I bet other people would like to know the answer too...

[Lord Evermore]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=42&threadid=1066836

Hate to be a whiner, but is it really hard to post the answer THEN lock the thread? Granted nobody'd ever actually search to see if it was answered.

I have notified the moderator who PM'd aphex. A response should be posted soon.

AnandTech Moderator

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=42&threadid=1066836 Hate to be a whiner, but is it really hard to post the answer THEN lock the thread? Granted nobody'd ever actually search to see if it was answered.

They gave the answer to the person who asked the question, what's the problem?

 

[Ly2n]

IMHO the problem is that I was also interested in the answer. I might be in a similar situation if a deal that I have locally falls through. Other members may also be in that situation in the future. Should this question be asked over and over? Why not tell us once and save some bandwidth. Lynn

 

[Aves]

Most likely the mods handled the situation in the way they did because they don't want to make a blanket policy.

It may be something that they choose to allow on a case-by-case basis depending on who the member is, how established they are, what the circumstances are, etc.

If they post in that thread "Yeah go ahead" then others will see that as a green light to do the same and it could get out of hand.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Preferences for members who are lovey-dovey with the mods shouldn't apply to something that is regarding questionable legality, since the reason it's an issue at all is AT worries about being held responsible.

 

[Aves]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
Preferences for members who are lovey-dovey with the mods shouldn't apply to something that is regarding questionable legality, since the reason it's an issue at all is AT worries about being held responsible.

Well I could be completely wrong but it seems like a plausible reason. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it if it were true.

 

[DivideBYZero]

YALWT: Yet Another Lord WhineForEvermore Thread.

 

[Lord Evermore]

How original. Notice that we still don't get an answer.

Your sig is kind of ironic.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
How original. Notice that we still don't get an answer.

Your sig is kind of ironic.

If your questions went beyond pointless moaning, playing the victim and tell-tale antics, I'd agreee.

 

[microAmp]

Originally posted by: Lord Evermore
How original. Notice that we still don't get an answer.

Your sig is kind of ironic.

Even I would like to know the answer to that, it is intresting.

 

[AnandTech Moderator]

We have discussed this matter, and we concluded that since the original disk includes the licence, but it is not usable, we believe it is ok for the person who has the original disk to sell a backup copy AS LONG AS the seller includes the damaged original disk. We also believe it is important to include complete disclosure about the circumstance of such sales to avoid any question about the legality of such a sale.

Failure to deliver a promised original disk with the backup will be considered the same as other software piracy under our rules. We hope our members understand that we may have to reverse this position if we find too many cases of abuse of this rule.

Thanks for understanding,

AnandTech Moderator