Dear Escapist What Happen on April 20th?

[craftomega]

I noticed a very bad trend happening here on the Escapist, you guys have always been a little ban happy. You give out warnings and the like at the drop of a hat.

But since April 20th it feels like the warnings have doubled. For any small break of the rules even if they are within context of the thread. Also since then you guys have been locking threads left right and center.

This is simply a question from a concerned fan. I feel that you guys are getting far too aggressive in your bans and locking threads. Something needs to change before something breaks.

 

[Eamar]

The vast majority of the locked threads I've seen recently have been necros. Can't say I've personally noticed any undeserved warnings either... can I ask which subforums you're talking about (I only really use Gaming and Off-Topic myself), or for some examples?

 

[lacktheknack]

I've not observed this. If anything, I've seen more UNwarned infractions in the last while.

Also, rather than making a thread about it, why not <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Moderation-Team>ask them directly? It's not like we needed ANOTHER "Blame The Mods For Everything" thread.

 

[Marter]

"Guys, why didn't you lock this thread earlier?"

"Guys, why do you lock so many threads?"

"Guys, you issue too many warnings!"

"Guys, why weren't posts X, Y, Z, A, B, C, etc. warned?"

You see where I'm going with this, surely. You have one opinion on moderation, someone else will have the entirely opposite.

Nothing "happened," and while there may be a few more locked threads as of late, that's more indicative of the community and its lack of ability to civilly discuss things than the moderation. That's in addition to, like Eamar said, necroed threads, of which there has been an increase (although not since April 20th). I haven't noticed an increase in warnings.

 

[shrekfan246]

On the first page of Off-Topic, there's a single locked thread. And due to the subject matter of said thread, it really should surprise no one that it ended up locked. People around here seem to have massive problems with transgendered people, because ponies.

On the first page of Gaming Discussion, there are no locked threads.

Now, granted, that's only representative of the last ~twelve hours, but like Eamar already covered, most of the threads getting locked "left right and center" these days are because we had another sudden influx of necromancers. And the ratio of warnings to normal posts is the same as it's ever been, and is only even moderately prominent in the massive flame wars threads (which still only typically end up having roughly 5% of the total posts actually getting wrathed, but you know, people don't care about actual facts) where people lose their heads and forget that the rules still apply under all circumstances.

The moderation wouldn't seem "too aggressive" if the people weren't getting "too aggressive".

Also, I've been here for three years and have yet to get a single warning. And I've said some pretty aggressive things myself in my time here. I hardly think they "give out warnings and the like at the drop of a hat".

 

[Barbas]

If anything doesn't get mod attention, it's probably because it doesn't get flagged up. The problem starts with people failing to communicate with sufficient effort.

Thread necros have gone up, spam has gone down.

 

[dyre]

Heh, I thought this thread was going to be about cannabis...

I haven't noticed an increase in warnings. I agree that the modding on this site sometimes seems inconsistent or aggressive, but unfortunately that's the natural result of having a bunch of different human beings interpret rules like "don't be a jerk." Presumably these can be appealed when the modder is too trigger-happy, though I've never appealed a warning (honestly both times I made my post knowing it would get a warning but not really caring, since you get like 4 warnings before anything happens), so I can't really say how fair the appeals system is.

 

[Legion]

But since April 20th it feels like the warnings have doubled. For any small break of the rules even if they are within context of the thread.

I do not see what difference a comment being in context makes if it's still breaking the rules. A rule being broken and not moderated or a rule not being broken but getting moderated should be the only things people really take issue with when it comes to warnings and such.

I genuinely do not understand why some people feel rule breaking should be tolerated when everybody agrees to obey them when they sign up. If you don't treat all rule breaking equally you may as well not have them in the first place.

 

[dyre]

But since April 20th it feels like the warnings have doubled. For any small break of the rules even if they are within context of the thread.

I do not see what difference a comment being in context makes if it's still breaking the rules. A rule being broken and not moderated or a rule not being broken but getting moderated should be the only things people really take issue with when it comes to warnings and such.

I genuinely do not understand why some people feel rule breaking should be tolerated when everybody agrees to obey them when they sign up. If you don't treat all rule breaking equally you may as well not have them in the first place.

While it is a silly mistake, it's an understandable. If "don't talk about the fight club" was a rule, but then an authority figure opened a thread talking about the fight club, an unsuspecting poster might expect that the rules might be lifted for that one thread.

More veteran posters might anticipate the minefield for what it is, but newer posters not familiar with the Escapist's culture might be fooled into falling for the trap.

edit: by the way, to clear any confusion; I'm not blaming the mods here. The moderation team is full of intelligent, upstanding, and incredibly sexy individuals whose grace and wisdom we can only hope to emulate.

 

[Marter]

While it is a silly mistake, it's an understandable. If "don't talk about the fight club" was a rule, but then an authority figure opened a thread talking about the fight club, an unsuspecting poster might expect that the rules might be lifted for that one thread.

More veteran posters might anticipate the minefield for what it is, but newer posters not familiar with the Escapist's culture might be fooled into falling for the trap.

If only there were hundreds of posts in that thread that completely contradict what you just said, discussing "Fight Club" just fine.

 

[dyre]

While it is a silly mistake, it's an understandable. If "don't talk about the fight club" was a rule, but then an authority figure opened a thread talking about the fight club, an unsuspecting poster might expect that the rules might be lifted for that one thread.

More veteran posters might anticipate the minefield for what it is, but newer posters not familiar with the Escapist's culture might be fooled into falling for the trap.

If only there were hundreds of posts in that thread that completely contradict what you just said, discussing "Fight Club" just fine.

I've never understood this line of logic. If just 5% or 1% of posters unintentionally make ban-worthy posts, it's worth exploring why. If our laws for murder were confusing enough that hundreds of thousands of Americans committed what they believed to be perfectly legal homicides, I doubt even CNN would say, "oh, but clearly 99.5% of the population understands these rules just fine." What is your stance on this; that everyone who broke the rules is simply a complete imbecile and that the situation was not at all misleading or confusing?

 

[Legion]

But since April 20th it feels like the warnings have doubled. For any small break of the rules even if they are within context of the thread.

I do not see what difference a comment being in context makes if it's still breaking the rules. A rule being broken and not moderated or a rule not being broken but getting moderated should be the only things people really take issue with when it comes to warnings and such.

I genuinely do not understand why some people feel rule breaking should be tolerated when everybody agrees to obey them when they sign up. If you don't treat all rule breaking equally you may as well not have them in the first place.

While it is a silly mistake, it's an understandable. If "don't talk about the fight club" was a rule, but then an authority figure opened a thread talking about the fight club, an unsuspecting poster might expect that the rules might be lifted for that one thread.

More veteran posters might anticipate the minefield for what it is, but newer posters not familiar with the Escapist's culture might be fooled into falling for the trap.

If you are referring to the adblock video Jim Sterling did, he is not an authority figure, he is a site contributor. He has no say in the rules or their implementation. Nowhere in the code of conduct does it remotely suggest this is the case. He expressed the desire for more leniency in regards to moderation on the topic, but had no authority to make it happen, nor did he claim to. Anybody who thought this was the case, had no basis to make such an assumption.

 

[Marter]

I've never understood this line of logic. If just 5% or 1% of posters unintentionally make ban-worthy posts, it's worth exploring why. If our laws for murder were confusing enough that hundreds of thousands of Americans committed what they believed to be perfectly legal homicides, I doubt even CNN would say, "oh, but clearly 99.5% of the population understands these rules just fine." What is your stance on this; that everyone who broke the rules is simply a complete imbecile and that the situation was not at all misleading or confusing?

The first thing I'll say is that, as far as I remember, not a single user was banned for anything that had to do with adblock. I'm pretty sure that there were only three wraths given that were more than a "warning," and they were all for insulting people.

What do I think about it? I think that Jim made a video that the moderation team had no say over, and we had to react to it. We edited the OP and said what was and wasn't allowed, and then made ourselves available in the thread to answer as many questions as we saw, and to clarify. Those who got wrath in the thread didn't see our edit and presence, ignored them, or decided that the wrath was worth it (and given how few appeals I heard there were, I'm guessing it's largely the latter option). I don't think it was very often a case of people thinking they were completely okay posting what was directly prohibited. It didn't help that Jim made a forum post claiming an "armistice" -- the terms of which he never said -- had been reached when no such conversation had taken place, but that's something else out of our control. The moderators were given orders and we acted as we were commanded.

The warnings percentage in that thread was unusually high, but people saying that they couldn't discuss adblock are factually wrong. Because they could. Hundreds of people did. It was the people admitting to it -- as we mentioned repeatedly in the thread -- that got warned. There was leniency to the rules in that thread, but people decided to ignore what we said and post whatever anyway.

(Also, we're going to equate a warning on an internet forum with murder?)

 

[dyre]

While it is a silly mistake, it's an understandable. If "don't talk about the fight club" was a rule, but then an authority figure opened a thread talking about the fight club, an unsuspecting poster might expect that the rules might be lifted for that one thread.

More veteran posters might anticipate the minefield for what it is, but newer posters not familiar with the Escapist's culture might be fooled into falling for the trap.

If you are referring to the adblock video Jim Sterling did, he is not an authority figure, he is a site contributor. He has no say in the rules or their implementation. Nowhere in the code of conduct does it remotely suggest this is the case. He expressed the desire for more leniency in regards to moderation on the topic, but had no authority to make it happen, nor did he claim to. Anybody who thought this was the case, had no basis to make such an assumption.

Ah yes, and I suppose every poster, upon his first post in the forums, understand the distinction of authority between a regular contributor and a moderator? And I suppose when a regular contributor (of one of the sites most popular shows) expresses a desire for lenient moderation, that sort of thing could not possibly mislead relatively new posters into thinking that they could speak more freely on the subject?

I'm glad that you go through a detailed legal analysis before making each of your posts, but most human beings rely on basic situational awareness, which inevitably uses assumptions. The situation allowed for misleading assumptions to be made.

 

[dyre]

I've never understood this line of logic. If just 5% or 1% of posters unintentionally make ban-worthy posts, it's worth exploring why. If our laws for murder were confusing enough that hundreds of thousands of Americans committed what they believed to be perfectly legal homicides, I doubt even CNN would say, "oh, but clearly 99.5% of the population understands these rules just fine." What is your stance on this; that everyone who broke the rules is simply a complete imbecile and that the situation was not at all misleading or confusing?

The first thing I'll say is that, as far as I remember, not a single user was banned for anything that had to do with adblock. I'm pretty sure that there were only three wraths given that were more than a "warning," and they were all for insulting people.

What do I think about it? I think that Jim made a video that the moderation team had no say over, and we had to react to it. We edited the OP and said what was and wasn't allowed, and then made ourselves available in the thread to answer as many questions as we saw, and to clarify. Those who got wrath in the thread didn't see our edit and presence, ignored them, or decided that the wrath was worth it (and given how few appeals I heard there were, I'm guessing it's largely the latter option). I don't think it was very often a case of people thinking they were completely okay posting what was directly prohibited. It didn't help that Jim made a forum post claiming an "armistice" -- the terms of which he never said -- had been reached when no such conversation had taken place, but that's something else out of our control. The moderators were given orders and we acted as we were commanded.

The warnings percentage in that thread was unusually high, but people saying that they couldn't discuss adblock are factually wrong. Because they could. Hundreds of people did. It was the people admitting to it -- as we mentioned repeatedly in the thread -- that got warned. There was leniency to the rules in that thread, but people decided to ignore what we said and post whatever anyway.

(Also, we're going to equate a warning on an internet forum with murder?)

I use "ban" in place of "warning" mostly because "warning-worthy" sounds weird, and the distinction is only a numerical one. But fine, warnings, not bans.

So, you agree the situation was conceivably confusing or misleading for people who heard things from the wrong people? You may notice that in my initial post on the subject I don't blame the mods for the confusing situation; I only claim that a confusing situation existed.

By the way, I don't think "they didn't appeal" always translates to "they knew what they were doing was wrong;" that seems like a problematic assumption that a jaded police officer might have >_>

(And hell yeah we are! When using analogies it helps to use exaggerated ones; that's rhetoric 101. But you can replace it with traffic code violations; that's a more agreeable analogy for the both of us, yes?.)

 

[Legion]

While it is a silly mistake, it's an understandable. If "don't talk about the fight club" was a rule, but then an authority figure opened a thread talking about the fight club, an unsuspecting poster might expect that the rules might be lifted for that one thread.

More veteran posters might anticipate the minefield for what it is, but newer posters not familiar with the Escapist's culture might be fooled into falling for the trap.

If you are referring to the adblock video Jim Sterling did, he is not an authority figure, he is a site contributor. He has no say in the rules or their implementation. Nowhere in the code of conduct does it remotely suggest this is the case. He expressed the desire for more leniency in regards to moderation on the topic, but had no authority to make it happen, nor did he claim to. Anybody who thought this was the case, had no basis to make such an assumption.

Ah yes, and I suppose every poster, upon his first post in the forums, understand the distinction of authority between a regular contributor and a moderator? And I suppose when a regular contributor (of one of the sites most popular shows) expresses a desire for lenient moderation, that sort of thing could not possibly mislead relatively new posters into thinking that they could speak more freely on the subject?

That would seem to suggest the only people who fell foul of the rules were new people. While I can only speak from my own experience in regards to all of this, most people I have seen take issue are forum regulars whom I recognise.

I'm glad that you go through a detailed legal analysis before making each of your posts, but most human beings rely on basic situational awareness, which inevitably uses assumptions. The situation allowed for misleading assumptions to be made.

I also do no such thing. I didn't read the CoC until around 2011 when we had to re-agree to them when they changed, despite joining in 2008. But seeing as the adblock rule was made rather clear only recently before the video, most people had no excuse really.

To be honest, people could have asked a mod or something if they were unsure. I think they'd prefer people did that than make an assumption about the rules. It is not as though people had to post immediately without checking, considering so many felt it was a grey area.

Marter has already gone into more detail in regards to how the moderation was implemented anyway. As he stated, people were not moderated for discussing adblock, but for admitting to using it on this website. While I am not entirely sure if this was mod leniency or not, I also saw people admit to having used it in the past on this website (but choosing to no longer) and using it on other websites, without getting in trouble.

 

[Marter]

I use "ban" in place of "warning" mostly because "warning-worthy" sounds weird, and the distinction is only a numerical one. But fine, warnings, not bans.

So, you agree the situation was conceivably confusing or misleading for people who heard things from the wrong people? You may notice that in my initial post on the subject I don't blame the mods for the confusing situation; I only claim that a confusing situation existed.

By the way, I don't think "they didn't appeal" always translates to "they knew what they were doing was wrong;" that seems like a problematic assumption that a jaded police officer might have >_>

(And hell yeah we are! When using analogies it helps to use exaggerated ones; that's rhetoric 101. But you can replace it with traffic code violations; that's a more agreeable analogy for the both of us, yes?.)

Ah. Okay. I just wanted to be clear, because when that whole thing cropped up, people were saying that there were dozens of bans, which just wasn't the case.

I think that the situation could have been handled better before the video was posted -- some communication between the contributor and the staff would have really helped out -- and Jim's post in the thread was not helpful at all. So, yeah, there were confusing parts to it. But it still was never a "don't talk at all about it" situation, which is what a lot of people claimed. (There was just so much misinformation spread during that incident and I'm still just clarifying it; I'm not necessarily directing it at you.)

That's fair. It was a guess on my part. Maybe a "jaded" guess. ;P

(Traffic code violations sound much better, as there's often more confusion to those, too. And, y'know, it's not murder!)

 

[Andy Shandy]

In celebration of Hitler's birthday, they went full "Third Reich" on The Escapist.

They were also angry since they all #420BLAZEDIT too hard, got the munchies and ate far too much of that sweet Easter chocolate, making their poor tummies sore, putting them in a foul mood which has not abated since.

Seriously though, nothing different has really changed. Except Marter's coke addiction has worsened

 

[dyre]

That would seem to suggest the only people who fell foul of the rules were new people. While I can only speak from my own experience in regards to all of this, most people I have seen take issue are forum regulars whom I recognise.

I guess our mileage may vary. I noticed one or two posters who I recognized getting a warning (and IIRC at least one of them was pretty much asking for it), but also a few posters who I didn't recognize and seemed genuinely oblivious.

I also do no such thing. I didn't read the CoC until around 2011 when we had to re-agree to them when they changed, despite joining in 2008. But seeing as the adblock rule was made rather clear only recently before the video, most people had no excuse really.

To be honest, people could have asked a mod or something if they were unsure. I think they'd prefer people did that than make an assumption about the rules. It is not as though people had to post immediately without checking, considering so many felt it was a grey area.

Sure, they could've done a lot of things that no one ever bothers doing. However, it's only legally justifiable to hold people accountable for mistakes if they act out of unreasonable negligence. I think it's safe to say that not every poster who made a mistake that day was being unreasonably negligent. Of course they were only given warnings, so it's not like they got put to a firing squad, but the point still stands.

Marter has already gone into more detail in regards to how the moderation was implemented anyway. As he stated, people were not moderated for discussing adblock, but for admitting to using it on this website. While I am not entirely sure if this was mod leniency or not, I also saw people admit to having used it in the past on this website (but choosing to no longer) and using it on other websites, without getting in trouble.

Yes, I think my discussion on the subject with Marter has reached an agreeable conclusion. I think most of the leniency that day revolved around the "don't advocate" Adblock part; from what I could tell people got away with pointing out Adblock's usefulness as long as they didn't openly admit to using it.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

It's not like we needed ANOTHER "Blame The Mods For Everything" thread.

Awwwww, but those threads are always the most fun... -.-

OT: Topaz said it best. You have to type "I AGREE" to the rules before you're even allowed to post in these forums. Its not their responsibility to PM every new member to remind them to actually read the COC. They just respond to the reports the rest of the community flag posts with and wrath the user if said post breaks the rules. If there are more reports coming in for them to respond to, they have no control over that. We have to take some responsibility for what we type in these parts.