Banned for mentioning CBLoader...

[Infiniti2000]

But guys, ratchet down the hostility. Explaining the situation is one thing; being a jerk to the original poster is another.

Well, to be honest, isn't the OP now breaking ENWorld's rules? Not only posting about another board, but about the admins moderating of his posts? Aren't both frowned upon here? So, that might explain the hostility. For example, let's say you threadban me from this thread and I start up another thread complaining about my "ban." Is that ok? Is it now okay to start talking about how other boards are moderated?

 

[Ardulac]

Well, to be honest, isn't the OP now breaking ENWorld's rules? Not only posting about another board, but about the admins moderating of his posts? Aren't both frowned upon here? So, that might explain the hostility. For example, let's say you threadban me from this thread and I start up another thread complaining about my "ban." Is that ok? Is it now okay to start talking about how other boards are moderated?

Is it okay to backseat mod? If you think someone is breaking the rules, then trust the mods to deal with it.

 

[malraux]

I'm betting that since the OP's temp ban expired, he'll not be back here till he gets booted again and thus more discussion is pointless.

 

[Piratecat]

Ahem. Specifically not addressing the content of your post here, [MENTION=31734]Infiniti2000[/MENTION], but rather the post itself, what's our rule when you have a comment on moderation? Don't discuss it in-thread. Instead, always report a problem or shoot the moderator (myself included!) a PM. You know that.

But hey, I'm here. To answer your question, this post didn't trigger my Moderator Senses(tm). It's meta about another board (which is okay in itself), and it's trying to incite a board war (which definitely isn't okay), but it got shut down so successfully and completely by reasonable EN Worlders that no moderation was needed. We'd always rather have people self-moderate instead of having to step in, so this example of community knowledge and wisdom seemed like a far more effective way to address the problem than a pronouncement from on high.

That being said, I acknowledge the complete hilarity we would have wrung out of giving the original poster a 24 hour suspension for breaking EN World's rules. We try not to be quixotic when it comes to these things, though, and a sense of perspective is often far more effective.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Great Googling, but I have actually taken Torts, and proximate cause isn't necessary for products liability (at least not between the company and the harm).

Gee, and I've only been a practicing attorney since 1996.

From another attorney's website:

Proximate cause" is a legal term for the type of causation that must be proved before a person can be found to be legally responsible for another person’s injury or damage to the person’s property.

IOW, proximate cause is crucial in determining liability in most liability cases. Exceptions exist, but this is where the enquiry begins.

Either way, whether the lawsuit would be successful or not isn't important. The point is that it is a liability issue either way. And I'm not sure how banning users who modify guns is protecting databases, but whatever.

Colt could not be liable for someone modifying one of their guns unless they made their weapons more easily modifiable than the industry standard OR if they provided the information on how to do so.

The banning practice protects databases by not giving the authorities much leverage with which to seek search warrants forcing disclosure.

 

[Ardulac]

Gee, and I've only been a practicing attorney since 1996.

From another attorney's website:

Yeah, okay. I thought you were referring to the sort of proximate cause that was dealt with in cases like Palsgraf.

Colt could not be liable for someone modifying one of their guns unless they made their weapons more easily modifiable than the industry standard OR if they provided the information on how to do so.

And I assume that they would stop discussion to prevent it from looking like they were providing such information, however:

The banning practice protects databases by not giving the authorities much leverage with which to seek search warrants forcing disclosure.

That's a good point, and something it makes sense for them to be wary of. I don't see how it connects to the WotC situation, since I doubt they are nearly as likely to be served with warrants. And any warrants they would receive would probably be related to enforcement of their own IP, so I'd expect them to be cooperative.

 

[mudbunny]

I think [WotC] should be more open to modding

Based on the conversation that Paolo had a couple of weeks ago where he asked for some people who make tools that interface with the Compendium, as well as what I have been telling them about tools like iPlay4E and MasterPlan, I would be very surprised if something wasn't in the works.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Colt was just picked at random: nearly ANY company you care to name is likely to be hostile to posts on their website regarding aftermarket modifications to their products.

Exceptions doubtlessly exist, but they'd be rare.

 

[ourchair]

I do think that being banned for mentioning it is a bit much...

...and I do agree that WotC mods have the right to say what people shouldn't or should be allowed to talk about on their forums insofar as a topic may have a relationship to the use of their IP....

...but it's only a 24 hour ban.

It's possibly a reactionary maneuver by a mod, that may have overshot his mark in terms of what he should be keeping track of. But it's not say, a lengthy ban, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[ourchair]

Honestly, after LOOKING at CBLoader I think the complaints against it are harsh. It doesn't steal or copy data etc. All it does is let you MANUALLY edit the XML and extract parts of it into a separate file that you can maintain or add home brew stuff, then it merges your homebrew/modifications into the actual file that CB loads. That way when they update the file your changes don't get nuked. You can do exactly the same stuff without CBLoader, you'd just need some professional quality XML editing tools (you'd probably want these ANYWAY) and a knowledge of XSLT.

Of course WotC can make whatever rules they want for their forum, so in that sense the OP has little complain about. They don't like CBLoader, so you can't talk about it there. AFAICT without having actually run it though the thing is harmless and probably kind of handy.

This.

One can actually make a case for whether or not the CBLoader is doing anything 'wrong' on a legal/IP dimension.

But defensible legality of the CBLoader is not the only factor in the suspension/ban.