Quote from: reeses on October 04, 2012, 12:51:17 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on October 04, 2012, 12:46:13 AM

Quote from: reeses on October 04, 2012, 12:43:36 AM

Quote from: Maged on October 04, 2012, 12:39:14 AM

Quote from: reeses on October 04, 2012, 12:25:02 AM

You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.

All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.

So you disavow this statement?

Quote

It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam.

These statements seem consistent to me. The latter was a bit confusing, but the former restates the most natural way to understand it. It doesn't say you must break an NDA to reveal a scam nor does it say anything will happen if you refuse to break an NDA to reveal a scam. It just says what happens if you break an NDA to reveal a scam -- the NDA won't be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag.

The latter is confusing in that it states that the "board" may ignore any documents or agreements binding it to confidentiality. The "clarification" is that you can break NDAs to reveal a scam.

Declaring that it's policy implies that some thought was given to the phrasing and that the intent was clearly expressed by the phrasing.

Ah yes, that is indeed an English fail, and I apologize for that.