3

[Discussion] Make Enforcing the User Requirements a Moderator Responsibility (TOS Appended)

Submitted by sudo in meta (edited by a moderator )

Currently, in the Moderator Responsibilities section of the Terms of Service, it doesn't say that moderators have to delete posts or ban users who violate the user requirements. This is probably an oversight, as it seems to me that moderators should be responsible for ensuring that part of the ToS are upheld on their own subforums. So, I propose that this section should be amended to include the line:

Moderators must ban users from their subforums who violate the site-wide user requirements, until such time as they are banned from the entire website by an admin.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

Cheeks wrote

Support, but honestly it's already fucking implied. You know what happens when you keep amending and adding on to social contracts? Take a look at the US legal system and government.

4

GrimWillow wrote (edited )

ok, I have made the changes to the TOS:

Moderators must ban users from their subforums who violate the site-wide user requirements, until such time as they are banned from the entire website by an admin.

and

This document was last updated on July 25, 2018. - A rule was added suggesting that moderators must ban violators of the TOS from the forum that they moderate. The discussion can be found here.

What do y'all think?

-1

sudo wrote

Looks good; the loophole is closed. Though I think there are other unclear or irrelevant parts of the ToS that need rewording. If the rules are unclear, then these arguments will crop up whenever people disagree on the interpretation of the rules. So, we ought to make them impossible to non-deliberately misinterpret. If you want, I can edit it to clarify certain points, without changing any of the rules. I'll post the edited version here, for peer review.

Also, for the record, what is the policy regarding voting on issues? I started this discussion thread, but no decision was ever made on whether or not to call votes on issues, because we never called a vote because none of the admins even clarified what the policy for these proposals are.

3

mofongo wrote

I always thought these sort of things were implied. If they need to be explicit, then support.

0

sudo wrote

For rules, I think they do need to be explicit. Otherwise, when people disagree on the rules, you get situations like what just happened.

-1

ziq wrote (edited )

You'll always find something to nitpick. That's what bureaucrats do.

2

selver wrote

I love that the one Marxist on here is a hardcore bureaucrat. Fitting.

1

sudo wrote

I love how all of the anarchists are deathly afraid of making any "formal" or "official" policies, which spawns a huge brawl when people disagree on the interpretation of their ambiguous rules. Fitting.

3

supernice wrote

As you said, mods should be required to uphold the ToS

There was no disagreement. It's implied, and understood by all, including yourself based on the comment above. You just decided not to do it, and that is actually what caused the "huge brawl".

0

sudo wrote

That powder keg was already full. I was just the spark.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

You're literally the only user who gives a shit other than a couple of literal children.

The 16 and over rule was decided on by the community. I don't remember a single objection to it.

1

sudo wrote

The 16 and over rule was decided on by the community. I don't remember a single objection to it.

Would you direct me to that thread?

-1

ziq wrote

I'm not looking for it, it was more than a year ago

1

Anarcropolis wrote

what is this a vote?

1

ziq wrote

Apparently it's not enough to say mods are required to uphold the tos, because ruleslawyers like sudo needs it to specifically say "u must delete comments and ban users that violate the tos".

1

Anarcropolis wrote

I wouldn't trust mods to take liberties with the TOS like that.

0

ziq wrote

Especially since there r more libs than rads on the site now due to the success of f/shoplifting. The tos shouldn't be up for debate (insofar as removing things from it) or reactionaries would toss it all out.

It does need to be rewritten tho to clarify some things.

-2

sudo wrote

Not yet; this is just a discussion thread.

4

mofongo wrote

Didn't we rule out the difference like last week?

-2

sudo wrote

The admins never said whether we would call votes or not, because there was never a... ah... vote.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

Wasn't every single person in that thread against it? Why would we need the admins to decide?

-2

sudo wrote

Because, as you can see above, some people are unsure what the procedure for making these types of proposals are (that being because there is no official procedure).

1

ziq wrote

The procedure is what it's always been. A proposal is made, we talk, if needed an admin takes action after reviewing the consensus. The only 'confusion' is you telling everyone there's confusion.

-1

sudo wrote

Seeing as other people are also confused about it, I do not think your statement is true.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

what other people? I don't remember anyone wanting to do your 2 threads to make one decision thing. I'm honestly starting to think you're trolling because you keep acting like you have all this support for your bureaucratic posturing when to my eyes it's non existent. And then acting like a meme about stalin being a train was somehow a personal attack? Weird and wacky stuff.

-1

sudo wrote

There seem to be several other off-topic or poorly written parts of the ToS. The whole thing should probably be re-written, to be clearer and to cut down on fluff.