David Gerard wrote:
Yes. What is the point of such a rule in a TOS? It won't stop deliberate violation. So how is it planned to enforce it?
What it appears Danny would like is a rule that people would have to agree to such that they would behave. But you can't legislate against misunderstanding or malice. What effective penalty can we apply?
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.
If you're merely "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit", and you ban or severely sanction someone, he may then engage you in a 3-month-long harangue and argument about how he had every right to do what he did and you had no right to ban him for it. But if you can whip out the densely-cribbed TOS agreement and point at subparagraph VII.6.b.iv which specifically prohibits (say) adding commercial external links, then even if the miscreant had never read this, he will (so the theory goes) realize that he could/should have, and will stalk off, duly chastised. It might or might not make a difference if there's also a top-level paragraph II.3 which specifically states that we can ban you for violating any of the rules in section VII.
(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.)