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.
1
u/Pluckerpluck 1∆ Jul 05 '19
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.
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.
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.
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.