UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Terms of Service

Discussion

I agree. I don't think disagreeing is even an option legally speaking. --Thadeous Oakley 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. 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--Thadeous Oakley 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. 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. 00:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Would you say Kevan is liable for any content on this wiki? If we were to make that assumption, then it would follow that it is in Kevan's (and the wiki's) best interest to comply with the terms. Given the man's apathy towards urban Dead in general, I'd think it's fair to say he's unlikely to make a ruling. as it is, the TOS have already been treated as policy by numerous users on numerous cases, so all this is doing is putting common practice on paper. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 00:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Kevan has said in the past that he wanted the sysops to come up with rules to govern that sort of thing, and he was leaving it in their hands. As you can see, nothing happened. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this sorta implied? -MHSstaff 17:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You would think it would be, however, this is not the case. Sadly, this policy will likely be demolished, as the general user could care less about the TOS. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Policy on the run

policy said:

In order to minimize this liability, the Terms of Service will be adopted as official wiki policy, and any violations of said terms will be treated with the same severity as violations of existing policy.

By agreeing to this, we are basically giving over control of wiki policy to a bunch of lawyers who have no idea of the site. They write in all sorts of weird small print that can be interpreted in multiple ways, especially by the more "creative" amoung us. We should endevour to comply with the obvious, but use common sense in most things, and not tie ourselves to ambiguous lawyer speak, that isn't specifically designed for this site -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:02 14 February 2011 (BST)

Exactly. It'll give pests all the fuel to launch drama fests, when a lot of even the TOU takes interpretation. Good example? case where someone cries racism. We look at the case at hand on its own merits, well aware of the TOU, and rule Not Vandalism, does that mean we should be misconducted for breaking the TOU? Oh yeah, we were, and it was not misconduct. The system isn't entirely bad the way it is, but I'm worried about the pressure this will put on ops to rule in ways they won't feel is necessary. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, I won't mind if this were to pass if all it does it just legitimise what we already do in terms of TOU violations. But if it doesn't change anything, then there really isn't a reason to go to effort to have it in there, since it's unlikely things will change (as the recent case, despite its drama and discussion, has pretty much proved). I'd suggest we ask Kevan and get his opinion on how much control he wants us to have over the wikis content and Poundhouse's TOU. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

1.20

"YOU agree not to use the service to do any of the following and it is expressly agreed between US and YOU that if there is any breach of this Clause 1.19 may, without notice and without obligation to pay compensation apply service credits or refund any monies, suspend restrict or terminate your service"

Quite frankly, we have to be proactive in enforcing the TOS, because if we violate the TOS, and the company finds out, there may be no notice whatsoever and this website gets turned off. While I'm guessing the only real way the TOS will get enforced is if someone rats us out to Poundhouse, but I believe that a little wiki drama is fine to prevent us holding this sort of liability. Better to be safe than not. Granted, clause 1.20 (J) showcase that Poundhouse can turn us off at any time they like if they feel that what we are doing "is likely to bring the service into disrepute", so really, we have no real defense.---ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 07:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course they have a clause like that but in reality I highly doubt they use it for anything like this wiki. That'd be more for huge issues like websites designed just to host illegally obtained private information or highly controversial/illegal content. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pass this policy, and demand enforcement by the letter of the TOS, and you may as well shut down everything on this wiki appart from the factual game info. Every day of the week you'll have whiners coming on demanding threats, abuse, harrassment, defamation be removed on the most tenuous reasoning. Some people take the besmirching of their online personas very seriously. Should that mean that they can't be told that they are a joke, for fear of it being labelled as abuse or defamation? Without clear definitions of what they consider "vulgar" or "obscene", for example, how can we treat it any different than we do already? OTT obsenity/vulgarity is deleted as vandalism... raciness is allowed if it is in context. Lawyers love black and white proclomations, we need to take into account the grey areas, and deal with them on a case by case basis -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:15 14 February 2011 (BST)

I've been a sysop for the worst parts of the TOU arguments, at least regarding the bloody porn and racism debates, and I may be a bit thrown off by bias but I think for the most part we've done a pretty good job as far as enforcing the TOU before it hits the point of just removing reasonable stuff. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 10:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Incidentally I love the fact that the TOU specifies illegal pornography. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Going with the UK definition of illegal porn you've got a bit with (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals. =p -- Cheese 16:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Poundhouse are UK which means that's the language for their contract.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now we need an expert on Anal injury. Anyone? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Offences against the persons Act 1861 - That IS serious injury.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Self harm? Interesting. UK Citizen? Perhaps. But less interesting than this; In the time its taken to discuss whether or not a single image might contravene the TOU the case has already been dealt with by the admin team and closed. There's no need to add further bureaucracy. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)