Mod Squad Update for week of August 11-18, 2004

(the bit about Mr44 was an inside joke)

[image=http://www.geoexplorer.co.uk/sections/diary/diary_images/australia/tumbleweed_parachilna.jpg]

E_S

 

Is anyone else falling in love with K_K's "press release" style of posting?

 

DarthMatter...
"I'm sure you don't mean that."

I'm sure I do. It is most definitely an "especially" moral and ethical move to ban a user because of the car they drive, because that is exactly the expectations this site's ownership has given everyone, and, more importantly, those are the expectations everyone has agreed to abide by through the use of this site.

The only thing ethically, or at the very least, intellectually dishonest, is the suggestion that you have the right to rewrite the terms of service according to your whim. You hold no such right. At all. Nor have you been mislead in any way to suggest that you do. If the site administration feels justified, regardless of how much you may disagree with it, then it is legitimate according to the terms you agreed to.


"(the bit about Mr44 was an inside joke)"

Right. I get it, it's one of these "I meant 'do what I say, not what I do'" kinds of deals. Gotcha.

DA...
"Is anyone else falling in love with K_K's "press release" style of posting?"

I think K_K had me at "Users..."

 

Whatever, Genghis12. Look out for those black helicopters, too, because they are controlling our very thoughts. The government is also putting additives in our water supplies to keep us suppressed...

But seriously, your argument is defeatist. Which TOS are you reading? I don't see anything of the kind in this one. The TF.N TOS is not really different from the CYA legalese of any other website - it needs to be clarified, of course, but your conclusions are too extreme to take seriously.

 

But seriously, your argument is defeatist. Which TOS are you reading? I don't see anything of the kind in this one. The TF.N TOS is not really different from the CYA legalese of any other website - it needs to be clarified, of course, but your conclusions are too extreme to take seriously.

Did you miss this paragraph?

User acknowledges and agrees that the use of the Jedi Council Forums is a privilege, not a right, and that the administration of the Jedi Council has the right, at its sole discretion, to revoke this privilege at any time without notice should the administration deem it necessary. User agrees that this Agreement in its entirety applies to both public and private messages.

That's the first paragraph of the TOS (right below the ROC). It clearly states that the administration has the right to deny access to the boards to anyone for any reason. That could be anything from a coordinated troll attack, to posting porn, to the color of your eyes.

That is no different than a homeowner deciding who can be in their house. It doesn't matter whether it is because a person is swearing, just had sex with the homeowner's daughter, or simply because they don't like that person. The homeowner is the one who gets to decide, not the guest.

You don't show up to a party where the host has said "no alcohol" and then demand that they get a keg of beer. You can ask, but if the host refuses, you have no right to keep pressing the issue.

You may call it "CYA legalese", but it is still a legally binding agreement that offers you a license to use these boards. Without that license, you have no rights whatsoever here.

Kimball Kinnison

 

No, I did not miss that paragraph - it's the one on which I based my point, which both of you are totally missing. Kimball, you're just looking for reasons to disagree with me, it seems.

Let me explain it very clearly. I'm NOT saying the administration has no right to moderate, remove posts or ban users, because they do. I'm saying such a legal right is neither based in morals nor is it something which can be called ethical. It is merely a technical, legal right ANY of us have who might run websites. I'm not criticising that right, because there is nothing legally wrong with it. Yet, it's philosophically foolish to presume as ethical the action of banning a user only because of the car they might drive, or for any other such a class of reasons. It might be legally permissible, given the current TOS, but it is not ethical, and it is certainly not moral.

 

Yet, it's philosophically foolish to presume as ethical the action of banning a user only because of the car they might drive, or for any other such a class of reasons. It might be legally permissible, given the current TOS, but it is not ethical, and it is certainly not moral.

Is it ethical or moral for a homeowner to demand someone leave? If someone doesn't want you on their property, no matter what the reason, there is absolutely nothing unethical or immoral about them exerting their property rights.

At the same time, what is ethical or moral about going into someone's home and telling them how they should be running it? What's right about going to someone else's party and telling them what music they should be playing or what food they should serve?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, to be fair.........one is real life, and the other is the internet.

 

"...there is absolutely nothing unethical or immoral about them exerting their property rights..."

I didn't say it would be immoral. There are more than two possibilities, Kimball. Morality and ethics are not always black and white properties, and actions can also be non-moral or amoral, not applicable to moral or ethical judgements. In fact, most actions fall into this category - neither moral nor immoral. It is not a valid moral judgement to classify someone based on their car.

Now unethical actions are a little trickier, and I would argue that banning a user because of the car they drive is unethical, on the order of business ethics, rather than on moral grounds - so its unethical but not immoral. The test for actions being both moral and ethical is that they should be applicable to everyone all the time, and the banning example isn't.

Otherwise, it would be ethical and moral, "especially" so, according to Genghis12, for an employer to fire an employee because of eye or skin colour, it would be ethical and moral for someone to kill someone else because of skin colour, and it would be moral and ethical to drop a nuclear bomb on a country because of the skin colour of its citizens. I'm sure you don't want to go that far, but it's what you sanction, on moral and ethical grounds, when using the kind of imprecise language you're using.

"At the same time, what is ethical or moral about going into someone's home and telling them how they should be running it? What's right about going to someone else's party and telling them what music they should be playing or what food they should serve?"

Let me quote some lines from your sticky guideline thread: "All ideas for improving the boards are welcome here...[Comms] is where we discuss and adjust policy...We would like to implement these new guidelines for both users and moderators. The hope is that they can help us bring Comms to the next level as a tool for improving the JC". And you add for moderators: "Keep in mind that no policy can succeed without the cooperation of the users...As such, remember that this is a team effort...You are the leader(s) of your forum...".

These guidelines, which I applaud, are the wide open door to discuss how this house is run, what music is playing at this party, and what food is served to your guests. This makes everything I've suggested as improvements a perfectly ethical activity, since you've more than encouraged it, but it doesn't make a ban ethical, not because of what car I might drive.

If you don't want discussions of your policy, even strong disagreement, then you should change your guidelines for this forum. If you don't like what I have to say, then delete my posts and ban me, you've got the power. But doing so wouldn't be ethical or moral, not by a long shot, my friend.

The TOS is a legal agreement, and as such it legally covers the owners from all kinds of potential liabilities. The language of the document is legally appropriate and far reaching, but it doesn't come within a country mile of being an ethical theory, or a moral prescription for anyone's behaviour. It is a standard legal document outlining legal transactions, nothing more.

 

These guidelines, which I applaud, are the wide open door to discuss how this house is run, what music is playing at this party, and what food is served to your guests. This makes everything I've suggested as improvements a perfectly ethical activity, since you've more than encouraged it, but it doesn't make a ban ethical, not because of what car I might drive.

There is a big difference here.

We welcome suggestions, but not demands. We have already considered almost everything that you have suggested, and rejected (or already implemented) some form of it. You don't seem to want to accept that, though.

What you are doing now is similar to someone who shows up for the party, suggests that we break out the beer, and then making a fuss once the host decides not to allow alcohol. You aren't the one who decides how things are run. You've put forward your ideas, but they have not been accepted. It's time to let it drop.

Since there hasn't been any further discussion on the contents of this MS update. I'm just going to lock it for now. If anyone wishes to continue discussing the actual update, PM me and I will reopen it.

Kimball Kinnison