I don't think that it's a question of what the Foundation has the legal
right to do. Most of these "threats" of legal action are just a matter
of blowing off steam. Many of these "disputes" don't come near to being
a part of arbitration procedure. Do you really want to make more work
for yourself than you already have? :-)
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
What I want to do is to create an agreement that all
disputes will be
handled through our arbitration procedure, thus precluding any legal action
other than possible appeal of an arbitration decision. I don't think folks
realize that we can legally do that.
Fred
>From: Ray Saintonge
>
>
>Mark Pellegrini wrote:
>
>
>>At this point, it's only a proposal. Also, it doesn't actually *do*
>>anything. I'd like to suggest adopting a terminate-on-site rule -- you make
>>a legal threat, and you're automatically banned. I'd like to know what
>>others here think.
>>
>>
>>
>We already have enough excuses for banning people. We don't need
>another one. These threats are almost always hollow.
>
>My response to legal threats is, "Go ahead and sue." When the person
>finds out what's involved in bringing forth a suit across international
>jurisdictions they quietly drop the whole thing.
>
>This is another variation of, "Don't feed the trolls."
>
>