GlitchedThrough wrote:

Let me break this down for you.
If linking it means if the link itself violated it, not the content of the link.
If to do so would infers the contents of the site breaks it.
The proposed change creates ambiguity
Do you understand now?

You're still being vague.

If linking it means if the link itself violated it, not the content of the link.

Linking to something is the same as posting a link. Here's me posting a link to Scratch versus me linking to Scratch.

scratch.mit.edu

scratch.mit.edu

I don't see a difference, and this applies to every link you post too. For example, if I post a link to an inappropriate website, I'm linking to it too. They're really the same; I really don't want this to become a flame war.

EDawg2011 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

Let me break this down for you.
If linking it means if the link itself violated it, not the content of the link.
If to do so would infers the contents of the site breaks it.
The proposed change creates ambiguity
Do you understand now?

You're still being vague.

If linking it means if the link itself violated it, not the content of the link.

Linking to something is the same as posting a link. Here's me posting a link to Scratch versus me linking to Scratch.

scratch.mit.edu

scratch.mit.edu

I don't see a difference, and this applies to every link you post too. For example, if I post a link to an inappropriate website, I'm linking to it too. They're really the same; I really don't want this to become a flame war.

But the wording is ambiguous.

GlitchedThrough wrote:

But the wording is ambiguous.

Once again, you're still being confusing.

to do so = posting a link
linking to it = posting a link to something

For the “to do so” part, posting a link is always linking to something; links lead somewhere no matter what, even if it's a 404 error page.

EDawg2011 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

But the wording is ambiguous.

Once again, you're still being confusing.

to do so = posting a link
linking to it = posting a link to something

For the “to do so” part, posting a link is always linking to something; links lead somewhere no matter what, even if it's a 404 error page.

Again, it opens a loophole.

EDawg2011 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

But the wording is ambiguous.

Once again, you're still being confusing.

to do so = posting a link
linking to it = posting a link to something

For the “to do so” part, posting a link is always linking to something; links lead somewhere no matter what, even if it's a 404 error page.

What if, by theory, the name of the link contained personal information in it, but the site didn’t.

Honestly, I think the easiest solution would be to remove the “outside of Scratch” part. It obviously still violates the Terms of Use to send a link to a Scratch project if linking it violates the Terms of Use.

GlitchedThrough wrote:

Again, it opens a loophole.

to do so = to post a link
linking to it = posting a link that links to it

If you know enough English, you should know that “You can't run, if to do so would have the risk of you tripping.” and “You can't run if running would have the risk of you tripping.” have the same meaning. This combined with my argument that posting a link and linking to something are the same thing completely debunks your point.

MythosLore wrote:

What if, by theory, the name of the link contained personal information in it, but the site didn’t.

Sharing personal information, even if it's just the name of the link, is still very sensitive.

EDawg2011 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

Again, it opens a loophole.

to do so = to post a link
linking to it = posting a link that links to it

If you know enough English, you should know that “You can't run, if to do so would have the risk of you tripping.” and “You can't run if running would have the risk of you tripping.” have the same meaning. This combined with my argument that posting a link and linking to something are the same thing completely debunks your point.

Nope.
Again, law has to be 100% nonambiguous. Don't care about basic English care about making it possible for anyone to understand it and no loopholes to be present.

EDawg2011 wrote:

(#67)
(…) This combined with my argument that posting a link and linking to something are the same thing completely debunks your point.

Legalese wording ≠ English wording

GlitchedThrough wrote:

Nope.
Again, law has to be 100% nonambiguous. Don't care about basic English care about making it possible for anyone to understand it and no loopholes to be present.

You're right; it is ambiguous. This is posting links.

scratch.mit.edu
youtube.com

What am I linking to? “it” should only be singular, not plural. I used every valid point I could think of (Maybe that's an overreaction?) and I just can't convince you. Here's an even better mockup.

You agree not to post links to any content outside of the Scratch website if doing it would violate any part of the Terms of Use.

EDawg2011 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

Nope.
Again, law has to be 100% nonambiguous. Don't care about basic English care about making it possible for anyone to understand it and no loopholes to be present.

You're right; it is ambiguous. This is posting links.

scratch.mit.edu
youtube.com

What am I linking to? “it” should only be singular, not plural. I used every valid point I could think of (Maybe that's an overreaction?) and I just can't convince you. Here's an even better mockup.

You agree not to post links to any content outside of the Scratch website if doing it would violate any part of the Terms of Use.

Same ambiguous issue.
It isn't the act of linking it's the content that's the issue

GlitchedThrough wrote:

Same ambiguous issue.
It isn't the act of linking it's the content that's the issue

“if to do so” has the same problem.

Hold on, linking external websites isn’t allowed? I thought it was allowed if the content your linking is appropriate?-

starlightsparker wrote:

Hold on, linking external websites isn’t allowed? I thought it was allowed if the content your linking is appropriate?-

It's allowed; the wording is just a bit confusing, but it isn't ambiguous.

EDawg2011 wrote:

starlightsparker wrote:

Hold on, linking external websites isn’t allowed? I thought it was allowed if the content your linking is appropriate?-

It's allowed; the wording is just a bit confusing, but it isn't ambiguous.

Oh. Sorry for going off topic btw!

EDawg2011 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

Same ambiguous issue.
It isn't the act of linking it's the content that's the issue

“if to do so” has the same problem.

If you ignore the important words that are “IF to do so”
It obviously gets it's point across without allowing loopholes

GlitchedThrough wrote:

EDawg2011 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

Same ambiguous issue.
It isn't the act of linking it's the content that's the issue

“if to do so” has the same problem.

If you ignore the important words that are “IF to do so”
It obviously gets it's point across without allowing loopholes

“if doing it” and “if to do so” have the same meaning in this context.

EDawg2011 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

EDawg2011 wrote:

GlitchedThrough wrote:

Same ambiguous issue.
It isn't the act of linking it's the content that's the issue

“if to do so” has the same problem.

If you ignore the important words that are “IF to do so”
It obviously gets it's point across without allowing loopholes

“if doing it” and “if to do so” have the same meaning in this context.

“If to do so” infers “if the content which viewers are guaranteed to see on this site we're placed on the this site, it would be allowed” whilst “if doing so” doesn't infer, this opening loopholes.

GlitchedThrough wrote:

“If to do so” infers “if the content which viewers are guaranteed to see on this site we're placed on the this site, it would be allowed” whilst “if doing so” doesn't infer, this opening loopholes.

Why doesn't it infer? “doing it” means “to do so” if they're placed after an “if”