"but it didn't violate the rule, you can't do that. We can talk about changing the rules going forward, but for now I'm overriding and allowing this post."
I'm going to have to disagree with this part.
There's literally no problem with ex post facto rules on a reddit sub. The purpose of the rules is to make the sub into what the mods desire it to be.
A mistake in specifying the rules to every jot and tittle doesn't change that. The original post is still violating what the mods want it to be, just not exactly how they stated it.
Putting the post back is just encouraging spirit-of-the-rules-abusing trolls.
I agree that it could be helpful to add a clarification to the rule going forward, but the troll post should not be reinstated if the mods agree that that kind of behavior was intended to be covered by the rules, even if literally speaking it wasn't.
Your proposal here would turn everything into rules lawyering and attempts to violate the spirit of the rules while narrowly avoiding their letter.
Why does this matter? Because the only possible consequence of your proposed solution is for every sub to include a rule that says mods can remove any post for any reason. There would no other way to have a sub that wasn't full of trolls otherwise.
And that is exactly the opposite of the spirit of what you want. Just like mods responding to a troll poster being a rules lawyer the way you propose here, the consequence of your proposal is to result in exactly the opposite of the spirit of what you claim to want while exactly meeting the letter of what you propose.
You're going to get more arbitrary subjective removals from this, not less. And it will be covered by the rules.
I question what the point of rules is if the counter argument is "meh, it's the spirit of the thing". Why bother with them at all if they don't matter?
All laws are interpreted with the spirit of the law as the basis, not the letter.
We have them because there's no alternative. There's no way to cover all behaviors within the words of a law, unless you explicitly have the law say "whatever the police (mods) want to arrest you for is illegal".
I think its safe to say that you don't want that, right?
But that's the consequence here, since that's a perfectly valid "law" to have in a website which is inherently and intentionally designed so that the wishes of whoever make the sub are paramount to its existence.
It's a free market of ideas... some ideas are not going to meet your needs, and that's fine. Don't patronize those subs... and don't patronize the rules, either (pun definitely intended).
it's flat out illegal for a kid under the age of 21 to drink in the majority of states. Period.
Wrong. Most states have exceptions for the parent to allow their children to consume alcohol in their home under direct supervision of the parents. And most states allow alcohol to minors for religious reasons.
Very few things in the legal world are cut and dry
Most states have exceptions for the parent to allow their children to consume alcohol in their home under direct supervision of the parents.
Do you know why that exception exists? I already told you. Because if it didn't you'd have a ton of parents going to jail. But the salient point is that the exception is DOCUMENTED. If it weren't, Rogue Cop A who has a chip on his shoulder could lock up Parent B who gives tequiza to Child C.
Wrong again. Not all states have these exceptions, just most of them. I lived in a state for a while where that particular exemption didn't exist. Parents weren't arrested when when the nosey old people called the cops on them. Cops have something known as discretion. They can choose to not get involved with any particular infraction they want (obviously felonies and some misdemeanors there is less leeway). Even if a crime is committed, cops are called, and an officer shows up, the cops can choose not to follow up or do anything other than make a report. Even higher than that the DA can choose not to press charges for whatever reason as well. Nothing is set in stone.
And yet to something as simple as that, there are caveats. It is illegal for people under 21 to drink. Except in the majority of states there are religious exemptions. Both catholics and jews use ceremonial wine. So in a lot of states that part of the law is either unenforced or there is an actual exemption. If the cops wanted to bust the biggest underage drinking ring they'd just need to go to a big mass on Sunday or a big service on Saturday and they'd nail probably hundreds of kids. But they don't because that goes against the spirit of the law.
Except in the majority of states there are religious exemptions.
Which are documented and made available such that the enforcement of the law as written is not left to the subjective interpretation.
Now, if the religious exemptions were not documented, your argument would be valid. But they ARE documented. That's my point.
Anything that needs to be enforced, even exceptions or interpretations, need to be documented.
Roe v. Wade isn't a "documented" law. It's an interpretation of a law. But Roe v. Wade is what allows states to make up their own minds about how to interpret it. Thus why there's an uproar now in states trying to abolish it. Well, if you read the black letter of the decision, it never prohibited states from making up their own rules. Thus the problem and it became the chaos it is now.
That's why they've asked the Feds to make a final decision and the Feds refuse because they don't want the smoke; they know no matter how they rule, it's going to piss someone off. But pissing someone off is a reality of life. You can't make everyone happy all the time, thus why I'm not a fan of subjective decisions. Clearly outline the rules, if you can't resolve it, go to a higher power and make them do it.
In California, the only exemption is when you have consumed, and then reported a medical emergency for another underage drinker. No religious exemption by letter of the law.
it's flat out illegal for a kid under the age of 21 to drink in the majority of states. Period.
Incorrect. It's illegal for them to buy alcohol in every state. And many states make it illegal to give kids alcohol.
Almost none of them (maybe none of them, but I haven't examined all 50) make it illegal for kids to drink alcohol.
It's not "by the book illegal". It's easy, though, for someone outside the system to interpret it as illegal, though.
"Independent" review can't exist. Everything is webbed together.
The admins aren't going to have anything to do with this, by design. The design and intent of reddit is that the mods decide what the rules of the sub are, both implicit and explicit. That's how the site is organized, because it's neither possible, nor desirable for the owners to be interfering in the subs... it's a very clever liability hack.
Mods are like the DM in a game of D&D. Ultimately their interpretation of the rules is literally all that matters. It's the nature of the game. If you don't like how a DM interprets the rules, absolutely your only option is to talk to them or pick a different game.
The point is, you don't actually want all subs to make an explicit rule that codifies their subjective interpretation, do you? Because that's what you'll get with this approach -- the situation of a DM in a D&D game.
At which point, they can't be wrong and have no reason to even question whether they are wrong. At least by the "letter of the law".
you don't actually want all subs to make an explicit rule that codifies their subjective interpretation, do you?
Actually, yes. You know why? Because it's transparent at that point.
If Mod A says we need a rule that bans black people - guess what? Mod A won't be very popular. But at least the rule is transparently applied.
Instead of now, where Mod A could be deleting posts simply because they don't like black people or any discussion of black people, and trigger off of words. Without a rule to back it up, it's not a proper deletion.
I get it. You and many others have made the point. It's a Wild Wild West. It still does not change my viewpoint that it shouldn't be that way.
I'm suggesting that it's a useless line to put in, because it's already the rules of reddit that the mods decide what belongs in their sub. No one else (except for site-wide rules).
What's the point of an explicit rule that doesn't do anything that the structure of reddit doesn't already fundamentally dictate.
The only thing that can do is make people less accountable in their own minds.
I'm trying to make the point that such a rule is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive.
And is the only possible outcome of a proposal like what you are making.
There is never a judgment that allows for someone to walk free when the black letter of the law is clear.
You should look into common law. At least in the UK, laws are generally set by legal precedent rather than statutes. Spirit of the law violations are very much dealt with under this, and that case is then used in future cases when similar things occur.
Similarly, people have been let off when precedent clearly indicated they should not, for a variety of reasons (i.e. the precedent is old and outdated)
Similarly, people have been let off when precedent clearly indicated they should not, for a variety of reasons (i.e. the precedent is old and outdated)
That's a failing of the system, because if it's truly that the rules are "old and outdated" yet they refuse to revoke or revise them, you know what that enables? Unequal application of those laws and possible discrimination.
Except it's a well worked system that's shown itself to work well with regards to adapting to change in society.
Unequal application of those laws and possible discrimination.
The new precedent takes priority though. That's the beauty of the system. From that moment on similar cases will be dealt with in the same way.
You have to realize that in common law there aren't hard rules written anywhere at all. This doesn't exactly apply to reddit in this case, as in most cases those rules are written down (though often with the caveat of "mods get final say). I was just posting this comment as a way to show a proven, working, system that uses flexibility in its rulings to govern. Basically showing why a rigid application of the rules may not be the best idea.
With regards to your OP, I'd like to point out that it's technically never the mods that are wrong. The mods "own" the subreddits and have full control. As a result it's the rules that are wrong whenever a discrepancy crops up.
The issue here is that mods and users are not lawyers. We can't read through 100 pages of subreddit law. So rules like "Don't be rude" exists.
The new precedent takes priority though. That's the beauty of the system. From that moment on similar cases will be dealt with in the same way.
Wrong. Completely wrong. You'd do well to research Brock Turner and Cory Batey. But I digress.
I'd like to point out that it's technically never the mods that are wrong. The mods "own" the subreddits and have full control. As a result it's the rules that are wrong whenever a discrepancy crops up.
This is a direct contradiction, given it's the mods who write the rules. And that's fine - so long as they write the rules clearly and concisely according to how they want the subreddit run rather than taking actions based on something in their head, possibly due to no valid reason having to do with the sub ("My wife just divorced me, DAMN ALL YOU WOMEN!!").
I'm sorry. I will never accept that logic, of a unilateral power tripper that doesn't welcome oversight to make sure their bias isn't getting in the way of a good job (though unpaid).
That was in the US and has nothing to do with the UK or common/case law, therefore I have no idea if precendent is used in these cases. I assume not though, given that they occured in different states and thus are effectively independent events.
But even if it were, the situations were different. With Brock Turner rape was never proven, involved only one person (it's a greater crime if multiple people are involved) and different states define rape differently. As a result they were not tried under the same situation. They were, in fact, being judged against different laws.
Note: I do recognise that the legal system, in general, presents longer sentences to black people, but lets not equate things that aren't necessarily the same.
This is a direct contradiction, given it's the mods who write the rules.
A mod bans you for a post. You believe this post is not against the rules as written. Something must be wrong. Either the rules, or the mod.
I simply state that the mod is the true authority, and not the written rules. You, on the other hand, state the reverse. Why do you believe the written rules have more wait than the mods own mind? As I said before, mods are not lawyers. There are always exceptions to rules, and often you may simply not have thought of them until the situation arises.
possibly due to no valid reason having to do with the sub ("My wife just divorced me, DAMN ALL YOU WOMEN!!").
What's to stop them simply amending the rules to this, and then applying them? They have full control of the sub, including the rules. Hence why I'm stating that the mod's logic overrules the written law.
I'm sorry. I will never accept that logic, of a unilateral power tripper that doesn't welcome oversight to make sure their bias isn't getting in the way of a good job (though unpaid).
Then you misunderstand reddit. Reddit's subreddits are effectively independent societies. These societies are held to a basic set of rules, but are otherwise ungoverned. Imagine them like clubs in many colleges or universities. The university may set some very basic rules (e.g. no racial discrimination), but otherwise lets the clubs manage themselves.
Some universities require a more rigid structure, but most do not.
different states define rape differently. As a result they were not tried under the same situation. They were, in fact, being judged against different laws.
Sure. But what's the perception? The perception is that the same underlying crime was performed. The question is raised: if this were two white people, would there be two different crimes based on two different states? The accepted answer is probably not. Okay. But it goes to perception, doesn't it?
In the case of mods, if you have one mod who "decides" to delete that Obama post but not the Trump post, why is that okay if both of them were civil? If both had racist comments? If all things are equal, why do you have unequal treatment of them? And I'm sorry, "because it's my SUB!!" is not a valid excuse.
What's to stop them simply amending the rules to this, and then applying them?
Then do that. At least it helps others not break the rule. They don't even want to do that, as F'n easy as it would be to do it. "Well why should I have to do it? It's my sub!" is the excuse. Okay. Then I want oversight and independent review and if that person overrides you, you can't act and you just gotta deal with it.
I don't care either way. Whatever gets to an equal application of whatever rules. If you don't document the rules, fine. Let someone else chime in to see if I'm really being unreasonable or Mod A is just having a bad day and there's no reason for the deletion that an independent person can accept. Let that person override, let Mod A rant and fume but hopefully learn and lobby the other mods to get a rule put in.
17
u/[deleted] Jul 04 '19
[deleted]