Ahh, Faramond, glad to have given a linguistic insight!
Voronwe, thanks, I like the summary you gave.
It's just a side issue at the moment, I think, but maybe for further clarification:
I don't know the Japanese stuff that was mentioned, so I can't comment on that.
When the texts spoke of erections I immediately thought of ancient Greek art (vase paintings) - I can't imagine why anyone would want that in a sig, but if it came up, would people here think that was acceptable or not? (Just for example.)
And I suppose we are talking about really explicit stuff here, but what, for example, about the pic of the Bernini-sculpture I posted in the art-thread:
It's not "explicit", but I find it pretty erotic and, well, rousing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back to the difficult (for me) subject of bannings and hearings:
Jny, thanks, yes, the third post is helpful.
I'd just like to summarise this in my words, to make sure I have this sorted out alright:
There are cases when there is an immediate ban, and others where a poster might be banned after a hearing.
If there's an immediate ban, there must (?) be a hearing to reverse or uphold the ban
- when the duration of the ban is not specified AND a certain time has elapsed AND the poster has asked for hearing to reverse the ban.
If these are correct, I'm puzzled by the following:
- on the one hand there must be a hearing, but on the other the poster has to ask for it - isn't that a contradiction?
- And a bit further down it says in case of immediate bans the duration is never specified - so condition one is always fulfilled necessarily? Or are there other cases where bans might be of unspecified duration?
- does it also mean that in other cases (ie not immediate bans) there
can be a hearing to reverse a ban if those three conditions are met?
- what happens if there's ban after a hearing? Are there any circumstances under which a poster may ask for a reversal of the ban? Or are all such bans temporary? (Though I suppose this belongs under member rights.)
Lastly, it says:
Admins have power to convene a hearing to reverse a ban if the following three conditions are met
- does that mean they could also refuse a hearing?
Then there's the question I also addressed in the ballot thread - the inclusion of the forth point in the list bugs me somehow.
Admins have power to enact an Immediate Ban
for the following offenses if the poster has registered within the last seven days:
• Spamming the board with ads
• Spamming the board with porn
• Hacking the board
• Refusing to abide by the Decision of Jury in an Arbitration
• Threats of real life violence or other criminal acts against members
In all other cases the poster has the Right to a Hearing, and if the poster registered more than seven days ago they are considered a member of the community and have a right to a hearing for these offenses as well, but their posting rights will be restricted to the Jury Room for the duration of the hearing.
I can't really imagine someone who's been here less than seven days already under some decision through arbitration.
I agree we need to make such rulings enforceable, but I think it's impossible in such a case for the poster to have been here for less than a week, so this would have to be a hearing on a ban and forum restriction, rather than an immediate ban, wouldn't it?
Also, it still seems to me a very different sort of offense from the others in that list.
So, on the whole I think this point might be better in the list of:
Admins have power to temporarily suspend posting rights or restrict access to a forum
I'm sorry if this is all a bit confused - hope you guys can make some sense of it.