Swapping your points around to deal with them in a logical order:
On 10/2/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
(My point is not that densely-cribbed TOS agreements are wonderful or that we should have one, but merely that, depending on your enforcement model, they can have value in making your enforcements stick.)
A TOS doesn't necessarily have to be dense. Something which conveys the five pillars (although probably not IAR, here!), with additions such as something to cover commercial abuse. The simpler the language the less contestable by problem users and the less confusing/tedious/odious for good users.
Well, realistically, there is another potential beneficial side effect of "terms of service" agreements like that, even if no one has read them, which is that they can -- maybe -- make it easier to deal with idiots after they've been discovered.
It might also be easier to deal with people who are astroturfing when we can say in black-and-white terms that they are breaching our TOS, rather than saying there was a rough consensus that some guideline applied in this case, especially since (I would think) breaching a TOS is more likely to generate negative attention or publicity.