Tiktaalik]

Now, I'm not thrilled about any of this. But, at the end of the day, should someone be banned for merely announcing something that they're planning on doing in real life?

If what they're announcing is their intention to mess with another board member's real life, then yes.

Is the alternative to just let a hammer drop in real life, absent any prior chances to hash things out and possibly come to some sort of understanding beforehand?

I don't think that GoodK's threat helped him work anything out with Daniel. If probably made things much, much worse. If he truly felt that his rights were infringed by something Daniel posted, then he could have sent him and you a PM and dealt with things respectfully behind the scenes. You could have removed the offending post to protect yourself, and a possible solution might have been worked out between the parties. Letting the entire board devolve into deep fecal matter like it has is hardly the best solution, (in my humble opinion).