Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules

[Steppin Razor]

Would it comfort you to know that we plan to release an addition guide to coincide with the rules that comprehensively explains each rule and all its implications. Plus we are only human - by having more than one moderator with different personalities it means that 9/10 if one of us chooses to ignore an infringement for whatever reason another will pick it up or the opposite is also true.

P.s. Feel free to quote or pm me questions about the new rules - I will do my best to answer!

Uh-huh. Fair enough then.

Well I hope the vagueness of "Don't be a jerk" is at least cleared up a little by this. Having a core rule that vague and open to interpretation is a little unsettling.

 

[catalyst8]

Great news & thanks! I'm genuinely glad to see this updated & enforced Code of Conduct. Hopefully the forum contributions will regain the relatively high standard they had a couple of years ago. Judging by the amount of recently banned & suspended Escapists it should be a very short retrogression.

 

[Fire Daemon]

As far as I can remember the basic guideline to the forums has always been 'Don't be a Jerk', but for a long time this rule has felt quite out of date and ineffective. When there was a single moderator a person would be able to see this moderator's tolerance for jerk behaviour and how far you could push him. Having a single moderator created a clear and always present standard of which a person can act on the forum. The fact that the website was smaller at the time also allowed for the moderator to let as little as possible slip through the gaps, and it also allowed for everyone to see the punishment dealt. Generally speaking, if someone did receive a ban everyone would know about it which further strengthens everyone's knowledge as to what level the bar is set for the forum.

Now, however, with a variety of moderators and many more people posting and making threads than in the past, this vague rule no longer works.

The moderators are no longer one, a varied group of individuals and they have different opinions on what constitutes a jerk. A person who touches a nerve for one moderator may be over looked by another, which is a horrible system. A little while ago I saw a user receiving strife for an anti-anime comment, but this comment felt like the sort of thing that would only insult a fan of the media. I personally would not have remembered the post at all if it didn't result in trouble, I only wish that I could find it now. The point is that with out this clear definition of what the moderation team considers to be a jerk you introduce a random variable as to whether that post is ban worthy or not, you don't know how it'll be received. Will this post be noticed by the moderator who agrees with/enjoys my comment, or will it be be noticed by the person who does not? is a question many users (myself included) potentially find themselves asking when they create a post because of a vague rule enforced by a group of people with varied definitions of that rule.

What I think needs to be done is to take jerk out of the equation. Jerk is too open for both new users and moderators. Someone coming from /b/ on 4chan.org or somethingawful.com who doesn't want to get banned is probably going to have a different opinion on what constitutes a jerk as to someone here, so you have this group of people who don't think they are trolling/being a jerk, but in the eyes of other members they are. As stated above, moderators can have the same problem, but they can also hide under that vague rule to explain their actions. I'm not saying that anyone does that, but it is theoretically possible and if a new user was banned any complaint would come down to a matter of opinion on what a jerk is. If a police officer were o arrest someone because 'in their opinion' that person was a criminal, law suit doesn't begin to cover it.

So we've removed jerk and replaced it with something else. I think 'deliberately insulting, antagonistic and disruptive' sounds better than jerk. They both pretty much mean the same thing, but the longer it is and the more detail the general rule has the closer it can be followed. More people know exactly what antagonistic behaviour is than jerk behaviour, I think. I actually think the less general rules the better, but if you have to have one, make it detailed and easy to compare to people's actions.

The important part though, is to have examples in the guidelines. The moderators need to sit down and discuss in detail what they consider to be the line which separates the good posts from the bad. Have theoretical examples of what is considered to be deserving of a probation for 3 days, 7 days, two weeks etc. Have the same thing for suspensions and finally a perma-ban. It would help to have a variety of examples for each set of punishments, for example you could have a low content post, an antagonistic post and poorly written post. These examples should be the first moderator action for someone who had just joined, and should be specified as such. By this way people know how to act as soon as they leave the gate. It should also specify that with time and posts you are expected to know how to act and moderator responses may be more sever if you break the rules, despite being an older user. It should also state that smaller infringements over time add up and it is possible to receive a greater punishment for a large number of smaller infringements.

This has a few uses, it shows new users exactly how they shouldn't act, clears up as much confusion as possible, but also sets a standard for the moderators to enforce and follow. It stops a moderator from creating their own personal definitions of guidelines, it allows for every moderator to be held accountable for a standard level of punishment (less varied levels of probation and suspension), allows for a person to argue that their posts were not below the standard of the forum with actual concrete examples of that standard and most importantly makes the moderators act a single entity, which they should have been doing from the start. The fact that we do have varied responses coming from the moderators shows that something is not right with the moderation.

I have a lot more to say about this entire thing, but I think I'll leave it there for now.

 

[Claymorez]

As far as I can remember the basic guideline to the forums has always been 'Don't be a Jerk', but for a long time this rule has felt quite out of date and ineffective. When there was a single moderator a person would be able to see this moderator's tolerance for jerk behaviour and how far you could push him. Having a single moderator created a clear and always present standard of which a person can act on the forum. The fact that the website was smaller at the time also allowed for the moderator to let as little as possible slip through the gaps, and it also allowed for everyone to see the punishment dealt. Generally speaking, if someone did receive a ban everyone would know about it which further strengthens everyone's knowledge as to what level the bar is set for the forum.

Now, however, with a variety of moderators and many more people posting and making threads than in the past, this vague rule no longer works.

The moderators are no longer one, a varied group of individuals and they have different opinions on what constitutes a jerk. A person who touches a nerve for one moderator may be over looked by another, which is a horrible system. A little while ago I saw a user receiving strife for an anti-anime comment, but this comment felt like the sort of thing that would only insult a fan of the media. I personally would not have remembered the post at all if it didn't result in trouble, I only wish that I could find it now. The point is that with out this clear definition of what the moderation team considers to be a jerk you introduce a random variable as to whether that post is ban worthy or not, you don't know how it'll be received. Will this post be noticed by the moderator who agrees with/enjoys my comment, or will it be be noticed by the person who does not? is a question many users (myself included) potentially find themselves asking when they create a post because of a vague rule enforced by a group of people with varied definitions of that rule.

What I think needs to be done is to take jerk out of the equation. Jerk is too open for both new users and moderators. Someone coming from /b/ on 4chan.org or somethingawful.com who doesn't want to get banned is probably going to have a different opinion on what constitutes a jerk as to someone here, so you have this group of people who don't think they are trolling/being a jerk, but in the eyes of other members they are. As stated above, moderators can have the same problem, but they can also hide under that vague rule to explain their actions. I'm not saying that anyone does that, but it is theoretically possible and if a new user was banned any complaint would come down to a matter of opinion on what a jerk is. If a police officer were o arrest someone because 'in their opinion' that person was a criminal, law suit doesn't begin to cover it.

So we've removed jerk and replaced it with something else. I think 'deliberately insulting, antagonistic and disruptive' sounds better than jerk. They both pretty much mean the same thing, but the longer it is and the more detail the general rule has the closer it can be followed. More people know exactly what antagonistic behaviour is than jerk behaviour, I think. I actually think the less general rules the better, but if you have to have one, make it detailed and easy to compare to people's actions.

The important part though, is to have examples in the guidelines. The moderators need to sit down and discuss in detail what they consider to be the line which separates the good posts from the bad. Have theoretical examples of what is considered to be deserving of a probation for 3 days, 7 days, two weeks etc. Have the same thing for suspensions and finally a perma-ban. It would help to have a variety of examples for each set of punishments, for example you could have a low content post, an antagonistic post and poorly written post. These examples should be the first moderator action for someone who had just joined, and should be specified as such. By this way people know how to act as soon as they leave the gate. It should also specify that with time and posts you are expected to know how to act and moderator responses may be more sever if you break the rules, despite being an older user. It should also state that smaller infringements over time add up and it is possible to receive a greater punishment for a large number of smaller infringements.

This has a few uses, it shows new users exactly how they shouldn't act, clears up as much confusion as possible, but also sets a standard for the moderators to enforce and follow. It stops a moderator from creating their own personal definitions of guidelines, it allows for every moderator to be held accountable for a standard level of punishment (less varied levels of probation and suspension), allows for a person to argue that their posts were not below the standard of the forum with actual concrete examples of that standard and most importantly makes the moderators act a single entity, which they should have been doing from the start. The fact that we do have varied responses coming from the moderators shows that something is not right with the moderation.

I have a lot more to say about this entire thing, but I think I'll leave it there for now.

Something like that is in the works thou I am not sure about changing the word jerk so much as explaining what from the perspective of mods constitutes a jerk - i.e. we keep the clause about if you make this forum a less pleasant place we don't want you.

 

[Fire Daemon]

Something like that is in the works thou I am not sure about changing the word jerk so much as explaining what from the perspective of mods constitutes a jerk - i.e. we keep the clause about if you make this forum a less pleasant place we don't want you.

If something like that is going to be implemented that why not change the guidelines to the code of conduct when everything is ready to be implemented. It isn't like we needed the code of conduct right this instance, it could have been kept back to create a more complete package.

I think if you are going to use a term like Jerk it would make sense to explain exactly what you mean by the word. With a large moderation team it seems important for everyone to be operating on the same interpretation of the rules they enforce.

 

[Exosus]

Wait wait wait, you felt like the old rules weren't restrictive ENOUGH? So you made them MORE draconian? Have you ever been ANYWHERE else on the internet??

 

[beddo]

I don't really understand the new rules, you're demanding that we don't criticise something without being constructive. What if I don't like something and my reason is inexplicable? Is that just not acceptable.

I also find it ironic that you request that we don't be negative but your terms try to label people who engage in certain behaviour as 'jerks'. Someone who is a 'jerk' to you, may be to me a witty and insightful member legitimately voicing their opinion.

I was temporarily suspended because I criticised the ridiculously immature show 'I hit it with my axe'. This is a show which I believe is trying to appeal to this idea of a traditional misogynistic geek without stopping to consider how including it on this website negative enforces the traditional view of gamers as emotionally stunted men who are drawn to anything linked with boobs. Not to mention that at no point does this site seem to address the morality of attempting to glamourise or condone the career choice of the people in the show which numerous people would find repugnant. This is another example of your terms being a case of do what I say, not what I do:

"Similarly, posts [...] advocating [...] adult material are a very quick way to end your time as part of The Escapist community."

Another great example is the Zero Punctuation series that revels in bad language and unconstructive criticism but is heavily promoted.

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[Vohn_exel]

So I just spent like an hour reading through everything here, all seven pages. Most of what I would say has been said. I've been a forum mod before, admin as well, for an active if not small community. I know that ya'll don't just flip out and ban stuff without at least first talking it over as mods, and I doubt that one of you would act singularly without at least discussing it with your color coded brethren.

The reason that alot of people are up in arms, is because the rules ARE a bit vague. Even if you don't actually act the way they fear, and haven't in the past, they are afraid that it leaves the door open for someone to do so. I have to admit that from a Mod/Admin standpoint "Don't be a jerk" is a good rule. It's short, simple and to the point. But as a user, and one that has posted in forums FAR more strict and uptight than this one, I agree that it can be rather intimidating to not always know just EXACTLY what you might get banned for. General users mostly just want to be able to make a post without having to truly worry about mod wrath. People that come to site to make trouble, of course, have to worry about how their posts are worded if they want to make trouble for some time. Regular posters don't want to have to worry about that.

I have to say I agree on the vulgarity thing. While I don't believe something like a bunch of dead baby jokes would be acceptable, I've always followed my own rule on the matter when it comes to sights like this. If I watch a video of say, Zero Punctuation, and hear the word "fuck" twenty eight times in a review, I know I don't really have to worry about posting something like that in the forums, at least in response to that itself. I mean if you're trying to keep the forums kid friendly by limiting vulgarity on the forums, if they've already watched the video then there isn't much more the forums could do to them. Again, as a former mod/admin, I see where it's a good idea to keep things under control so that more people come to your sight. But as a user, I shouldn't have to worry about swearing up an down (which I prefer to avoid in the first place,) when commenting on a video that swears more than any sailor on the open seas.

Now as I've said, I've been to some TRULY terrible forums (try to roleplay on the DragonCave forums, and have a good time without being a literary major.) and I doubt this will go any different than it ever does. Users will complain, but ultimately will do nothing and accept the rules as they are. You'll lose a few top posters if it gets real bad, a few oldies or just really invested people. You'll get people that'll leave because those people left. And so on and so forth until the ripples settle. Sadly, no one will really care. People will be upset, people may harbor resentment and grudges, but again, they'll complain but not really do anything about it. The site will continue to function, despite the loss of even the best member.

The staff will most likely do one of two things. They'll take all the criticism, defending their choices to the bone and doing their best to ease any discomfort people have, and then not change anything. Or they will cave and tell everyone that if they want it so specific, it will be, and the rules will either revert to the old ones or become so completely tight that no one enjoys posting here. (The users will respond as I've said above.) It's not that I have little faith in ya'll that you'll listen and adapt the rules as they're addressed, thats just how it works. It's basically like parenting. This thread, in my opinion, is like any other when the rules change. It's there to tell you that regardless of your reasons for hating it, the rules are here and you're just gonna have to get used to it.

It happens in just about every forum I've ever been too. What's happening now is an age old internet growing pain that happens whenever a community changes something. Smaller communities are usually torn apart when this happens (and most communities seem to go through these things in cycles,) with the members "for" ending up staying and the members "against" leaving to form their own boards, with both failing. It's basically "United we stand, divided we fall," on the internet. The good news is that such a community as this, so huge and constantly attracting new members, won't collapse from a few upset forum members.

This basically shows (not use it in a negative light,) what I mean:

You couldn't possibly be more wrong. That's because you're operating from the perspective of a viewer, and not the point of a content producer. We have a vast amount of information available on how content is doing, and we already know exactly how much that doesn't match up with what the comment threads look like. Here's some of the things we know about a video that you don't, for example:


How many views it gets.
How many unique users view it.
How much it costs to produce.
How much it costs to serve, in bandwidth.
How difficult the creator is to work with.
How much work our editors have to do per video.
What advertisers are interested in it.
What "industry" people think of it
How much traffic it gets outside our site (embedding, etc).
How well the ad units in the video perform.
How well the back catalog performs.
How much the staff like it.


Those statistics are far, far more important in determining the success of a show than forum comments. For example, a show that gets moderate traffic numbers but doesn't cost much, gets shared and embedded, pulls in new users, has above-average ad performance stats, and gets industry contacts fired up to work with us is one we'd consider to be doing well for us, and would be worth keeping around, even if the forums complain about it. I'll let you guess what show that was.

We see time and time again that some shows do well and get terrible comments, while other shows do poorly and get great ones. Why is that? Two reasons:


Once a forum thread turns negative, it stays negative, and the people who would say good things stay away to avoid being attacked.
People that complain about serial content frequently come back to do it again for each episode, repeating the cycle.
The people who comment on our forums represent .3% of the people that look at our content. That's not a typo, it's less than half of one percent.


What it comes down to is that the reason we don't need to see negative comments is because we can already see how well things perform based on hard numbers from our whole audience. The only thing the negative comments do is prevent a community of people that enjoy that content from building up around it. Because of that, we don't want them around here.

Like I said in my previous post on the topic: "If someone doesn't like a particular piece of content, they don't have to watch/read it." If you don't like something, accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, it's not for you, and let the other people who do enjoy it do so. If you do enjoy it but think some things could improve, then post away.

Not to sound rude, but this basically shows what most people in something like this knows. It's a numbers game, and we can be replaced Or (as shown in this case) not really much of a part of the equation. We could all post till we're blue in the face about not really caring for, say "I hit it with my axe," but if the numbers show otherwise, it won't matter if the entire forum hates it. It's the same with Television and movies. "Transformers II" and Justin Beiber will continue to exist even if there are lots of people against them, simply because the numbers show differently. If there's one thing I've learned about life from work, it's that you're really nothing special, and that your number and your contribution can be replaced almost instantaneously, now matter how great that contribution may be. And don't let this post fool you. I know full and well that applies to me and what I post here. I post this expecting that most will glance over it and it'll never be heard from again. Being just a number is the way our society works now, it's not just reserved for big unfeeling companies as it might have been in the fifties.

Now don't get me wrong, I love this place and it's one of the few communities I've felt at home and post at simply because I enjoy the people that post here. I really didn't notice any negative influence taking the site to the dark side, but then again I'm just one guy that only posts sporadically anyway. I've never been moderated here and I hope I don't get moderated. But even in the worst places of the net, I've never posted with a fear of "I don't want to be banned." I won't ever let someone have a position of power (note: not authority) over me because they control something I like. It's served me well so far because most people understand that I respect them, and usually they respect me for it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as a human, because I know that even the most terrible people have hearts and are usually just human. It's served me well on other boards and this one as well, and I'm not going to change now. It's basically the same for the forum. Nothing is really going to change, the mods will moderate as they always have. The site will function and survive no matter how many people we lose along the way. The users will post as they always have, and the rules will be what they are now no matter how many are against it. It's happened a hundred times before on hundreds of other websites, and it'll happen again on this one.

 

[CosmicCommander]

Well this means that half of the people that go to the Religion/Politics section will most likely be banned.

And good riddance.

I concur. So many passive-aggressive asses on there.

Anyway, the new rules seem good- I was getting annoyed with all of the anger here.

 

[Exosus]

Secondly, yes most of us know how things are handled in other forums and that the Escapist is far less lenient in some regards. We like it that way. Different doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as bad. What exactly would be better about this board if we were to remove those restrictions, Dr. Freeman? Can you name even one thing?

Having freer rules would create more open discussion with less fear of moderator reprisal. I personally avoid all spirited debate entirely when it takes place on Escapist because I know that it will only end with me getting suspended (like it always does). I find it doubtful in the extreme that I'm the only one who feels hemmed in with regard to the rhetorical tactics employed by the rule-bound nature of this place. Free speech is it's own reward, and just because you have the right to restrict something doesn't mean you should.

 

[DeadpanLunatic]

I have removed my words from this site.

 

[AbyssalSanhedrin]

Secondly, yes most of us know how things are handled in other forums and that the Escapist is far less lenient in some regards. We like it that way. Different doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as bad. What exactly would be better about this board if we were to remove those restrictions, Dr. Freeman? Can you name even one thing?

Having freer rules would create more open discussion with less fear of moderator reprisal. I personally avoid all spirited debate entirely when it takes place on Escapist because I know that it will only end with me getting suspended (like it always does). I find it doubtful in the extreme that I'm the only one who feels hemmed in with regard to the rhetorical tactics employed by the rule-bound nature of this place. Free speech is it's own reward, and just because you have the right to restrict something doesn't mean you should.

Despite my lowly join-date and post count I've been around these forums for far longer than most and I agree with this. I would never dare enter a serious discussion here for for of seemingly arbitrary moderation. The age restriction of 13 for a website/forum based around media that is often rated 15 (UK) or higher seems counter-productive. You advertise and advocate adult media every day yet penalize people for humourous but adult themed content all the time (I believe it was SwollenGoat who made a comment about blowjobs that got him/her warned, but it was next to a glowing "overview" of CoD Black Ops, an "adult" game). The whole thing seems hypocritical and mis-managed at every level. Don't even get me started on "You'll be probation-ed for criticising ANYTHING we do".

In eager anticipation of my suspension...

Abyssal...

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Secondly, yes most of us know how things are handled in other forums and that the Escapist is far less lenient in some regards. We like it that way. Different doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as bad. What exactly would be better about this board if we were to remove those restrictions, Dr. Freeman? Can you name even one thing?

Having freer rules would create more open discussion with less fear of moderator reprisal. I personally avoid all spirited debate entirely when it takes place on Escapist because I know that it will only end with me getting suspended (like it always does). I find it doubtful in the extreme that I'm the only one who feels hemmed in with regard to the rhetorical tactics employed by the rule-bound nature of this place. Free speech is it's own reward, and just because you have the right to restrict something doesn't mean you should.

Despite my lowly join-date and post count I've been around these forums for far longer than most and I agree with this. I would never dare enter a serious discussion here for for of seemingly arbitrary moderation. The age restriction of 13 for a website/forum based around media that is often rated 15 (UK) or higher seems counter-productive. You advertise and advocate adult media every day yet penalize people for humourous but adult themed content all the time (I believe it was SwollenGoat who made a comment about blowjobs that got him/her warned, but it was next to a glowing "overview" of CoD Black Ops, an "adult" game). The whole thing seems hypocritical and mis-managed at every level. Don't even get me started on "You'll be probation-ed for criticising ANYTHING we do".

In eager anticipation of my suspension...

Abyssal...

You're not gonna get a suspension for that. Ever. You're assuming that the moderators are dictator like people who punish everything that offends them. This assumption is widely false.

The use of adult themes differ. Black Ops is a mature rated game, but it isn't porn. There is a major difference between the two. The moderators don't allow us to talk about any game that is rated Mature (especially one as popular as Black Ops), but they won't condone things such as flaming or sexually explicit material. You won't get probation for criticizing either. You'll get probation for flaming.

Saying "You fucking stupid" is flaming. Saying "I don't agree with you and here is why...' is still arguing, but is a very calm and controlled way of doing it.

 

[AbyssalSanhedrin]

Despite my lowly join-date and post count I've been around these forums for far longer than most and I agree with this. I would never dare enter a serious discussion here for for of seemingly arbitrary moderation. The age restriction of 13 for a website/forum based around media that is often rated 15 (UK) or higher seems counter-productive. You advertise and advocate adult media every day yet penalize people for humourous but adult themed content all the time (I believe it was SwollenGoat who made a comment about blowjobs that got him/her warned, but it was next to a glowing "overview" of CoD Black Ops, an "adult" game). The whole thing seems hypocritical and mis-managed at every level. Don't even get me started on "You'll be probation-ed for criticising ANYTHING we do".

In eager anticipation of my suspension...

Abyssal...

You're not gonna get a suspension for that. Ever. You're assuming that the moderators are dictator like people who punish everything that offends them. This assumption is widely false.

The use of adult themes differ. Black Ops is a mature rated game, but it isn't porn. There is a major difference between the two. The moderators don't allow us to talk about any game that is rated Mature (especially one as popular as Black Ops), but they won't condone things such as flaming or sexually explicit material. You won't get probation for criticizing either. You'll get probation for flaming.

Saying "You fucking stupid" is flaming. Saying "I don't agree with you and here is why...' is still arguing, but is a very calm and controlled way of doing it.

Of course, but when a deliberately worded thread title is presented (specifically aimed at other male users no less) regarding what most teenage boys want from their girlfriends at christmas who wouldn't predict something sexual to arise eventually, especially given the psuedo-wordly cynicism that is so prevalent here. How can one advocate casual, random, age-restricted, albeit simulated violence to 13 year-olds yet decry normal, consensual (provided they are of age) acts of sexuality? Banning sexual content yet being a conduit of and for violent content just seems like a double standard to me.

Both of these things are a part of the real world and if a supposedly "mature" community cannot discuss them equally then true freedom of expression can never be attained. Add to that an ostensibly arbitrary, case-by-case style of moderation and I stand by my original statement, I will never argue seriously any topic (with the exception of this one) on these boards because I just don't know where I stand and will be reduced to the same smug, self-satisfied yet deliberately vague wisecracking that plagues these forums.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Despite my lowly join-date and post count I've been around these forums for far longer than most and I agree with this. I would never dare enter a serious discussion here for for of seemingly arbitrary moderation. The age restriction of 13 for a website/forum based around media that is often rated 15 (UK) or higher seems counter-productive. You advertise and advocate adult media every day yet penalize people for humourous but adult themed content all the time (I believe it was SwollenGoat who made a comment about blowjobs that got him/her warned, but it was next to a glowing "overview" of CoD Black Ops, an "adult" game). The whole thing seems hypocritical and mis-managed at every level. Don't even get me started on "You'll be probation-ed for criticising ANYTHING we do".

In eager anticipation of my suspension...

Abyssal...

You're not gonna get a suspension for that. Ever. You're assuming that the moderators are dictator like people who punish everything that offends them. This assumption is widely false.

The use of adult themes differ. Black Ops is a mature rated game, but it isn't porn. There is a major difference between the two. The moderators don't allow us to talk about any game that is rated Mature (especially one as popular as Black Ops), but they won't condone things such as flaming or sexually explicit material. You won't get probation for criticizing either. You'll get probation for flaming.

Saying "You fucking stupid" is flaming. Saying "I don't agree with you and here is why...' is still arguing, but is a very calm and controlled way of doing it.

Of course, but when a deliberately worded thread title is presented (specifically aimed at other male users no less) regarding what most teenage boys want from their girlfriends at christmas who wouldn't predict something sexual to arise eventually, especially given the psuedo-wordly cynicism that is so prevalent here. How can one advocate casual, random, age-restricted, albeit simulated violence to 13 year-olds yet decry normal, consensual (provided they are of age) acts of sexuality? Banning sexual content yet being a conduit of and for violent content just seems like a double standard to me.

Both of these things are a part of the real world and if a supposedly "mature" community cannot discuss them equally then true freedom of expression can never be attained. Add to that an ostensibly arbitrary, case-by-case style of moderation and I stand by my original statement, I will never argue seriously any topic (with the exception of this one) on these boards because I just don't know where I stand and will be reduced to the same smug, self-satisfied yet deliberately vague wisecracking that plagues these forums.

Every government in the United States,England, Canada and several other countries of importance judge sexual content to be worst then violence. That is why porn is not allowed to be sold to minors, but a vendor can sell tickets to the latest slasher film to a dad and his 12 year old child. The snarky responses you see are based solely off of immature users, so you're not gonna be seeing me shed a tear for them if they get punished. This is a forum based on a company who makes an online video game magazine. We wouldn't condone threats of violence against other people, but there is nothing wrong with discussing violence that occurred in a virtual world. It doesn't harm anyone and it most certainly should be free to talk about. Besides, Sex is often talked about on these boards. The problem is the few young immature users who come in and ruin it for everyone.

The site has a 13 minimum age to join. That doesn't mean the content is restricted to PG-13, it means the site is restricted to anyone under 13.

 

[Marik2]

I concur. So many passive-aggressive asses on there.

Anyway, the new rules seem good- I was getting annoyed with all of the anger here.

If you slip up once in some source 5 people will quote you and tear you to pieces by using smartass arguments.

And yes I was tired of all the anger of "I lost faith in humanity" threads.

 

[Exosus]

Likewise, the mere fact that there's some restrictions you could lift doesn't necessarily make it a good idea either. Honestly I am a bit puzzled as to how exactly you feel your freedom of speech limited on here, as only the most bizzarely distasteful and explicit topics are outright banned for discussion. In all other instances, it's ultimately a question of how you handle the subject. Are you going to tell me that you lament the fact you're not allowed to personally attack other users because of their viewpoints or opinions? Or use bad language in extreme quantities? Or crack hugely disrespectful jokes? Because those are really the only things I have ever seen people being punished for in discussions. I'm not familiar with the nature of your supposed crimes so I'm erring on the side of caution. At any rate it would be interesting to know just what "rhetorical tactics" you feel hemmed about using. Call me prejudiced, but since the most basic guideline in our code of conduct is "Don't be a jerk", and you're showing a fairly fundamental aversion towards it, I have this idea in my head about the kind of behaviour you'd like to see officially sanctioned.

You were wise to err on the side of caution. I'm not going to start listing off things that have gotten me probation (because the last time I did that I got probation) but let us suffice to say these are the sorts of things I would and have said to my grandmother without her being in any way hurt or offended. Basically anything which takes a hard line on any issue (especially a controversial issue on which the notoriously-liberal Escapist holds a fairly unified opinion) and defends it with enough passion to rouse so much as a whimper of reciprocal interest has gotten me probation in the past. That's why I have such an anemic post count in relation to my time here - when you have a 1:5-1:10 probationost ratio you eventually get tired of it. The only time I post now is when I see something in the sidebar when I come here to watch a video and can be certain it isn't interesting enough for the mods to kill.

As to the kind of speech I'm suggesting, forums I've run in the past had only one rule: Nothing which breaks American law. So all that other speech? Yeah, that's the kind of speech I'm suggesting.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

i'd still like to know what changed...

 

[maddawg IAJI]

i'd still like to know what changed...

Nothing really and if you read through the thread you would see that question has already been answered.

They didn't change the rules, they updated them to prevent loopholes. Nothing on that list is new or intended to be new. Even the 'Don't be a jerk' rule has always been used by Moderators.

Likewise, the mere fact that there's some restrictions you could lift doesn't necessarily make it a good idea either. Honestly I am a bit puzzled as to how exactly you feel your freedom of speech limited on here, as only the most bizzarely distasteful and explicit topics are outright banned for discussion. In all other instances, it's ultimately a question of how you handle the subject. Are you going to tell me that you lament the fact you're not allowed to personally attack other users because of their viewpoints or opinions? Or use bad language in extreme quantities? Or crack hugely disrespectful jokes? Because those are really the only things I have ever seen people being punished for in discussions. I'm not familiar with the nature of your supposed crimes so I'm erring on the side of caution. At any rate it would be interesting to know just what "rhetorical tactics" you feel hemmed about using. Call me prejudiced, but since the most basic guideline in our code of conduct is "Don't be a jerk", and you're showing a fairly fundamental aversion towards it, I have this idea in my head about the kind of behaviour you'd like to see officially sanctioned.

You were wise to err on the side of caution. I'm not going to start listing off things that have gotten me probation (because the last time I did that I got probation) but let us suffice to say these are the sorts of things I would and have said to my grandmother without her being in any way hurt or offended. Basically anything which takes a hard line on any issue (especially a controversial issue on which the notoriously-liberal Escapist holds a fairly unified opinion) and defends it with enough passion to rouse so much as a whimper of reciprocal interest has gotten me probation in the past. That's why I have such an anemic post count in relation to my time here - when you have a 1:5-1:10 probationost ratio you eventually get tired of it. The only time I post now is when I see something in the sidebar when I come here to watch a video and can be certain it isn't interesting enough for the mods to kill.

As to the kind of speech I'm suggesting, forums I've run in the past had only one rule: Nothing which breaks American law. So all that other speech? Yeah, that's the kind of speech I'm suggesting.

The Escapist moderators will not punish you for an opinion. They will punish you if you add flames to that opinion. If you see a smartass comment someone made regarding your opinion, report it. Don't feed it.

I've been to other forums, the moderator teams on a lot of them don't work that well and will only punish the ones who do extreme trolling (I.E. posting gore pictures or porn). I'd rather have the moderators who actually stick to their guns to those who just let the forum burn.