Rewriting the TOS

It's all standard verbage used and widely accepted by websites and message boards around the world.

EDIT:
farraday...
I knew that would bring a smile to yor face.

 

I once thought the TOS needed to be rewritten for more flexibility but it actually works perfectly as is. The mods allow for a lot of flexibility within the strict guidelines of the TOS.

 

I understand and accept the fact that a member can be banned without a given reason, but I think it's only fair that if a member does ask why he or she no longer maintains posting privileges, that request should not be denied.

 

A TOS is NOT supposed to be a guidline for how to moderate.


I feel I've been very clear on this.

I know most of you are quite familiar with English so I'm not exactly sure which part of that you don't understand.

 

The Terms of Service are not for everyday use, they're for legal action. As such there is an entity known as TheForce.Net but not one known as the Jedi Council Administration.

The Jedi Council is a subset of TheForce.Net, and its administration would be, well, those who administer it. Your delineation is incorrect.

As far as the TOS and everyday use are concerned, "User agrees and acknowledges that any posts, nicknames or other material deemed offensive, harassing, baiting or otherwise inappropriate may be removed at the sole discretion of the administration" and "Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us." This is connected the Rules of Conduct, of course--would you be happier to see the Rules of Conduct included in the Terms of Service?

 

If it was to be more specific about an example a swear word considered in the US but in other countries it wasn't it then would become unfair wouldn't it.

Having the flexability there for language differences etc isn't such a bad thing.

The TOS basically just asks for nice behaviour really, and decent language which is what most people should do IRL anyway.

 

A TOS is NOT supposed to be a guideline for how to moderate.

Absolutely wrong. It IS a guideline that should be followed, but not one that should be strictly adhered to by moderators.

 

Galadrial did you even read the TOS I suggested?

And if the TOS is the guidelines why is there no mention of how many socks you're allowed to have? Why is there no mention that slash isn't allowed?

THE TOS IS NOT THE RULES.

Edit// Carter thank you for admitting the mods don't have to follow the TOS.

 

Galadrial did you even read the TOS I suggested?

Yes. You changed it to say "TheForce.Net," for the most part, instead of "Jedi Council Administration." I'm telling you that is a pointless distinction. You also added something about the mods/VIPs/etc being subject to the same rules, which is already true, and therefore not necessary.

And if the TOS is the guidelines why is there no mention of how many socks you're allowed to have? Why is there no mention that slash isn't allowed?

THE TOS IS NOT THE RULES.

Nor are "guidelines" rules. Guidelines are guidelines--what is hateful unto thyself, do not do unto others. That's a guideline. A rule would be, "Don't steal your neighbor's car." Some rules are deduced from guidelines, some rules are made for specific situations. The more serious rules, to my mind, are the ones that are derived from the general guidelines, because they are TOS violation.

 

... the mods don't have to follow the TOS.

If they strictly followed every every rule within the TOS, there would be no one left. Thank God the mods are human and allow for leeway.

But I reiterate the TOS IS a general guideline to follow.

 

THE TOS IS NOT THE RULES.

The TOS is a basis for what a member should follow as a *poster*, not necessarily as a *member*. But the TOS is no substitution for good ol' fashioned common sense.

 

Galadrial if we don't add anything thats obvious then there's nothing in the TOS.

None fo the mods agree on anything in the TOS except that they shouldn't be bound by it.

 

If they strictly followed every every rule within the TOS, there would be no one left

Which is why it is good that it's a guideline to follow as it allows some flexability

 

So if we write down in the threads why we ban someone, will that be okay? Or should we open up our admin action log, sort by ban_user, and let everyone read that? Because you know as well as I do that most of them say troll or spamming. We all seem to have a common sense notion as to what that means. Defining it really isn't a good idea because it's a case-by-case basis.

 

Remove the ban without reason clause.

Ghenghis has been unable to find another TOS so far that includes it explicitly and if you're already promising not to use it it doens't need to be there.

How about you mods get togeather in private and come to an actual decision on a guide on how to mod instead of warping the TOS until it fits that need?

 

farraday...
"None fo the mods agree on anything in the TOS except that they shouldn't be bound by it."

This is NOT true. You may have missed it, but I am a mod and I said...

"User. I am a user above anything else I may be.

Josh may come in tomorrow and remove my right at his sole discretion to revoke my privielege to use the site without notice or reason. Just like he can with anyone else."

However, I don't lose sleep over that fact, because I also said...

"But, is this really a problem?

Do you have any example where this goes on? Any example whatsoever of the Administration removing people for the hell of it without any reason?"

I could perhaps understand where you're coming from if you provide examples of where the JC Administration has some sort of habitual problem of banning people for no reason.

 

Has there been anyone else here or elsewhere requesting a guide on how to moderate?

This is the first I have heard of any such request.

 

Does anyone out there in TF.N land besides farraday feel as strongly about this and feel the TOS needs rewriting?

 

Farraday, I will say this one final time: Mods are members. We agreed to the TOS and are bound by it, same as anyone else here.

Your argument has nevertheless been addressed at length by members of the administration and by a site owner. It is based on a spurious interpretation of the hierarchy and your own very odd idea that mods are not members. Continuing to harp on an incorrect argument that impugns other people... that's coming pretty close to baiting.

 

farraday...
Not true. Star Wars.com
"Nonetheless, Lucasfilm reserves the right to prevent you from submitting Materials to Forums."

This is equivalent to the Jedi Council preventing people from submitting materials to forums.

The original Episode-X (EZboard) one...
"...shall have the right (but not the obligation) to access any board, and remove or restrict access to any Content..."

Yep, essentially what we would call here "ban" - i.e. the removal or restricting of access to any content.

 

Genghis I asked early in this thread if you were willing to say you'd never suggested to another mod that the banned without reason clause be used to justify a mod action.

Feel free to answer.

Edit// Gaurentees the right to ban, is not gaurenteeing the right to to ban without reason Genghis.

 

farraday...
"Ghengis I asked early in this thread if you were willing to say you'd never suggested to another mod that the banned without reason clause be used to justify a mod action."

No, I haven't. I have, however, inquired as to its usefulness and asked if there exists some situation which can fall under that clause.

In fact, IIRC, I specifally have asked the Advisory Council to provide any examples of a situation where this clause can be used without causing any drama from anyone.

I mean, as soon as a reason is developed, then the clause doesn't apply.

Is there any example, anywhere at any time where this clause has been used?

I don't think there has been.

So, please provide examples if you think it's such a problem.

Where we're at - the possibility exists that it may have to be used. No examples of it being abused exist.

What then, is the problem?

 

Then you've never said that making even the smallest effort beyond the TOS isn't required?

Frankly Genghis you're who I had in mind when I said the TOS should be rewritten. You're far to good at saying mods don't have to do anything the TOS doesn't require of them.

Frnakly sicne mdos keep saying they will always provide reason for banning there's no reason to say that isn't required.

 

Is there any example, anywhere at any time where this clause has been used?

 

I guess I see it like that sign up in the body shop ... "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason."

Josh