Anthro-l developed rules due to a problem subscriber in Australia, who
subsequently set legal precedent by being successfully sued for electronic
defamation...  Basically he was a jerk, and driving people off the list.
We told him to be nicer, and he abused us too. So we kicked him off. Then
we set basic rules (e.g. no ads, no ad hominem attacks, no legal
violations, no defamation, etc.) and added them to our welcome message. We
appended a note stating that everyone should readthe entire welcome
message, and that by receiving it and remaining subscribed, they were
agreeing to its terms. (This may not be legally binding, but does about
all we can easily do really.) We also sent a copy to all those subscribed.
We also added a "board of governors" including present and past owners,
and a statement that those who violated the rules would be warned and then
evicted at our disgression. Any appeals were again at our disgression.

Essentially this is a three-strikes-and-you're-out approach (two-strikes?)
but informal. We applied it to an extremely troublesome character from
Colorado who has since been evicted from many other lists, and who made
many, many threats of legal action. Worked quite well. We kicked them off,
but allowed them to post through us (which they never did). After a while
they agreed to follow the rules, so we let them back on. Then they
reneged, so we kicked them off again, for good.

I prefer strong rules with loopholes for special cases.

Cheers,
        Hugh



- - - - - - - Hugh [log in to unmask] - - - - - - - - -
 ...tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to reply and
 remove all doubt...  (oops!)    http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~hjarvis
    -  unabashed rampant empiricist & geological opportunist  -