UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Terms of Service

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

I agree. I don't think disagreeing is even an option legally speaking. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree too, as previously stated.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is related to the current A/VB case, then adopting the TOU officially isn't the issue, it's defining our own standards that is. The TOU explicitly refer to illegal pornography, which means for anything that isn't illegal, we as a site need to define our own consensus and standard. Nothing to be done! 23:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The vague legal terms are indeed going to be the biggest roadblock in adopting that policy. In order to get a meaningful consensus, we'd need to learn how Poundhost dealt with filling out those terms in the past. -- Spiderzed 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The ToS have been used as de facto rules for quite some time now, and I've been meaning to codify them for almost as long. The recent farce served as a catalyst, yes, but this is something that should have been handled long ago. ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 00:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I know what you're thinking, obviously illegal like child porn. Still haven't heard any good arguments why this wiki should be turned into a regular porn site though. Though regardless, after the case we'll have a standard. Also lol on getting consensus here. Adopting the TOC as official is a good idea though--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png Talk 00:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Then, to be frankly honest, we need to do more than just codify the pre-existing list. Using it as a basis, this policy discussion should be used to hammer out specifics for UDWiki, before taking that to voting. Poundhost's terms are broad and vague so as to allow hosted sites more leeway with their own rules - keeping within the spirit of them whilst codifying specifics for ourselves is much more prudent than making vague and unwieldy suggestions official. Also, Thad, you are clearly exaggerating. We also allow nabbed intellectual properties to be used but this hasn't turned us into the Pirate Bay. Nothing to be done! 00:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The point of this proposal is not to decide on the appropriate interpretations of the ToS; that's subjective and is completely up to the ruling sysops. The point of this proposal is to finally acknowledge that there are a series of rules the service provider expects the wiki to comply with. Claiming the low probability of being caught in a breach as justification for ignoring the Terms is a very weak argument. ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 00:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Which is probably why it's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying adopting these rules as official is a bad move because they're deliberately vague. It adds next to nothing if your "official" rules still need to be interpreted personally time and again by the sysop team. Nothing to be done! 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Silly. Its a decision for the client (Kevan) not us. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 00:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you say Kevan is liable for any content on this wiki? ~ Red Hawk One Talk | space for lease 00:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)