Requesting TOS "without reason" clarification

[UhuruNUru]

While I understand what is said, in this thread, I don't see where you make the jump from, removing the term.

Or reason

 

To having to list all the possible reasons instead, why does the removal of the term, in any way force the listing of them.

I don't want to know the Legal explanation, if the law says that is how it is, that's good enough, for me.

The response, "legal catch all, may have sufficed instead of just "catch all"

 

Another way of asking the same question

Logically, removing "or reason", does not imply, any and/or all possible reason(s) must be explicitly stated. Legalese is rarely logical though, and making the statement comply with the law, is more than enoughjustification.

 

I feel this is still not clearly explained. The answer below is, I think, what Nexus Staff intend

It's a legal requirement it says it, exactly like that, illogical as it may be.

 

However, I'm left in doubt, as to why, If the above isn't correct, there's no logical reason, not to remove the term and no legal requirement, to list all the possible reasons.

With legality, exactness is required, without it logic is always best.

 

So is it simply required by Law, or not, that is what remains unclear.

 

 

[xualas]

From the way I understand it, the inclusion of "or reason" is required legalese to make sure the Nexus is covered under any possible circumstance.

 

You have either:

-Group descriptor to cover all

-Individual descriptor to cover each

 

Either way, you need something to protect you from a legal standpoint. In this case, option 2 would require unreasonable effort and foresight, so option 1 is the most logical.

However illogical it may seem, the law tends to stand on redundancy. If that's how it is here, then they're simply using two legal catch-all terms to reduce the possibility of loophole abuse.

[UhuruNUru]

That was What I understood as well, my point was all it needed was to say so clearly, which none of the replies actually did.

More a matter of poorly communicating, what actually is meant.

 

Which was I think the intention of your question.

 

The two end points "or reason" replaced "All reasons possible" were clearly stated.

The glue of "Legal Requirement" was merely implied.

All that was really needed, was to state the glue was essential.

A Simple one line response would have answered your first post, in plain and simple English.

 

It's a Legal requirement

 

or one slang word, that covers it

 

Legalese

[Thandal]

There is no "legal requirement" for anything at all in the ToS. There is no "legal requirement" to even have explicit Terms of Service for the Nexus.

 

The entire document is Dark0ne's personal expression of how he wants the Nexus to function and an outline of how he expects its participants (members and Staff) to behave.

[Lisnpuppy]

I am not going to wade in here and talk about a Terms of Service as a legal end document or how it might be seen as such. However there seems to be some discussion of why things are or are not spelled out fully in the Terms, if I am understanding this correctly? If I am completely off base ignore my completely, it is morning and I have not yet had my coffee.

 

I worked in insurance for a long time and I see the Terms like a first party insurance policy. The policy is written with not only rules and expectations of the covered person behavior ( like the member) but the rights they also have and the company's (like The Nexus) duties to them. That is very similar to what we are are discussing here. Now the other reason I bring this up is if you ever look at your car insurance you probably will note that is doesn't explain in detail every situation in which one may find oneself that will or will not be covered under the policy. In some instances there may be very specific statement others the terms are very broad and have some ambiguity. The reason for this is not for the insurance company to stick it to you (though I am sure some feel that way) but to allow for unforeseen circumstance.

 

Like insurance company, The Nexus can not possibly determine in every way or reason a file may need to be removed or addressed in some way. It list some very specific reasons (like uploading without permission) and others but there is a "catch all" in the Terms in order to address something that may not be seen beforehand. If not for this then someone could point to the Terms and say, "Hey what I did or didn't do isn't listed there and so..." Sometimes things are in clear violation of a rule and sometimes things are obviously something that is wrong and should not be here but was not thought of in some way to specify it and that catch all is needed.

 

Sometimes and ultimately if some content is just too troublesome for some reason or another Dark0ne may determine it needs to go. It doesn't necessarily break a break a specific rule but has become so nightmarish for him and the staff and the Nexus well-being that it is taken down or asked to be taken down. I have only seen this happen a few times in my eight years here.

 

So though I am sure some people could see this as some kind of way for the Nexus to behave badly, that is not the function of the ambiguity. Ultimately the MOST of the Terms are not something based on law (though some of it is like the age requirement for example and some types of content) but rather as Thandal said, is Dark0ne's framework for how he wants the site to operate, the members to behave and what rights they have and what his promises to them are and how he wishes the staff to operate and the promises he makes to them. With a quickly growing site and rules and laws in the outside world about modding that are in flux having some "catch all" terms is not only reasonable but almost necessary for the site to function smoothly.

 

Some dislike the Terms and I am sure that you can discuss the issues reasonably, but ultimately this is a private site and the buck stops with Dark0ne. His will is law.

 

I hope perhaps this has helped understand why this type of ambiguous wording is necessary in these things. This is of course my understanding of how and why it works this way based on my experience. I do not of course, speak in anyway for the Nexus and should my thoughts be totally off the mark I am sure someone will come and bonk me on the head a few times. :smile:

[UhuruNUru]

Thanks Thandal, that answers all my comments, the actual "glue" is different, to what I and Xualas assumed, (i.e. Lagal requirement), but your explanation is clear, and in plain English, in this thread, that was all I was asking for.

 

@ Linspuppy

I know official ToS can seem ambiguous, and I appreciate the attempt to clarify.

I can't speak for Xualas, but I certainly never expect anything else from ToS/EULA etc.

Sorry to be a thorn, I just like to understand, it was the jump from removing "Or reason" to, having to "explicitly state all possible reasons", that I couldn't figure out, I so no link to explain such a claim, The missing "glue" as I described it.

 

Legalese is what I expect in the ToS.

I merely expected the plain English explanation, within this thread, which Thandal achieved in the post above yours.

 

So thank you (both) for your patience, with my high expectations, consider them met in full.

[Thandal]

Glad we could help. :thumbsup:

[xualas]

There is no "legal requirement" for anything at all in the ToS. There is no "legal requirement" to even have explicit Terms of Service for the Nexus.

 

The entire document is Dark0ne's personal expression of how he wants the Nexus to function and an outline of how he expects its participants (members and Staff) to behave.

 

Huh... That only makes me more confused.

 

I understand that the TOS is a privately constructed framework of rules.

However, if there is no "legal requirement", that brings me back to wondering why there are two catch-all points in the same place?

 

"... or remove it completely without warning or [catch-all] [catch-all]."

 

Both "or reason" and "at their own discretion" are used as group descriptors, specifically to cover any potential circumstances not uniquely mentioned. Much like ordering coffee, the cup would have a label that says, "Warning: The contents inside this cup are very hot." Now imagine the label says, "Warning: The contents inside and within this cup are very hot." The message itself hasn't changed, because "inside" and "within" mean the same thing. Most would assume use of either to be suitable, but not usually both.

 

That's where I'm at with this. The inclusion of a catch-all term is perfectly understood. However, the inclusion of multiple, synonymous catch-all terms in the same space when not required by law is not understood.

 

I should make sure to clarify that my understanding of the statement in full is not hindered by the current phrasing in question. I only wish to understand how the included terms are necessary, and if they are found not to be, how the terms may be altered for optimal clarity.

[Lisnpuppy]

I think, at least to me, at this point you are maybe arguing semantics. However I do not see it as a repetitive language. Each descriptor has its own meaning in the context of the passages.

 

This is how I see it (as I speak only for myself) and Dark0ne would have to quantify if he sees the language different.

 

 

 

without warning=the staff doesn't have to tell you or give you any kind of warning (informal or formal) before performing the action.

 

without reason=a reason does not have to be provided to you and the reason does not have to be a specific listed reason on the rules (as per my prior post as this is the "catch all" section of it to allow for the unforseen)

 

at their discretion=the staff can perform these functions, using their best judgement, without consulting Dark0ne or other admins beforehand

 

 

So I do not see these things all saying the same exact thing or repeating. Each description has its own meaning and reason for being there.

[DrakeTheDragon]

Well, why not rather explain it by "the current ToS was not written by a lawyer" instead and be done with it?

 

Am I wrong or wasn't there talk already inside the news articles of late of a rewriting/rewording/restructuring/etc. of the Terms of Service currently going on behind the scenes anyways? I think this little discussion, even if it's only about semantics or a single short term among thousands, might already have had its merits for the people doing this as we speak.

 

After all, the less ambiguous, mis-understandable or confusing the whole thing is, the better it'll be for all involved, no?