QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:12pm)
QUOTE(Random832 @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 11:02am)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 2nd December 2009, 4:01pm)
You confuse "user generated content purporting to tell others what to do" with policies.
Well considering that, by those criteria the presence (or absence) of David Gerard's permission bits are also user generated content, what's the problem?
If that was the case Godwin should have stayed out of it. Put he seems to believe some other interest is a play here. It does puzzle me, if he was concerned with the board's policy, that discussion was removed but the sanction against DG seems to remain in place. Maybe he feels that the allocation of the bits is a "community" matter but ArbCom acting unilaterally concerning the policy is not. Or maybe this all is seen as somekind of defamation issue. This is all a little like Soviet era Kremlinology.
Bear in mind:
"Mike Godwin [was] acting, it is important to note, in his private capacity and not in any way as the Foundation's legal counsel" when he "brokered and agreement between David and the Committee that the statement should be removed entirely to avoid the possibility of further needless harm"
See
hereWhich rather explains it, doesn't it? (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)