in reply to Re^3: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
in thread Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes

If an unruly mob of 5 anonymous people from Columbus pick up some trash off the street, does it set a precedent for the city of Columbus? After all, the trash can was put out there by the city.

- tye        

  • Comment on Re^4: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Editing pirated content links in reaped nodes (no)
by Argel (Prior) on Sep 08, 2008 at 19:22 UTC
    Interesting point. The most obvious weak spot is that someone has to nominate the node for Consideration. So I guess to minimize legal risk no one directly affiliated with PerlMonks should be allowed to nominate a node for Consideration (or should avoid nominating these types of nodes at least).

    Of course, the other answer is that it's up to the courts to decide that one.

    Update: And the users have to have accounts to moderate, so they're not really anonymous.

    Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
[reply]
      Update: And the users have to have accounts to moderate, so they're not really anonymous.

      And all 5 of the people had Ohio driver's licenses... but that doesn't make them not anonymous. That is, unless you are aware of some place that voting on reaping of nodes is persistently tracked that I'm not aware of.

      - tye        

[reply]
        So what you really meant is that reaping is automated and PerlMonks is not storing info on who voted for the moderation. Is the person who Considered the node stored?

        Regardless, it is still up to a court to decide. Even if the info is not tracked you still have to have an account and be of high enough rank to Consider a node and vote on the Consideration. That combination might still be enough to cause problems (probably not, but it might be worth investigating further).

        Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion