Dear Users Complaining About Moderators

[The Lunatic]

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/man-has-anyone-here-been-on-the-escapist-forums-la-390720/

I don't know if you actually read this, but this is a thread from 4 years ago.

If we were to change the rules tomorrow, this result would still turn up in a google search.
Hell, the rules HAVE changed, several times, over the last 4 years. So this link is ALREADY out of date.

The point was about the reputation of The Escapist. Whilst it won't change overnight, the fact that this is four years ago, and yet there are newer examples, which I have given which also state the same thing clearly shows that this is a rather long-term problem.

https://twitter.com/Escapist_TXT

This is nothing more than a collection of amusing Escapist forum posts that someone has compiled. It has nothing to do with moderation specifically.
Any change to the forum rules would make no difference here either.

I never said it was. You asked me to prove The Escapist Forums have a poor reputation. I never said this is specifically due to moderator. I'd argue that moderation plays a role as, from this thread we have seen, some users feel afraid to post and are worried they may unintentionally misstep. Which affects the type of content that gets posted here. But, that's just my opinion.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140306/06471226459/escapist-website-content-creator-puts-up-video-about-adblock-moderators-warnsuspend-people-discussing-adblock-comments.shtml

This 'article' is so horribly misleading and deceptive, it's laughable.

Quote from this article:
"Users still seem to get banned if they so much as mention the word Adblock"

Users don't get "banned". They get whatever the next punishment is on their health meter.
And they don't get punished for mentioning the word "Adblock", they only get punished for admitting to or advocating its use.

Furthermore, that article grossly misrepresents what Jim's video said, to the point where I doubt the writer actually watched it.

This is just completely wrong. I have personally been warned for daring to even mention the word. Unless you're now claiming I'm imagining things. You're just wrong here. I contacted the support at the time, whom were very rude and they informed me, under no allowance was I allowed to mention the software.

Also, just because you disagree with somebody does not mean it doesn't exist. People still see this, it got The Escapist a lot of attention. It affects our reputation, regardless of if you agree with it or not. That is what you asked me to show. It is what I have shown. Please stop holding this to a different standard after you have asked me to demonstrate it.

And finally.

Poll you're quoting has a small sample size, and those that do agree is a fairly small margin. I accept that it's difficult to gauge response if people don't answer the polls, but, the fact it was such a small margin of "Victory" means you should really consider what that implies.

Granted, a random poll is hardly compelling proof. But it still illustrates that a majority are happy with the rules and how things are run.
It's just a vocal minority who aren't.

Citation needed.


The "Yes" did not get a majority over 50%. So, to say those that disagree is a vocal minority is just kidding yourself at this stage.

Perhaps there is more people content with the rules. But, you sure wouldn't get that from a random and small poll.

Can the people affected by the rules vote on this poll if they're banned or suspended? Did the "Other" voters actually get factored in at all?

If you're going to use this poll as some sort of truth, please tell me what you're drawing this conclusion from. As I see it not even half of the people on these forums agree with the rules completely.

 

[IceForce]

I'm not sure I can give general advice,

Don't worry, you've been a great help.

I appreciate the civil reply. And I appreciate how you didn't jump down my throat like someone else in this thread did.

Once again, you have my thanks.

 

[IceForce]

The "Yes" did not get a majority over 50%. So, to say those that disagree is a vocal minority is just kidding yourself at this stage.

Perhaps there is more people content with the rules. But, you sure wouldn't get that from a random and small poll.

Personally, I'd take any poll held on this site with a big grain of salt.
Because it's basically asking "How many people here who can still post are happy with the rules?"

If everyone who's ever been banned on this site was to vote in such a poll, I'm sure the results would be very different.

 

[DanDanikov]

I got warnings over the Adblock fiasco (probably admitting its use, if I recall correctly... knowing my luck I get a warning for referring to a time I admitted to using Adblock, which is fucking stupid but hey-ho, watch Escapist forum moderation go) and, as a result, haven't logged in since then and stopped being involved in the forums nearly as much (I occasionally check out what's trending after watching Escape to the Movies, but that's it).

You're absolutely right that, ultimately, it's their community space and their choice how they run things- you're also right that one can't blame the moderators merely for enforcing the rules, however they also have a responsibility to not do so blindly. Nothing says that the rules they enforce are automatically reasonable or fair.

It's also worth considering motivation. Why do they keep forums? It attracts people who like the community and wish to engage in discussion. Such users also generate ad revenue (go figure, they're a money making business). It's not our responsibility as part of the community to help them make money, but what harms the community harms their ad revenue, so there is some mutual interest there to keep things healthy.

What's really silly about this thread (in response to the other) is that you're seizing upon the fact they were complaining about the moderators and conflating that with a complaint about Moderators (the official title for volunteer moderators), rather than members involved in the general moderation process, including the Community Manager and any other paid Escapist staff. The moderator who responds does the exact same thing (a little more justifiable as it's something they may have taken personally).

However it's also evidence of the continued unhealthy state of moderation on the site and how powerless users are (or think they are) to change that, especially now that more of the community is drinking the 'like it or leave' kool aid and gets angry at people not being happy/blindly accepting what is mandated. The problem with that is people do leave (at least, as far as cancelling their publisher's club, not logging in, making posts and using Adblock to deny the site revenue is 'leaving') and it's a massive failure if things end up going that far with reasonable people who were otherwise contributing to the community in a constructive way. For a journalistic organisation I would have expected a better track record on censorship.

You wonder why people care about moderation- people care about being part of the community. It's nice to belong. It's sad when that community rejects you and you have to leave, but it's worse when it's not the community that you have to leave over but the curators arbitrarily deciding that you don't belong there in a fairly successful attempt to censor otherwise reasonable discussion.

You might wonder why I'm posting this if I left... well, I'm one of those people who cared about being part of the community and had a fairly spotless track record until the Adblock fiasco, so I am a bit resentful that it came to that, but I also would like to see things change. I don't hold high hopes for that happening and it definitely hasn't happened, so while I accept that means going back to lurking, doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

 

[anthony87]

If everyone who's ever been banned on this site was to vote in such a poll, I'm sure the results would be very different.

I can't help but think you're overestimating the number of people who've been banned.

 

[Marter]

<quote=TopazFusion>Users don't get "banned". They get whatever the next punishment is on their health meter.
And they don't get punished for mentioning the word "Adblock", they only get punished for admitting to or advocating its use.

This is just completely wrong. I have personally been warned for daring to even mention the word. Unless you're now claiming I'm imagining things. You're just wrong here. I contacted the support at the time, whom were very rude and they informed me, under no allowance was I allowed to mention the software.[/quote]

<url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.407649.17012440>Your post that received a warning was for admitting to "ABP" (Adblock Plus). Go read it. It says, and I quote, "I use ABP." That is why you got a warning. It wasn't for, as you claim, "daring to even mention the word."

The ticket you submitted has nothing to do with the moderators, and if you check the way the forums are moderated -- heck, go look at the Jimquisition adblock thread again, if you want to -- you'll see that whoever answered your ticket was wrong, as people can say "adblock" without getting warned.

 

[lacktheknack]

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140306/06471226459/escapist-website-content-creator-puts-up-video-about-adblock-moderators-warnsuspend-people-discussing-adblock-comments.shtml

This 'article' is so horribly misleading and deceptive, it's laughable.

Quote from this article:
"Users still seem to get banned if they so much as mention the word Adblock"

Users don't get "banned". They get whatever the next punishment is on their health meter.
And they don't get punished for mentioning the word "Adblock", they only get punished for admitting to or advocating its use.

Furthermore, that article grossly misrepresents what Jim's video said, to the point where I doubt the writer actually watched it.

This is just completely wrong. I have personally been warned for daring to even mention the word. Unless you're now claiming I'm imagining things. You're just wrong here. I contacted the support at the time, whom were very rude and they informed me, under no allowance was I allowed to mention the software.

I don't believe you for a moment.

I said "Adblock" in the OP. And I'm saying now. Adblock Adblock Adblock Adblock Adblock. I'm not going to be wrathed for saying it out loud. (EDIT: Epic fail typo)

So... as you've said multiple times, Citation Needed.

 

[Colour Scientist]

And I appreciate how you didn't jump down my throat like someone else in this thread did.

You'd better be careful, someone might mistake that for passive aggression.

 

[The Lunatic]

<quote=TopazFusion>Users don't get "banned". They get whatever the next punishment is on their health meter.
And they don't get punished for mentioning the word "Adblock", they only get punished for admitting to or advocating its use.

This is just completely wrong. I have personally been warned for daring to even mention the word. Unless you're now claiming I'm imagining things. You're just wrong here. I contacted the support at the time, whom were very rude and they informed me, under no allowance was I allowed to mention the software.

<url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.407649.17012440>Your post that received a warning was for admitting to "ABP" (Adblock Plus). Go read it. It says, and I quote, "I use ABP." That is why you got a warning. It wasn't for, as you claim, "daring to even mention the word."

The ticket you submitted has nothing to do with the moderators, and if you check the way the forums are moderated -- heck, go look at the Jimquisition adblock thread again, if you want to -- you'll see that whoever answered your ticket was wrong, as people can say "adblock" without getting warned.[/quote]

At this time I had publisher's club membership thus did not use it for The Escapist. Nor claimed that I did. This is what I went over with the email staff at the time, whom made stated in no uncertain terms that I was not allowed to use that three letter word in any context, as others may google it and find the software.

This was there reasoning. It had nothing to do with whom was using the software, merely that it was mentioned.

I don't believe you for a moment.

I said "Adblock" in the OP. And I'm saying now. Adblock Adblock Adblock Adblock Adblock. I'm not going to be wrathed for saying it out loud. (EDIT: Epic fail typo)

So... as you've said multiple times, Citation Needed.

Sorry, I'm not responsible for moderation, I cannot comment on how things are sometimes moderated and how sometimes they are not.

 

[Marter]

At this time I had publisher's club membership thus did not use it for The Escapist. Nor claimed that I did. This is what I went over with the email staff at the time, whom made stated in no uncertain terms that I was not allowed to use that three letter word in any context, as others may google it and find the software.

This was there reasoning. It had nothing to do with whom was using the software, merely that it was mentioned.

That's basically all irrelevant. I told you why your post was wrathed by a moderator, and that's all we have control of. I also already told you that whoever handled your ticket was wrong, because that's not how the site is moderated. The only thing I haven't yet told you is how you continually use "whom" incorrectly. Moderators don't have any idea what happens in appeals. We don't handle them, we don't hear about them, and we have no say in them. Sometimes even the staff can misspeak. You were wrathed for admitting to using adblocker. Not for mentioning it. Them's the facts.

 

[The Lunatic]

Multi-quoting is becoming pretty much impossibly convoluted, so, I'll drop it for now.

Umm, yes you did. Right here:

So is it due to the policies/staff/moderators, or not?

Please stop moving the goalposts.

Also, that twitter feed does NOT back up what you originally posted, and is therefore not a relevant citation.

I suggest you read the post more carefully. I used the word "Mostly".

Not "Entirely".

And in the interest of presenting a fair and unbiased argument, I cite sources to give a better overall image, rather than to simply push a view. As I have said, these results are found using only the term "Escapist Forum".

My point was that these are what people see when looking for our forum, and that this means the forums have a poor reputation. I'm sorry you didn't quite understand this from my post.

I further stated that in my opinion, it is the rules here which create this environment. However, this is an opinion and not a goal post.

Anecdotal evidence.

Let's look at some other evidence:

I am not a moderator. I am not responsible for unilateral enforcements of rules. I cannot possibly comment on why it is enforced in places and ignored in others. This is for you to answer. Sorry.

And again, the point is about reputation. And unfortunately, regardless of if you like it or not, the reputation of these forums can be different from what actually happens on these forums. You have to consider an outside perspective. And if an outsider member sees users getting banned (Be it their last warning or not) for mentioning a certain word, they are going to get an impression from that.

I am not responsible for this, I am simply stating that this is the case.

I never said anything about 50%. All I meant was the "yes" vote got more votes than any other option.

Then how can you claim majority?

You've gone from "Nobody", to 'But it's not 50%! So it doesn't count!'

So once again, moving the goalposts.
Could you ... maybe stop doing that? It's making this discussion rather tedious.

I admit to using dramatics, however whilst uninformed it's hard to come to much other conclusion as we see this thread.

And, please stop putting words into my mouth. It is making this discussion rather tedious.

I never said it didn't count. I said it's a low sample size with a narrow "Victory".

However, I must say, your attitude is really poor here. You're throwing off any criticism as "Vocal minority" as if that discredits the points they are making in some way.

Please, if you're going to claim these people aren't worth listening to, state why they are not worth listening to.

Tell us why you think that most people are happy.

At the moment, the only argument you're presenting is "It's not more than 50% so they don't count".

How about this piece of evidence?

This is over a year old, and it a pointless piece of information.

It displays very little useful information, it simply states who is still around, not those whom have left.

Also, it doesn't factor in user groups. I myself got Neo'd by only posting in user groups and never the forums.

The user groups lack moderation and thus my post count is only a reflection of my engagement in user groups.

Also, of those over 1000, it does not state how many are still active. A user could have got past 1000, got warned, left, had the warning pass and then never post again, and yet still be counted in this as being "Fine with the rules".

 

[Vegosiux]

At this time I had publisher's club membership thus did not use it for The Escapist. Nor claimed that I did. This is what I went over with the email staff at the time, whom made stated in no uncertain terms that I was not allowed to use that three letter word in any context, as others may google it and find the software.

This was there reasoning. It had nothing to do with whom was using the software, merely that it was mentioned.

That's basically all irrelevant. I told you why your post was wrathed by a moderator, and that's all we have control of. I also already told you that whoever handled your ticket was wrong, because that's not how the site is moderated. The only thing I haven't yet told you is how you continually use "whom" incorrectly. Moderators don't have any idea what happens in appeals. We don't handle them, we don't hear about them, and we have no say in them. Sometimes even the staff can misspeak. You were wrathed for admitting to using adblocker. Not for mentioning it. Them's the facts.

Wrathed for admitting to use ABP, not wrathed for using "whom" incorrectly? Seriously, folks, get yer priorities straight, sheez! *ahem*

Sorry, I just had to.

 

[The Lunatic]

That's basically all irrelevant. I told you why your post was wrathed by a moderator, and that's all we have control of. I also already told you that whoever handled your ticket was wrong, because that's not how the site is moderated. The only thing I haven't yet told you is how you continually use "whom" incorrectly. Moderators don't have any idea what happens in appeals. We don't handle them, we don't hear about them, and we have no say in them. Sometimes even the staff can misspeak. You were wrathed for admitting to using adblocker. Not for mentioning it. Them's the facts.

Well, that doesn't make sense. You say yourself that you're lower on the chain of things than the staff, and then say they're wrong.

As far as I'm aware, the staff get the final say in the matter, thus if they have said I am not allowed to mention it, you don't really have the authority to say otherwise.

I'm sure you're only going off what you're told, but, in this instance, so am I.

I'm aware the moderators have no control over it, and my objection is with the rule itself.

Ironically, in this instance, the rudeness of the staff in question, likely cost The Escapist more than they will make from me in future ad revenue, as the sheer rudeness displayed was enough for me to cancel my publisher club membership.

 

[Caiphus]

Once again mods, I salute you. I'm not sure I'd be able to put up with this.

Yeah, hell. Reading this thread made me sad. And I'm not one of the guys being called a prick on every page.

 

[sky14kemea]

And I appreciate how you didn't jump down my throat like someone else in this thread did.

You'd better be careful, someone might mistake that for passive aggression.

Could you please refrain from trying to draw IceForce into an argument? I really don't want to have to hand out any more infractions in this thread. :/

Once again mods, I salute you. I'm not sure I'd be able to put up with this.

Yeah, hell. Reading this thread made me sad. And I'm not one of the guys being called a prick on every page.

Only one person has called us a prick, and I'm pretty sure he was doing that on purpose in order to make us look worse when we handed out the punishment for it. >.> Everyone else here is being mature as far as I can tell.

 

[Caiphus]

Only one person has called us a prick, and I'm pretty sure he was doing that on purpose in order to make us look worse when we handed out the punishment for it. >.> Everyone else here is being mature as far as I can tell.

That is true, it was just what stood out to me the most. A few other choice words have been used, but I'm glad to see you're taking it well.

 

[Marter]

Well, that doesn't make sense. You say yourself that you're lower on the chain of things than the staff, and then say they're wrong.

As far as I'm aware, the staff get the final say in the matter, thus if they have said I am not allowed to mention it, you don't really have the authority to say otherwise.

I'm sure you're only going off what you're told, but, in this instance, so am I.

I'm aware the moderators have no control over it, and my objection is with the rule itself.

Ironically, in this instance, the rudeness of the staff in question, likely cost The Escapist more than they will make from me in future ad revenue, as the sheer rudeness displayed was enough for me to cancel my publisher club membership.

We've been told otherwise, so it's likely that whoever did the appeal simply misspoke. Seems like there was miscommunication, but as you can see on the forum, and in this very thread, what you were told simply isn't true.

 

[Able Seacat]

I don't envy the moderator's job here. Seems like no matter what they do someone complains they're either moderating too much and abusing their 'power' or not enough and letting people get away with trolling and what have you.

The rules here aren't that hard to follow. Of course people make mistakes and say things in the heat of an argument but that's what the infraction system is for. Having an infraction or two isn't a huge personal insult or anything so just relax about it.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

If everyone who's ever been banned on this site was to vote in such a poll, I'm sure the results would be very different.

I can't help but think you're overestimating the number of people who've been banned.

And quite possibly also assuming that all the people who have been banned haven't deserved it. Whether you like the rules or not it's a fact that some people deserve to get banned for their behavior. This isn't reddit or 4chan. You are accountable for what you say and how you say it and this community is, imo, better because of it.

Some people decide to call that elitist. Myself I think of it being much more that the rules in place force you to act more like you would IRL. Because IRL you'd get punched in the face before the end of the sentence.

...And this very thread demonstrates how people should read the rules before complaining. I mean come on, some guy directly calls other users (in this case mods) "asses", "twits" and "bitches" and then claims to be baffled about why he's getting warnings? Seriously?!

*headdesk*

I had to lol at this given the thread subject matter. It's pretty much the equivalent of banging on the hood of a stationary police car and shouting at the driver to go fuck himself.