Editing Talk:EULA roofie (section)

=Is the term consistent with the "Granny Rule" in the mission statement?=
It is a good term, but it is not clear to me that it is consistent with the Granny Rule in the mission statement. The term may be seen as overly inflammatory for Granny. It might also offend movements that defend sexual assault survivors. Do we consider this an exception to the Granny Rule? What are your thoughts?
    
    Agree. I propose that article should be reworded. EULA Roofie can be referred to as a colloquialism, and its meaning explained, but it should not be the main title or reference term for this Theme. Discussion here about an appropriate alternative is welcomed!  -Keith

    I second that. I've heard EULA Rugpull floating around, but I'd suggest Term Spiking Heres my terms list I've been working on:
    
    Agreement Abuse
    ├── License Laundering (ownership undermining)
    │   └── Converting purchases to licenses
    │   └── Revoking perpetual rights
    │   └── Redefining ownership terms
    │
    ├── Feature Ransom (functionality hostaging)
    │   └── Blocking core functionality
    │   └── Converting features to services
    │   └── Requiring new agreements for use
    │
    ├── Term Spiking (stealth changes)
    │   ├── Silent Updates
    │   ├── Buried Changes
    │   └── Version Obfuscation
    │
    ├── Legal Lockout (rights obstruction)
    │   └── Arbitration requirements
    │   └── Class action restrictions
    │   └── Jurisdiction control
    │
    ├── Rights Stripping (systematic removal)
    │   └── Warranty elimination
    │   └── Usage restriction
    │   └── Remedy blocking
    │
    └── Service Siphoning (forced conversion)
        └── Subscription forcing
        └── Feature reclassification 
        └── Access degradation
    
    -Travis