User blog comment:Obi the LEGO Fan/The Arbitration Committee/@comment-4596663-20140206143311/@comment-4596663-20140213014357

@Shadow I hope its ok if I tell you my point of view about this. I see it in two different ways. The silent contract which doesn't account you for anything and the contract where you sign something showing that you agree to it and can't break it. The silent contract for example is when you join the wiki, it's assumes that you have read the rules and are following them. You are held accountable for knowing the rules and for you following them. But if you break any of them, SURPRISE! From that you either get in trouble or say that you didn't read the rules and you are let go. Depending if you did read it or not.

The signature type is the type you do not want to break. It's a electronic signature showing that you have understanded everything stated in it and can't break it till you sign another contract saying you can. Like in real life, a signature can mean a lot. To you signing a check and saying this is you, to saying to agreed to this (after assumingly reading everything), and thinking of this as a permission slip you agreeded to letting you go on a field trip. For example, the permission slip. If your parent didn't sign it you wouldn't go without their consent. And if the school took you without your parent signing it... big trouble. The school needs the permission slip to let you go on the field trip. Same with this contract or statement that I've been calling it recently. ArbCom members are binded to it. Without their sigs, this statement would be basicly "words", but since they did sign it... you get the point now I think.

And yes, I also agree that people who do break rules "need to be held accountable with proof."