14

Upholding raddle's minimum age requirement (My last comment from the thread /u/sudo refused to take action in)

Submitted by ziq in meta (edited )

Mods are required to uphold the ToS, especially in cases where I'm legally exposed (like this case - a kid announcing they're 14, have been caught shoplifting by their mother and warned to stop, and asking for advice on how to continue doing it without getting caught by their mother again).

The site is registered to my real identity and I'm the one who would be held responsible while you're safe and cozy behind your Tor relays.

This was my last comment in the thread, after sudo refused several times to take action and instead kept demanding to know why the requirement existed.

If you're too fucked to know why a completely exposed anarchist doesn't want to be seen hosting a platform that directly encourages (the media will use the word 'grooms') kids to engage in illegal activity then you're not cut out to mod this forum.

If this kid gets caught, I'm not being held responsible by their parents or the law or the media. "Anarchist extremist set up website to convince children to rob local business" is not something I want to deal with.

This shit aint rocket science.

Please, can an admin delete the thread and ban the minor.

Or instead of deleting it, for transparency, edit out the OP post, and (sudo's) replies that give the minor advice, and leave the other responses.

And if this mod continues to not give a shit about my safety they should be removed as a mod.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

9

rot wrote

If anything we should raise it to 18. Reeeeeaaaaaly don't want any people who are legaly kids here

4

sudo wrote

Why not?

6

365degrees wrote

The problem with that is that around 16 is when people are probably getting into radical politics. Shutting them out of one of the few internet places where radicals can talk is probably not going to help.

5

jadedctrl wrote

Yea, that's why they'll join 18+ radical forums even if they have to lie about their age.

3

supernice wrote

Ok, fine, I can see that. I myself got into a more radical way of thinking around 15. In that case, can we at least uphold the 16 barrier?

6

ziq wrote

When you were 16 would you have been silly enough to announce your age in an adults only space? If so then you prob weren't mature enough to be there.

4

supernice wrote (edited )

Of course not.

Edit: And I'm for 18 to be honest, but if it's 16 right now lets at least enforce that

3

sudo wrote

Wholeheartedly agreed. In fact, I know a few people who got into radical politics even earlier. (Did you mean to reply to the person above me?)

1

365degrees wrote

I saw "why not" and that's why not to me.

2

sudo wrote (edited )

Ah, I see. Sorry. My "why not" was mean to be directed at the "Reeeeeaaaaaly don't want any people who are legaly kids here" part of their comment.

1

ziq wrote

How old are you?

1

365degrees wrote

Eighty five.

0

ziq wrote

If you're going to be directly affected by a change to 18+ (which we both kno u will be) then it would be in your interests to explain why you shouldn't be locked out.

1

365degrees wrote

I post a lot to /f/lisp and I do write a lot of stuff here. Other than you, people seem to like it or at least tolerate it.

0

ziq wrote

You also start a lot of annoying drama.

2

365degrees wrote

So do you.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

Last time I checked I don't attack people out of nowhere in my f/nettle forum and my forum's sidebar (and in randon reddit threads and in memes) and then accuse them of starting drama for finally coming in and telling me to stfu.

-1

365degrees wrote

Yeah, you've got the rest of the website to do that.

0

ziq wrote

Show me attacking people out of nowhere in threads they're not even in or shut your troll mouth.

-1
1

ziq wrote

Show me attacking people out of nowhere in threads they're not even in or shut your troll mouth.

-2

365degrees wrote

I think you know what threads got you in shit.

1

ziq wrote

Show me attacking people out of nowhere in threads they're not even in or shut your troll mouth.

-1

365degrees wrote

If I repeat myself, the other person will eventually give up.

You deleted them, Einstein.

1

ziq wrote

You're a fucking liar and don't belong on this site.

-2

sudo wrote

Last time I checked I don't attack people out of nowhere... in memes

Hmm.

Hmmm.

Hmmmmmmmm.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Are u for real? What username do u see in those memes?

0

ziq wrote

0

ziq wrote

what's your point?

1

sudo wrote

You said that you didn't attack people's ideologies in memes. I provided three instances of you doing exactly that. Whether or not I do the same thing is irrelevant, especially since I never claimed not to.

And, for the record, I didn't post mine on the heels of an argument with someone in order to put their ideology on blast, like you did.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

You said that you didn't attack people's ideologies in memes

Uh... No I didn't. Stop misrepresenting literally everything I say fam. I said I don't attack people in memes. I attack the fuck out of ideology.

And I didn't even know you were a stalinist, but that's good to know thx.

1

sudo wrote

I said I don't attack people in memes. I attack the fuck out of ideology.

I'll give you that, then. But it's not hard to read between the lines, especially when you post them right after arguing with someone of said ideology. You did the same thing after arguing with a transhumanist, IIRC. It's pretty obvious that you're posting them to spite the other person.

0

ziq wrote

if you're really a stalin apologist then you don't really have any high ground here (or anywhere)

0

ziq wrote

Wait...

Are you secretely Joseph the Tank Engine????

3

ziq wrote

Why are you so dedicated to bringing children into this (incredibly non kid friendly) space?

1

sudo wrote

I'm not dedicated to bringing them in. I just don't want to see them shut out.

3

ziq wrote

People talk how to make molotov cocktails here, they talk about drugs, guns, revolution. It's never been a site for kids and wanting to open it to them makes me super suspicious of your motives.

4

selver wrote

Yeah this rule should be enforced 100%. I agree with others that teens should be able to use the site, but if they can't figure out to just lie about or omit their age, too bad.

3

sudo wrote

Mods are required to uphold the ToS

They're not, currently. That's why I made this proposal to amend the ToS, to ensure they are.

Also, if you are a "completely exposed" anarchist, why would you be hosting a website that encourages anyone to engage in illegal activity, child or not? Surely that would be a danger to your safety?

Lastly, did this really require a thread in /f/meta? I don't think enough people saw that thread to know what you're talking about here.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

When you're directly ignoring me and instead arguing semantics about the tos when I'm telling you you're putting me in danger; the thread is clearly needed. I was set to take the site offline and delete the post from the server manually if the other mod hadn't stepped in.

Also, if you are a "completely exposed" anarchist, why would you be hosting a website that encourages anyone to engage in illegal activity, child or not? Surely that would be a danger to your safety?

Adults are responsible for their own actions. Children are not. This is the society we live in.

Every site on the internet needs to be registered to a real person. I'm willing to expose myself in that way, but the rest of you have to be sensible and not go out of your way to fuck me over. Teaching admitted 14 year olds how to shoplift after they're caught and in hot water with their mother is straight up fucking stupid.

What happens when they do it again and blame it on raddle and their mother goes to the media/police? Why would you make me liable for that; knowing how anarchists are public enemy number 1 and there's nothing more sacred to a reactionary than children; especially when it can be used to tar and feather a radical leftist?

2

sudo wrote

You edited your comment, so I'll reply to the part you edited:

Every site on the internet needs to be registered to a real person.

On ICANN, yes. You could drop the domain name, and have it accessible only by directly connecting to the IP address, or by using the Tor Hidden Service. But that would be bad for accessibility, at least for non-technical users.

What happens when they do it again and blame it on raddle and their mother goes to the media/police?

One, why do you think the parent would go to the media about it? They would probably just block their kid's access to the website. Two, what is preventing anyone from going to the media right now about this site, and telling them the site is encouraging people to shoplift, overthrow their governments, etc? You're already taking a huge risk by hosting this website under your real name (actually, I think the risk is a lot smaller than you think), so it really wouldn't matter if people under 16 were on here as well.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

this conversation is making me want to tear my hair out

grooming children, encouraging them to break the law = TROUBLE

I'm done talking about this.

1

sudo wrote

grooming children, encouraging them to break the law = TROUBLE

But grooming adults, encouraging them to break the law = Not Trouble?

I'm done talking about this.

Ok. This comment will be for everyone else reading through this thread.

0

sudo wrote

when I'm telling you you're putting me in danger

I asked you how, and you didn't answer me. Again, I ask you: how, exactly, would allowing people under 16 to use this site put you in danger, when allowing people 16 and over to use it wouldn't?

Currently, I see no good reason to bar people under 16 from using the site, which is why I didn't remove the post. I wasn't required to by the Terms of Service, either, but that will hopefully be remedied soon.

5

supernice wrote

Let's be reasonable about this. The one person here who has any real life link to themselves associated with raddle feels endangered by something going on here...isn't that even worth considering?

What you are saying? That ziq has to basically prove his feelings to you before you take action? That's pretty....I don't even know what...lame? Odd? Without empathy? Put yourself in their shoes on this for just a second. If the sense of danger to self is justified or not is irrelevant.

1

sudo wrote

Well, here is the dilemma. On the one hand, people are being excluded from the website, simply due to their age. On the other hand, if we revoked that rule, ziq would feel like they are in danger (when, I believe, they wouldn't really be in any danger). Should we continue to exclude people from the website, just because not doing so would hurt someone's feelings? Are the feelings of those who are excluded not already being hurt?

Ziq's shoddy reasoning is the problem here. I don't think we should dance around it just to spare them grief, especially since that rule is going to cause grief some time in the future, if it hasn't already. If ziq can't argue without getting angry, well, that's their problem.

4

supernice wrote

This is neither about ziq's style of argument or hurt feelings (either party), so please let's not go there. It's about potential real life danger, not of the emotional sort. At least that's how I see it. Again, I have to stress that it's not if we agree or not that the feelings of being in danger are valid or not. We can discuss the legitimacy of that at another time if we need to, once the cause of that feeling has been addressed.

If the TOS says that you need to be over the age of 16 to be here, then the 14 year old user should not expect to be able to just skate past that. And if the TOS does not say that mods are expected to uphold the TOS, should it even matter? That seems like something that's implicit in being a mod. It doesn't need to be in writing. By accepting a mod role you are investing a bit more than me, for example, in the site by participating on that level. Why would you not uphold the TOS?

1

sudo wrote

If the TOS says that you need to be over the age of 16 to be here, then the 14 year old user should not expect to be able to just skate past that.

Agreed. My point is that the ToS shouldn't say that in the first place.

Again, I have to stress that it's not if we agree or not that the feelings of being in danger are valid or not.

But that is the point, is it not? If they actually would be in danger, then I wouldn't have any problem with the rule. But I don't think they've thought this situation through. If their shoddy reasoning is preventing people from enjoying the website, why shouldn't we question their reasoning? Or, if they won't budge, perhaps we should consider finding someone else to host the website? That would take the heat off of ziq, and it would let us get rid of this silly rule.

And if the TOS does not say that mods are expected to uphold the TOS, should it even matter? That seems like something that's implicit in being a mod. It doesn't need to be in writing. By accepting a mod role you are investing a bit more than me, for example, in the site by participating on that level. Why would you not uphold the TOS?

Because I disagree with that particular bit of the ToS, and I didn't technically have to do anything. As you said, mods should be required to uphold the ToS, which is why I made this proposal. I also believe the ToS shouldn't have arbitrary rules in it. Since I wasn't required to do something I felt was wrong, I didn't do it.

2

supernice wrote (edited )

if they won't budge, perhaps we should consider finding someone else to host the website? That would take the heat off of ziq, and it would let us get rid of this silly rule

  1. I don't agree that it's a silly rule at all. Irrelevant anyways because it's there. If that's what's being challenged, then the discussion should be focused on that rather than if mods should actually uphold the TOS or who hosts the site.

  2. This is starting to sound more like a personal issue with ziq more than a disagreement about the TOS.

Because I disagree with that particular bit of the ToS, and I didn't technically have to do anything

  1. But it is currently part of the TOS. It's obvious that you should uphold it, if you agree with parts of it or not. There are better ways of going about changing the TOS than blatantly disregarding it.
1

theblackcat wrote

why shouldn't we

perhaps we should

it would let us get rid of

You have a way of speaking as if you speak for the whole room when what you really mean to say is:

why shouldn't I

perhaps I should

it would let me get rid of

0

ziq wrote

we should consider finding someone else to host the website

Right on cue.