On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 21:26:14 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: <snip snip>
- in cases specifically permitted by law. (Like, you're not permitted to use "force" to infringe on someone else's "freedom to move" - but there are reasons permitted by law when this is totally appropriate and not considered "abuse")
Complicated. Gert Doering
Good point! - As Sascha Luck also contributed "Nothing anyone does will not make someone else feel their "rights" are being "infringed upon" We do have to define abuse - Not only is it silly not to do that, it is patently an obstruction of the working of this very group. The only people who will try to sabotage, undermine or not to constructively contribute to the creation of an abuse definition - are those with nefarious intent. There simply is no other socially, ethically and openly acceptable reason to obstruct the process of defining what constitutes abuse. So, if we adapt the definition then: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Definition of Abuse as it should be defined by RIPE --------------------------------------------------------------------- The non sanctioned use of a resource to infringe upon the usage rights of another resource Reasoning ------------------------- "Sanctioned" - can have its own definition, so can "resource" as well as "usage rights". The above covers all abuse scenarios and it does not tell anyone what to do or what not to do. It is fair and reasonable and includes everything I feel it is important to make the definition as simple and as general as possible, to find a balance between freedom and responsibility. Andre