The Terms of Use needs updating.

And it needs updating badly. Over the years, many new rules have been put into place that fall under various clauses of the Terms of Use, but are these listed anywhere in there? Do we even have a "Supplemental Rules" section that the Community Managers can update and keep track of without having to go through the various channels at CNet Legal? No, and this needs to change. It is not fair for users here, new and long-timers alike, to have to answer to rules "becasue the mods said so," and when asked why, all we can tell them is that it was an administrative directive aabout 3 years ago.

Why has the ToU not been updated since 2005 (which were only minor revisions from the GF ToS that we were forced to adopt when the forum merger happened), and why should users have to wait until they get moderated until they can find out from asking about it in Ask the Mods that it was a rule, or try to interpret a clause in an outdated legal document when there isn't even a place for someone to check and see what precedents have been set based on said document? Things have got to change, and I fully expect this to be ignored, like many other pleas from users here or the mods asking about this through other channels.

So long story short, I ask that the ToU either get a revision (with administrator and moderator input-- from the people who are actually here enforcing the rules that you all have asked us to enforce), or give the admins a "Supplementary Rules" section that they can update without the red tape that has keep things stale for 2&1/2 years.

You owe it to the people of these forums. You owe it to the moderators who have to tell someone about rules that can only be vaguely extrapolated from the Terms of Use (and why is it called the ToS in the URL of the Terms of Use and in the automated PMs?)

Cheers to an update to the TOU, I have no problem following the rules, but they need to be updated for the mods' sakes.pridetwo

The mods and the users.

I fully support this. One thing that's always got me in a near-head-explosion just to think about is the vagueness of "content-free messages."

Now we need a slogan...

The Terms of Use is the squeaky wheel, and it needs grease!JustPlainLucas

The Terms of Use is the squeaky wheel, and it needs grease!JustPlainLucas

I fully agree that it needs updating, but that it should be approached with caution. The last thing I think everyone wants is an overly ridiculous overhaul that'll end up leaving a ton more work for mods and admins in the process of enforcing it, because users reject it so much.

I couldn't agree more. I especially like the idea of a section that gets updated more frequently without having to go through as much red tape with the legal department for approval.

I fully agree that it needs updating, but that it should be approached with caution. The last thing I think everyone wants is an overly ridiculous overhaul that'll end up leaving a ton more work for mods and admins in the process of enforcing it, because users reject it so much.

dbz345

And if a "well-oiled" ToU is put together, it will only make the mods/admins jobs easier because all the users will finally be able to understand ALL the rules and there will be no vague points that are open to interpretation.

A big example is the unwritten rule that "falls" under Disruptive Posting when concerning single word or single emoticon responses ("lol," "LMAO," "GTFO," ":P," ":lol:," etc). They are generally modded as "Disruptive Posting" but nowhere on this site, except for a sticky in System Wars, is that specific rule outlined. And if a new user comes to these forums and doesn't end up on System Wars, they won't know about it. It isn't "common sense" enough to allow it to remain unwritten.

[QUOTE="dbz345"]

I fully agree that it needs updating, but that it should be approached with caution. The last thing I think everyone wants is an overly ridiculous overhaul that'll end up leaving a ton more work for mods and admins in the process of enforcing it, because users reject it so much.

foxhound_fox

And if a "well-oiled" ToU is put together, it will only make the mods/admins jobs easier because all the users will finally be able to understand ALL the rules and there will be no vague points that are open to interpretation.

A big example is the unwritten rule that "falls" under Disruptive Posting when concerning single word or single emoticon responses ("lol," "LMAO," "GTFO," ":P," ":lol:," etc). They are generally modded as "Disruptive Posting" but nowhere on this site, except for a sticky in System Wars, is that specific rule outlined. And if a new user comes to these forums and doesn't end up on System Wars, they won't know about it. It isn't "common sense" enough to allow it to remain unwritten.

At the same time you have to understand that there are users here that are very sensitive to change and if the changes seems unreasonable or too radical, people will raise hell about it. It's in the nature of how users act, not all but a lot that tend to be vocal about their concerns (just think to the major redesign back in 2005). I think more of what I should've said is that no one wants a major change of the rules but rather a revision to reflect the fuzzy areas that have arisen to make everything easier.

I fully agree, some moderations are beging to become unjust.Kokiri-Kid

At the same time you have to understand that there are users here that are very sensitive to change and if the changes seems unreasonable or too radical, people will raise hell about it. It's in the nature of how users act, not all but a lot that tend to be vocal about their concerns (just think to the major redesign back in 2005). I think more of what I should've said is that no one wants a major change of the rules but rather a revision to reflect the fuzzy areas that have arisen to make everything easier.dbz345

Problem is, there's a glitch if you use the Quick Quote feature that sometimes erases everything you wrote, leaving only the quote.
I got moderated for that once, even though it was completely unintentional. *sigh*

Yes, the rules need to be clarified, but the forum software should also be modified so blank quotes are not possible.

I fully support this....but how many poeple out here actually bother reading the ToU?:|alext_b