dlowan wrote:
I have never heard that said in any section of the site before, though, so it would likely have been useful to say it a long time ago, if they were never meant to guide members' conduct.
Let's try this again: it's not meant to be an agreement with you and the site on how the MODERATORS will do their job. What I object to is pretending like there is a legal agreement between you and the site as to how
they should act in their roles.
So when people trot out the TOS and tell the moderators what they should be doing I find it odd, because the TOS was never intended to serve that purpose and an agreement of that nature doesn't exist between the users and the moderators on how the site should be governed. An agreement between the site and the users exists to the effect that the site has the right to display the content they submit and a right to censor it at the site's discretion.
It does not aim to specify where the line is drawn insofar as said discretion is concerned.
Quote:The TOS have certainly always been open to multiple interpretations, as is the nature of such things, but I am utterly astounded to hear you say they have never influenced Moderation policy.
Given that I didn't say that, so am I. The TOS was a starting point in many ways, and I don't claim it has had no influence on moderation policy. What I am saying is that it is not a codification of moderation policy.
Quote:
I have no problem with you doing whatever you please with the site, but I think it simply silly to deny there has been a change in mod policy,
I don't deny that there is a change in the policy toward much less censorship. Hell I actually advocate it, and make no attempt to deny it. I think it's a good thing. I realize that many will not, but many didn't think the censorship levels of the past were right either and ultimately there will always be many who disagree with the policies.
Quote:My criticism has nothing to do with the moderation, as such, by the way...it has to do with policy...
I know. And quite frankly it's not something I take personally anymore. There will always be those who disagree with the policy.
Quote:My "frankly revolting a lot of the time" is actually a very unfair comment, which I withdraw and apologise for, now that I look at it again.
I don't remember it specifically so it couldn't have been that bad.
Quote:There have been a few incidents of revoltingness relating to very libellous comments made about a few people, that have made me feel very distressed on their behalf.
I am prone to exaggeration when thinking about that.
If libelous comments have been made, there is recourse within the policy we are moving toward to remove them. After all, libel is illegal.
Thing is, we don't have the ability to determine it. So we leave that responsibility in capable hands: existing legal systems. And I take seriously the responsibility not to encourage chilling effects by caving in to the legal threats out of fear.
How about a real-life example. JaniKing threatened to sue me for allowing defamatory comments to be made here about them. Thing is, while the comments were negative they would need to be at least untrue and often also malicious in intent to qualify for libel.
They wanted to put a "chilling effect" on the criticism of them, and the easy thing to do for me (especially then with personal liability on the line) would be to censor the criticism of this company here.
I feel that's wrong. I am not responsible for deciding whether it's defamatory or not and I don't think I should censor from that position of ignorance. If it's not defamation the criticism is legitimate. In short, the responsibility of censorship is an important one. I think you are wrong about the posts being libelous, but more importantly think you are wrong to think we should bear the responsibility of determining whether it is or not.
