You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: An Explanation of the Emergency Actions Taken on 17 June 2018

in #eos • 6 years ago (edited)

I believe EOS NY as a Block Producer of EOS acted in a manner consistent with many Good Samaritan Laws. Given the fact that there was no functional body to take another action to safeguard the EOS holders, EOS New York did their best to minimize damage in an imperfect situation.

"Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated.[1] The protection is intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

However, having done this, EOS New York must stand by their actions rather than rolling them back, until such time as arbitration can occur, and ECAF can do its job. The decision to roll back the freeze as of 1300 UTC 19 June 2018 if ECAF does not issue a ruling by that time, is arbitrary and liable to further compound the difficulties of this situation.

6 years ago in #eos by
$0.00
    2 votes
    Reply 3
    Sort:  
  • Trending
    • [-]
     6 years ago 

    A valid arbitration opinion was released. The freeze stands.

    [-]
     6 years ago 

    Sometimes it is such that even in a totally decentralized or environment of total anarchy, that some bad-acting agents need to be governed accordingly. Hold to the "constitution" fellas!

    [-]
     6 years ago 

    Good Samaritan law
    Good Samaritan laws offer legal protection to people who give reasonable assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in peril, or otherwise incapacitated. The protection is intended to reduce bystanders' hesitation to assist, for fear of being sued or prosecuted for unintentional injury or wrongful death. An example of such a law in common-law areas of Canada: a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for wrongdoing. Its purpose is to keep people from being reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions should they make some mistake in treatment.