Xilikon
[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2004
- Messages
- 15,010
In light of the recent events related to illegal borging and points zeroing, I think it's time to remind everyone that it's essential to make sure you have a clear permission from the computer owner, preferably in writing before borging any computer you don't own. Even if you are in a position to authorize the installation of the client on computers, it's always wise to have a letter written and signed by your superior or owner.
By putting the permission on writing, you are shielding from any ambigous situations leading to a EULA violation. This is especially true when you have permission at first and it become unwanted down the road for any reason.
I will also take the opportunity to explain how things works when a EULA violation is reported :
-Either a FCF moderation staff or a PandeGroup member receive a complaint about a possible EULA violation against a user.
-First, they submit the complaint to the security team, comprised of PG members and people in the folding community.
-They review the complaint and if it is valid, they take a decision depending on the severity of the violation.
-If points zeroing is warranted, they will proceed now for the user (and possibly the team if it is shown they encouraged the behavior or did nothing to prevent it).
-If the user disagree with the decision, he can contact the PG about that. If his side of the story is credible, it will be reviewed by the security team.
-If the complaint turned up to be unfounded, the punishment will be reverted and the case closed.
-However, if it is not clear (like the user word against the other), it can be deferred to the judiciary system to decide if a violation really occured or not. If it's not a violation, they also revert the punishment and the case closed.
-If the new informations doesn't show any valid reason to think it's not a violation, the punishment remain.
The reason the security team apply a punishment immediatly is because there is often no possibility way to contact the offender like language barrier, no email provided or no forum to contact. In most cases, it's often because the offender doesn't want to be contacted and the punishment will stay (they know they are wrong, no point to argue). But if the offender think he is not fairly treated or think a lesser punishment is warranted, it's up to him to contact the PG and plead his case, with proof if possible. That's where the written permission letter will help a lot in this case.
In case people is not aware of the EULA terms, please read this : http://folding.stanford.edu/English/License (don't be afraid, it's very short and simple).
The PandeGroup are not cowboys and they are open to revert the punishment if you can show you have a valid permission or you have a good explanation of what happened.
Now that it's clear, Fold on !
By putting the permission on writing, you are shielding from any ambigous situations leading to a EULA violation. This is especially true when you have permission at first and it become unwanted down the road for any reason.
I will also take the opportunity to explain how things works when a EULA violation is reported :
-Either a FCF moderation staff or a PandeGroup member receive a complaint about a possible EULA violation against a user.
-First, they submit the complaint to the security team, comprised of PG members and people in the folding community.
-They review the complaint and if it is valid, they take a decision depending on the severity of the violation.
-If points zeroing is warranted, they will proceed now for the user (and possibly the team if it is shown they encouraged the behavior or did nothing to prevent it).
-If the user disagree with the decision, he can contact the PG about that. If his side of the story is credible, it will be reviewed by the security team.
-If the complaint turned up to be unfounded, the punishment will be reverted and the case closed.
-However, if it is not clear (like the user word against the other), it can be deferred to the judiciary system to decide if a violation really occured or not. If it's not a violation, they also revert the punishment and the case closed.
-If the new informations doesn't show any valid reason to think it's not a violation, the punishment remain.
The reason the security team apply a punishment immediatly is because there is often no possibility way to contact the offender like language barrier, no email provided or no forum to contact. In most cases, it's often because the offender doesn't want to be contacted and the punishment will stay (they know they are wrong, no point to argue). But if the offender think he is not fairly treated or think a lesser punishment is warranted, it's up to him to contact the PG and plead his case, with proof if possible. That's where the written permission letter will help a lot in this case.
In case people is not aware of the EULA terms, please read this : http://folding.stanford.edu/English/License (don't be afraid, it's very short and simple).
The PandeGroup are not cowboys and they are open to revert the punishment if you can show you have a valid permission or you have a good explanation of what happened.
Now that it's clear, Fold on !