Please understand the volunteer system of 2ch at 1st.
* The deletion system of 2ch is not perfect.
* The deletion system of 2ch needs a lot of volunteer.
* The participation reason for the volunteer of 2ch has only their own motivation.
- 119 ： ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 02:19:39 ID: H0sTRxna
- Jim-san,
Please understand the volunteer system of 2ch at 1st.
* The deletion system of 2ch is not perfect.
* The deletion system of 2ch needs a lot of volunteer.
* The participation reason for the volunteer of 2ch has only their own motivation. - 120 ： ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 02:33:09 ID: H0sTRxna
- To keep the scale, you should defend them from the risks.
I think that the following concepts are necessary to defend them.
What is Deleter?
Deleter can delete only for user's convenience.
Deleter cannot do the deletion that makes the infringement of right and the law, etc. grounds.
Only Mr. Jim can judge it.
Deleter is a user.
Only the deletion as the user is admitted in Deleter.
Deleter cannot take part in the site management and the policy as the organization.
>>◆79EROOYuCc
Please correct the difference of the delicate nuance. - 121 ： ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 02:49:06 ID: H0sTRxna
- If I cannot defend them, I cannot consign the deletion to them.
So, I cannot become a leader until Jim-san understands my concepts. - 123 ： ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 06:17:53 ID: H0sTRxna
- >>122
2ch has Hiroyuki-san. But, BBSPINK doesn't have the person in charge in Japan.
Deleter comes to have to delete the malfeasance and the violation if there is no limitation.
When Deleter was not able to be deleted, this will become a legal risk.
Deleter is not a specialist of the law.
To avoid the risk even if message is the justifiable criticism, Deleter must delete it.
Please understand the lawsuit risk of Deleter is larger than that of Mr. Jim in Japan.
Please hire professionals if you request the interpretation of the law to Deleter.
If Mr. Jim requests it to the any volunteers, I cannot agree. - 127 ： ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 08:21:04 ID: H0sTRxna
- > So, your meaning is that a deleter does not need to follow the law
> when he/she judges a deletion
No. I think Deleter must not follow the law.
All Japanese have to correspond to the infringement of right if it is possible.
If Deleter can do a legal judgment as the site, Deleter will not be able to escape the obligation.
Example
*****************************************************************
Dear BBSPINK,
This is IZUMI from IZUMI Corp in Japan.
Delete the following messages.
http://pie.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/xxxxxxxxxx/119-121
http://pie.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/xxxxxxxxxx/123
Your site damages our honor. delete it immediately.
Best regards,
*****************************************************************
The message might be a justifiable criticism.
However, you are hesitating in whether it is a justifiable criticism or an infringement of right.
Can you judge "Do not delete it" for this request?
And, can you say to other Deleter, "Please have the danger"? - 131 ： ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 11:21:25 ID: H0sTRxna
- >>130
If deleter can stop the infringement of right as the Japanese people.
Hesitating might be no problem.
If Deleter judges, "I leave this message", the risk is generated.
So, Deleter will be not able to do the judgment that leaves the message.
Therefore, I ask you again.
Can you judge "Do not delete it" for this request?
And, can you say to other Deleter, "Please have the danger"? - 132 ： 名無し編集部員 [sage] ： 2006/07/30 (土) 11:37:40 ID: H0sTRxna 🧦
- なんか文が切れてるぞ。
The law demands to stop the infringement of right.
If deleter can stop the infringement of right as the Japanese people.