Quote:
Originally Posted by pythos
Now, looking at what Neal has said, I want you to point to me where it says discussion of the EFFECTS OF a crack is prohibited. The Cnet article was about the EFFECT not the crack itself.
As I have said, this is equal to a news agency covering the effects of a break in. Not going into full detail or giving how to instructions of the break in.
Ubisoft's DRM is a very controversial matter as seen by how people have behaved on this normally civil forum.
|
Yep. Agreed. Everything is subject to interpretation, but in reading what Uber Gruber wrote I can see no interpretation which would violate
what I perceive to be the spirit of this rule. If I am mistaken, then obviously so too are many others here, and perhaps the rule should be further clarified and explained?
(note to those with opposing viewpoints: please don't just continue quoting it... if there is a significant difference of opinion regarding the application of said rule - in this case - there is obviously room for clarification)
What I did see was a member challenging a moderator on a questionable call. Is there a rule against that? If so, it was definitely violated.
With regard to Uber Gruber's treatment... that can easily be perceived as an inappropriate response from the moderator in question. Neal's response did surprise me a bit... at first. But on second thought, the credibility (and effectiveness) of a moderator with no skins on the wall depends on authority. What I saw was the board owner protecting his moderator... all other things being equal. Totally understandable I think.
JD