Top Ten Reasons Why Admin Should Keep the Policy

The terms of use of this site has not been implemented so strictly before 26 February 2015, but that does not deny the fact that the policy is actually how the Terms of Use are supposed to be implemented. Before that day, the Terms was just there, but the site administration did not implement certain sections of the Terms of Use.

There was no "new policy", there was just a stricter way of implementing an existing rule.

I couldn't agree more with the points addressed here. This list has been adamantly laid out and organized and is very well-thought-out.. Excellent job, velitelcabal.

What I didn't get about Jared defending the policy was that he constantly said this, when the Terms of Use are flawed.

My previous comment had better show up on this list.

Again, this does not mean that hypersensitive crybabies will shine in the spotlight to "strengthen" them. Strengthening the community means aiming for members to create a civil and friendly environment of users where you can publish content and state your opinion without fear of ridicule and personal attacks.

If you disagree with a hypersensitive person and state multiple rebuttals in public, while still aiming for constructive discussion without any ad hominem criticisms, the person will just cry like a baby over things and overreact, while seeing everyone disagree with the person. Since anyone who sided against the hypersensitive person by stating rebuttals did not violate any section of the Terms of Use, the person cannot report anyone, so nobody among them can be restricted access from some features of the site. This also makes the crybaby leave the site instead.

Note that the Terms never stated that the site administrators reserve the right to limit a user's access ...more

I've heard of these blog posts that were meant to "constructively criticize" or "give an advice" to certain users. Those posts do not serve such "intents" and are simply created to single out a certain user to make them look bad in front of other users and visitors. Are we trying to focus on the flaw or on the person? Because if you are trying to focus on the flaw, you can use anyone as an example, even users you like.

But there are these users who go high and mighty that they are a part of an elite club where some users who aren't in it are getting humiliated for certain flaws that someone from such a group or as we call it an "elite club" could have, but don't get criticized by the same person.

"Constructive criticism...no matter what the quality of reasoning is." In other words, it's to shield snowflakes from well-earned criticism, no matter how ridiculous the positions of those criticized may be.

This list has some really good points.

Then why am I still seeing it?

One of the biggest problems with the site is stat obsession. List ideas aren't infinite, and since the users are trying to compete with being able to make the most lists, quality is sacrificed and many bogus low-quality lists have been made. And without the policy regulating the flow of contents being submitted and published on the site, lists containing personal attacks and excessive swearing and trolling would become rampant. Due to this, there would be less visitors who'd be attracted to this site due to lack of relatively new content and also due to uninteresting user drama littered with ad hominem criticisms. This therefore lessens website traffic and could create financial problems within the site due to revenue getting lessened.

The site is much better when we have lists like "Users who should date this user" instead of "Top ten best restaurants in Knoxville, Tennessee".

Why be so pessimistic? The site was fine before the policy, why shouldn't it be if it's scrapped? TTT might change, but the whole world is changing, bud.

The site was more popular in 2015 because of drama (increased TTT results on Google searches)

The Terms of Use has never restricted you from stating opinions on select topics. Yes, your negative opinions towards other users are not going to be filtered automatically due to policy violation. However, you are supposed to state opinions provided that you are not personally attacking them and trying to single them out for ongoing negative attention. Due to the sensitivity of the topic of stating opinions about users due to the strict implementation of the Terms of Use, it seems like Admin is trying to censor opinions. It's not about catering to hypersensitive users; you just have to find a legal way to go against such people in general.

@visitor, this comment will survive the policy. It's not trying to single me out for negative attention for personal reasons, and as I have stated, there is no fear of debate taking place in the policy's implementation. We have always focused on the idea which is "trying to single out a user for negative attention" in this discussion, and not me as a user. Not to mention that this disagreement is not pestering on a user by constantly sending arguments in such a way that it is more than typical and necessary.

Perception, intent and context are the three most important things about a comment, and if admin sees anything suspicious in a certain event, the content can be removed. Here, you intended to make a statement conflicting with my defense of the policy, and I perceived it as a disagreement on a certain topic and not as a personal attack. The comments you have made were just an opposition to the policy in context.

I arrived on this site after the policy was created, but I honestly don't see the big deal about it. You're right, people don't need to have swear words contained in there comments to construct a point, their comment could easily be made by using non-verbal words and their opinion. Administrators have full right to delete a comment if it abuses another user or has extremely immature language. No offense if you don't agree with my opinion though...

"Note: Trying to single out a user for negative attention isn't fair criticism," This is politically correct doublespeak. If a user continually posts nonsense, contradiction and fallacy, then he has singled himself out for criticism. This "elitism" excuse is bullcrap, and smacks of the canard that all opinions are equally valid. What is at work here is fear of debate; fear that one's pronouncements will be exposed as idiotic.

Nah. It doesn't. First of all, admin banned Puga for "offensive" jokes and trolling. He wasn't really trolling, he was criticizing. And Therandom and Purpleyoshi98 got banned once for criticizing Danteem. Second of all, the Overrated Users list was removed the exact day when the policy started. The list wasn't meant to attack anyone, it was just criticizing them. And yet it gets removed because of all the complainers. That proves that the policy let's all the sensitive idiots shine in the spotlight...

We've always seen this arguments on certain topics that could be taken more seriously in a formal debate style of discussion. However, some users would take conflicting opinions too personally that they resort to ad hominem criticisms that disrupt any potential constructive discussion that could take place regarding the topic. If arguments were not littered with personal attacks, we could have learned more in an exchange of ideas through this site.

It has been stated in the Terms that you are to use the site in a manner that is consistent with the Terms of Use, and otherwise you are not even supposed to access the site. So, if you disagree with Admin and insist on your actions, then you're just giving yourself false hopes for "change".

There is one word I have about this: unfair. Just because admin owns the site doesn't mean we aren't allowed to complain about the Terms of Use. We should at least protest about it. Go ahead, defend the policy all you want, but it won't stop me from sharing MY opinion on it.

I'm seeing a recurring argument here using the terms as backup. If the policy is just a magnified terms of use, then surely it's possible they could be rewritten?
Administrators do NOT control websites. They look after them and keep them in a clean state. But where would this site be without us? Hmm? I think it's unfair we don't get a say on the terms and policies.

Nobody said you cannot criticize hypersensitive users. If you are trying to criticize a user for being hypersensitive, then you are not doing it in such a way that it could be considered as "fair criticism" because you singled out that user. You'd might as well aim it at anyone in general and the act of being hypersensitive, so the users will know why they are not supposed to act like that. It isn't "dictating" them, it's informing and persuading them.

But it doesn't exactly promote a theme park environment either. In other words, the site's gone dull.

Anti rustlers made this.