Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.