[過去ﾛｸﾞ]
Let's talk with Jim-san. Part2 (837ﾚｽ)
Let's talk with Jim-san. Part2 http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/
上
下
前
次
1-
新
通常表示
512ﾊﾞｲﾄ分割
ﾚｽ栞
このｽﾚｯﾄﾞは過去ﾛｸﾞ倉庫に格納されています｡
次ｽﾚ検索
歴削→次ｽﾚ
栞削→次ｽﾚ
過去ﾛｸﾞﾒﾆｭｰ
117: 名無し編集部員 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 00:55:01 ID:w51oQHIT I love you,Mr.Jim. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/117
118: 名無し編集部員 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 04:56:36 ID:BJ/vM7hg The same method as 2ch will be impossible. It is desirable to pay a countervalue and to employ the staff of exclusive use. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/118
119: ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 11:19:39 ID:H0sTRxna BE:7560083-DIA(30001) 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. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/119
120: ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 11:33:09 ID:H0sTRxna BE:5040544-DIA(30001) 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. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/120
121: ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 11:49:06 ID:H0sTRxna BE:14175195-DIA(30001) If I cannot defend them, I cannot consign the deletion to them. So, I cannot become a leader until Jim-san understands my concepts. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/121
122: ◆MARY/2Kkkc [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 14:33:34 ID:Cwh6Szby >>120 >>Deleter cannot do the deletion that makes the infringement of right and the law. You seem like SAMURAI, and cool! however, I do not understand your intension. Could you give me a reason and an example? http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/122
123: ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 15:17:53 ID:H0sTRxna BE:22680689-DIA(30001) >>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. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/123
124: ◆MARY/2Kkkc [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 16:03:22 ID:Cwh6Szby >>123 >>Deleter cannot do the deletion that makes the infringement of right and the law. So, your meaning is that a deleter does not need to follow the law when he/she judges a deletion, but he/she must follow only a deletion policy. The reason is because he/she is not a professional lawyer, and he/she has a legal risk since Jim is not in Japan. Is this your intention? What kind of a legal risk we have? Could you give me an example? http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/124
125: ◆yzY8OufLJI [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 17:02:45 ID:lwOJyOIw >◆IZUMI162i6 >◆MARY/2Kkkc Please look at two Res of >>65 and >>73. I think that the grinding match of the aspect as the American of Mr. jim and the Japanese by the user and the aspect is necessary for the guideline and knowing BBSPINK. And, I think that the guideline should receive the examination by the specialist as Mr. MUMUMU is proposing it. How about this proposal? （in Japanese） お二人さん。 >>65と>>73の２つのレスを見て下さい。 私は、BBSPINKのガイドライン、および心得はjimさんのアメリカ人としての視点と ユーザによる日本人と視点の摺り合わせが必要と思います。 そして、MUMUMUさんが提案している通り、そのガイドラインは専門家による審査を 受ける必要があると思います。 この提案は如何でしょうか？ http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/125
126: ◆uRW6KoTaRo [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 17:13:02 ID:xCdAaSRA Let's talk with Mr.Jim here. Let's talk without Mr.Jim there. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/126
127: ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 17:21:04 ID:H0sTRxna BE:5669892-DIA(30001) > 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"? http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/127
128: ◆uRW6KoTaRo [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 17:39:05 ID:xCdAaSRA The legal risk may cause illegal risk. For example,violence,intimidation,extortion and so on. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/128
129: 名無し編集部員 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 18:25:41 ID:qBjw+O7q For instance,he/she refuses the deletion of >>127 RE:IZUMI of IZUMI;co ｢I claimed "you" should delete. The reason is a violation of the law. However, the deletion was refused. I want to pursue this responsibility. ｣ at this time D:｢i do not have a knowledge of law. And i am not a lawyer. Therefore, i am not being given the authority to do a legal judgment by the owner. Only the owner has this power. It is clearly shown in http://pie.bbspink.com/xxx/｣ I think that he/she should be able to insist like this. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/129
130: ◆MARY/2Kkkc [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 18:28:21 ID:Cwh6Szby >>125 I am not sure about it, but I do not think it is a big problem, because I could find many web site in Japan says only "not to enter under 18 years old". >>127 Thank you for your explanation and an example. I still do not understand this part why is it? "If Deleter can do a legal judgment as the site, Deleter will not be able to escape the obligation." >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"? If the deleter is not sure, then he/she can ask a leader. If the leader is not sure, then he/she can ask Jim. If Jim does not delete it, then Jim gets a plaint. The volunteer has no legal risk, here. >>128 Very good point, Kotaro-san. To avoid both the legal risk and illegal risk, I suggest one volunteer obligation. * An official volunteer must keep secret on the public about his/her contact address. Otherwise, Jim can not prevent from someone sending a volunteer a plaint. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/130
131: ◆IZUMI162i6 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 20:21:25 ID:H0sTRxna BE:1890432-DIA(30001) >>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"? http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/131
132: 名無し編集部員 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 20:37:40 ID:H0sTRxna BE:11340094-DIA(30001) 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. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/132
133: ◆MARY/2Kkkc [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 21:54:19 ID:Cwh6Szby >>131-132 Now, finally, I think I got your intention. I was impressed for your consideration. So, you think a risk is generated when a deleter recognizes a writing has a violation. I think that a risk is not generated yet, when a deleter find a writing and he does not recognizes a violation, even if it has a violation. So, he has to delete when he is sure about a violation, but he can leave it when he is not sure. >Can you judge "Do not delete it" for this request? Yes, I can leave a posting, when I do not recognize it has a violation. >And, can you say to other Deleter, "Please have the danger"? No, I cannot say it. I allow them to delete anytime when they recognize a violation. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/133
134: ◆uRW6KoTaRo [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 22:57:12 ID:K29cIdod MARYさんは日本語できない人なの？ IZUMIさんは英語では細かいニュアンスが伝えられないようなので、 日本語できる人相手に英語で議論するのは全く無駄な事です。 IZUMIさんは他スレに日本語で色々細かい所も書いているので、 MARYさんはそれを読んでみて、必要があれば日本語で議論してみて、 その結果を、Jimさん向けにここに英語で書けばいいと思います。 http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/134
135: 名無し編集部員 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 23:32:31 ID:qBjw+O7q >>134 They(we) might be better speak in English as in detail as possible. I think that JIM should be able to trace the discussion later. of course,the discussion have to be done by using Japanese in another place,too. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/135
136: 名無し編集部員 [sage] 2006/07/30(日) 23:35:48 ID:qBjw+O7q >>134 あ、申し訳ない。 >>135は誤読して書いてしまった･･･。 すみません。 >>134 i think so too. http://mercury.bbspink.com/test/read.cgi/erobbs/1153928667/136
上
下
前
次
1-
新
書
関
写
板
覧
索
設
栞
歴
あと 701 ﾚｽあります
ｽﾚ情報
赤ﾚｽ抽出
画像ﾚｽ抽出
歴の未読ｽﾚ
AAｻﾑﾈｲﾙ
Google検索
Wikipedia
ぬこの手
ぬこTOP
0.011s