Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules

[ZippyDSMlee]

snip

Through the zippy filter

1.Don't be a jerk, kinda obvious,kinda not. Wit can make jerkyness fun for all.

2.I say ignore the person respect the post and make valid(keeping to the post within the scope of the threads topic) counter arguments to it.

3.Ignore, 1 and 2 apply to the staff as much as any user. Tho over emphasizing don't be a jerk to the staff or writers might be needed.

4.Mmmmmmmm ignore 1 and 2 kinda enforce some effort in most posts.

5.Er stay in/on topic? Keep new topics within the scope and feel of what the community and staff feel comfortable with discussing. USE SEARCH FOR CHRIST SAKE BEFORE YOU MAKE A NEW POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Marik2]

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

And good riddance.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

I think you just shouldn't call people names. Should be fine then.

See it's just not that easy. There are quite a few weasel words on this website that are used to mean a more serious insult. For example calling someone 'ignorant', is that an insult? Because it's not like it's often used correctly on here, it's used as an underhanded stand in for something else.

I mean, 'don't be a jerk' is a nice idea but you have a wide range of people here from all over the world and with differing levels of...well...social ability. I'm willing to bet that we have different ideas of what being a dick is.

If you're not quite certain if something is gonna sound dickish I think it's a safe bet that it should not be posted.
And people may very well have different interpretations of jerk, but that doesn't matter. It's up to the site/mods to say if something is jerkish, as far as I care at least. If someone lack social ability, as you put it, then he or she should perhaps, in deference to that, take care when wording a post. It's perfectly possible to write something without crossing any lines. Politeness costs nothing.

When in doubt, don't post.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Example 1: someone says something that I legitimately consider to be stupid. Not lacking in data, not overlooking a school of thought, but genuinely stupid. That person is being rude to people in a passive aggressive way. I call them an idiot.

Who's the dick?

You are. There's a difference between ignorance and irritability. If someone honestly doesn't know something, calling someone an idiot for their lack of knowledge is rude. Lacking knowledge isn't.

Example 2: In every thread involving transexuality on this website there will be quite a few people who don't know much about it. They'll be invited to ask questions, but if they ask what is deemed to be 'the wrong question' they'll be called ignorant. Now where I come from calling someone ignorant is a slightly more passive aggressive way of calling them stupid. Since this isn't real ignorance and is closer to lacking specialised knowledge, but the other person was insulted and called the guy out...

Who's the dick?

Depends on the context of the wording. Debate happens all of the time of the forums. Whether or not it's disrespectful will depend entirely on the language.

Example 3: Misanthropes, dicks or legitimate philosophers?

Persons. Wording is key.

Example 4: Calling someone a troll for disagreeing with you, the work of a dick?

Calling someone a troll for any reason. One can easily report and say nothing. Actually making an effort to post to insult, demean, or aggressively address is a way of bringing down the site. If you really want to take an active stance, PM a mod. Starting an argument on a thread, intentionally or otherwise, will just get you reported along with the person whose being called a troll.

 

[Lightnr]

The main thing that have been making the forums a much "less inviting place to be" are the mods themselves!!! Hear me out. Every time I see someone is placed on probation I click to see why, and 8 out of 10 times its because they said something witty and funny, the other 2 out of 10 times they said something racist/immature/etc. and deserve the probation.

This is absolutely ridiculous, and personally I have stopped posting or reading anything here. The only reason I come is for the videos, which are exactly that: witty and funny. I feel like this has become a community of loosers who can't handle any humor and cannot laugh at themselves. God forbid someone writes something funny and the mods don't swoop in to ban them in time to prevent the fragile original poster's eyes from reading it and maybe thinking ONE person didn't take their depressing topic that seriously and tried to inject some humor into the discussion.

The organizers of this forum need to realize that its not JUST about the OP of a thread but about the readers too, and not moderate so that only suck ups who know what is expected and post only that get protected because that creates really bland threads.

I enjoy a well formulated an perfectly OK joke sometimes.
EXAMPLE:
OP: I am upset about XXX and dont know what to do.
poster A: Well, ---> PLACED ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST
poster B: Ohhh yea I totally sympathize, in fact I'd be upset too, id be so upset id -----> OK post.
WTF!!!



I have been on probation once but for a totally different reason so this is NOT a rant because I am bitter about that. If I was I'd be speaking with the mods.

 

[ProtoChimp]

Here is the only thread to be allowed to discuss the new forum rules.

FAQ:
Q: QQ

A: We know.

Q: No really. QQ! I'm crying and complaining! Get it? Two Q's look like crying eyes?!

A: Yes, we get it.

Q: Why do we need new rules?

A: Because the forums had been slowly becoming a less inviting place to be. The new rules are in place to provide tools to the mods to allow them to get rid of the jerks and keep you nice people!

Q: What about the posts made BEFORE the new rules went live?

A: Those posts will be judged under the old Posting Guidelines. You will not be judged under the new rules until you have posted after the new rules went live.

This seems like as good a time as ever to ask these questions.

1) How little content on a post can there be without getting in trouble?

2) Does it not count if a picture has words on it already or does that still count as low content?

3) If you get a warning are you no longer eligible for matrix badges?

 

[Sevre]

Hopefully this'll clear things up a bit. Feel free to ask questions to us so we can clarify things.

Further, discussions instructing or otherwise advocating the circumvention of The Escapist's advertisements, security mechanisms, media protections or similar facilities will not be tolerated.

That'll clear up the Adblock confusion of late.

Similarly, posts including, advocating, or linking to illegal or adult material are a very quick way to end your time as part of The Escapist community.

That should clear up our Piracy policy.

~Sev

 

[moretimethansense]

Regarding short posts, What if I make my point succinctly; do I need to make pointless filler to expand my word count despite the fact that what I intended to say was already said within the first few words of the post?
Do I need to keep writing to avoid wrath about short posts?
Is there an arbitrary minimum?
Must I reiterate my point without cause or reason when my point could have been made with a simple:
"Regarding short posts, What if I make my point succinctly?"

Because as I have demonstrated here all that does is arbitrarily force me to add pointless words where a single sentence would have sufficed.

After all all this seems to do is expand post size without increasing the quality of content.

I mean look at all that up there was any of that really necessary?

My question was asked within the first sentence and right now all I'm doing is nailing the point home for no reason beyond fear of reprisal.

After all my post looks like a long thought out question but at this point it's almost an example of passive aggression.

If I do this it makes it more likely that someone may ignore the point I am trying to make and attack the way I'm making it.

I wonder, how long I could make this post before someone complained in writing?

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I have a question: What are the rules on talking about piracy?

The old rules (and from what I see, the new rules too) simply say to not link to a pirating site, or to support it.

But during the regime of the old rules, people got mod-wrathed for simply admitting to piracy.

So, mind explaining?

 

[lacktheknack]

Woah there, what new rules?
They seem a bit... vague & subjective.

Is your post dedicated to making someone else feel like crap?

Then you're being a jerk. You'll know it when you see it.

Or maybe he's just pointing out what he believes to be a flaw in the rules, in other words constructive criticism.

To be the first to quote the new guidelines:

Constructive criticism is welcomed; negativity for its own sake is not.

That's true. I'm fairly sure that the rules aren't nearly as subjective as he thinks they are, though.

 

[Kuliani]

Here is the only thread to be allowed to discuss the new forum rules.

FAQ:
Q: QQ

A: We know.

Q: No really. QQ! I'm crying and complaining! Get it? Two Q's look like crying eyes?!

A: Yes, we get it.

Q: Why do we need new rules?

A: Because the forums had been slowly becoming a less inviting place to be. The new rules are in place to provide tools to the mods to allow them to get rid of the jerks and keep you nice people!

Q: What about the posts made BEFORE the new rules went live?

A: Those posts will be judged under the old Posting Guidelines. You will not be judged under the new rules until you have posted after the new rules went live.

This seems like as good a time as ever to ask these questions.

1) How little content on a post can there be without getting in trouble?

2) Does it not count if a picture has words on it already or does that still count as low content?

3) If you get a warning are you no longer eligible for matrix badges?

1. That is subjective to the actual post.

2. A picture is low content.

3. Warnings do not count against you for the Neo-line of badges.