Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sudo wrote

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

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.

1

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.

4

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.

1

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?

4

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.

1

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.
2

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

2

ziq OP wrote

we should consider finding someone else to host the website

Right on cue.

0