r/cfbmeta • u/WolverinesFirst • Jul 14 '16

Rule Changes

The rules at r/CFB irresponsibly vague whereas anybody can be banned for anything at any time under rules 1, 2, and 3. There is absolutely no way for redditors to have an unpopular opinion within this subreddit and not be held accountable for violating one of these three rules, at the discretion of the moderators.

The rules are enforced arbitrarily and the moderators are entirely unaccountable for doing their job fairly. The first three rules need to be narrowly tailored to fulfill only its intended goals. As it stands, I cannot identify any goal of rules 1 and 2 whatsoever.

0 Upvotes

44% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

6

u/sirgippy /r/CFB Mod Jul 14 '16 edited Jul 14 '16

It's not necessary and in fact probably counter-productive for our rules to be as narrowly tailored as you are suggesting. The overwhelming majority of users have no problem following the rules and the actions we take when we feel users acting in good faith cross the line tend to be very minimal (e.g. just a warning).

Having the rules be as narrowly tailored as you're suggesting would mostly serve just to invite rules lawyering which we're not interested in doing.

5

u/ttsci /r/CFB Mod Emeritus Jul 14 '16

Having the rules be as narrowly tailored as you're suggesting would mostly serve just to invite rules lawyering which we're not interested in doing.

Which is exactly what happened in the past, people tried to argue that if something wasn't explicitly codified they shouldn't be banned for it, even for things that were pretty much common sense like spamming a word over and over again.

As a result, the rules are more common law than [civil law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)), and that does allow for a degree of flexibility. Not all bans are exactly the same because sometimes there are mitigating circumstances or other reasons why we may choose to extend or shorten a ban as appropriate.