Pointing out your opponent fallacies doesn’t make yours valid. I’d also add that this is not a Stawman fallacy, as he does not attempt to replace your (absence of) argument with one that he refutes, but rather an Ad Hominem.
Edit : I’d add that yours is also an Ad Hominem, which makes it quite ironic.
I think this would be a first. So there is no real methodology in place right now.
But I’d really like to get the community involved for the decision making, that’s something we’ll discuss internally, but in my opinion I’d like for it to work as following :
The community, LW admin, or the mods express the need for new rules <- We are here
Internal discussion between mods, and, if needed, LW admins, to make sure the new or updated rule is conform to LW rules and what we wish to do with the community.
Once the draft of the new rule is done, we’d publish it as draft to get feedback.
Once most people agree on the new or updated rule, we will start enforce it, first with a bit of leniency, then more strictly.
I agree that he could make more structured and elaborate threads, but I wouldn’t call him a clown or spammer for that much.
Might I remind you that you can just ignore him if you don’t want to see his threads? Like that those who wish to engage on those threads still can and you won’t be bothered anymore.
If OP break a community rule or a site wide rule, we will ban him, after warning him, but not otherwise.
First, please take into consideration that lemmy.world website and organisation is bound to EU laws (as stated in the TOS). As such, in the current case the EU copyright laws, that are as previously stated, far more restrictive than the US ones.
As you stated, the objective of ROM patches is to modify copyrighted material. One of the right protected by copyright in the EU is the right to modify a software.
By default, if no licence is given, software is considered as being under the most restrictive licence available (even if the source code is freely available), which means, in this case, an “all rights reserved” licence, which prohibit software modification.
In the EU, third party patches are considered as derivative works, and requires an explicit authorisation from the copyright holder to be published and used on copyrighted material. Some exceptions exists, as previously stated, but applying them here would be quite far fetched.
For now, and while I keep researching on the application of EU copyright laws to try to find a flaw that would allow me to authorize those links, I’ll have to keep those links removed.
The comments would be restored if the link are removed by the comment authors.
Thank you for taking the time to share your expertise.
In the EU, things are a bit different. US Fair Use is quite open ended, with a lot of room for interpretation. In the case of EU copyright laws, the list of exclusions is explicitly listed in Information Society Directive Article 5.
In my opinion this could fall into either art. 5.3(d), art. 5.3(i), or art. 5.3(k), but I’m no copyright law specialist. I do have one among my friends, but she kinda got a child last week, I’m not gonna bother her for that 😅.