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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.