I don't know where people are getting the idea that the jury decision created a rule that there could be no privacy in the future. This is a bizarre conclusion, if I may say so.
All they decided was that at the time when *** threatened to share info, the only existing rule about sharing info concerned the Invite Forum. This was based on statements which original members and admins had made to *** and which no one with knowledge or authority contradicted.
It is up to the members, through voting, or through the convention work which will also be put to a vote, to decide what the rules will or will not be for the future.
But perhaps there is general confusion about the difference between legislative and judicial functions. In the American system - and I believe the European system is like ours in this regard - the courts don't make the laws, they only interpret them. No laws, nothing to interpret.
The courts don't enforce the law either. That is an executive function, which in our case means a function of the current admins. Failure to enforce a jury decision would, I would think, be grounds for removing an admin from office. But we haven't gotten that far in the convention.
This discussion alerts me to the fact that we probably need some clarification of these broad functions in the charter (or Red Book). Lord Morningstar had talked about this aspect of it early on, and I've just been trying to grind through the loopholes in existing laws before taking on the philosophical issues. But we shouldn't forget to clarify things like this when the time is ripe.
Voronwe is right that we need some kind of appeals process. I am certainly open to discussing this here in the Business Forum ... 1. because everything we have done so far concerning disputes was done here in the business forum, and 2. because it looks like it will be awhile before the convention advances that far.
Estel:
Because of that, I've posted rules for the England forum
And will put them to a vote of the membership, I hope, because no jury in the future is going to ban a person "because Estel said so." Not to be snide, but there has been a process up until now ... half-baked as it might be ... and I think it is of overwhelming importance to
perceived fairness that process be continued in the future.
Estel, the privacy issue for England - at least the part of it that admins control - is coming up directly on the convention agenda. I personally don't mind if you take interim action to ensure privacy in that forum, and probably all those who visit that forum would appreciate it, but ultimately it will have to be the membership who decides what the penalties will be in that forum.
I can only urge the committee members to put their noses to the grindstone and work through some of these issues until we get the system that we want.
Meanwhile, I think that the solution which best preserves the
rights of all members now and in the future is the solution that Eru proposed. Let people delete any regretable posts they have made. We know that the board leaks like a sieve and we've know that for awhile. Member-moderated means that every member is responsible for him/herself, right? So, much as perfect privacy might be comfortable, we no longer have it and I see no way of getting it back shy of banning everyone who joined in 2005.
Jn