Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules

[Jim-a-Lim]

Wait what? people are "QQ"ing over not being able to specifically be jerks to others on the site anymore? Get over it the muppets, they should have better things to do with their time and if they don't there are plenty of other places to be a pita. I love idea for the new rules, good call guys.

 

[Erana]

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

Well, yes, its vague, but people for the most part should have an idea of what not to post. I generally trust their judgement, and the Escapist having the rules be more subjective leaves fewer people trying to justify being inappropriate through loopholes.

It also leaves me uncomfortable, not knowing what I can & can't post.

And I have to type out filler now, seeing as the low-content rule has been expanded so I can't just write a single sentence in a post, despite that being all I want to say.

Well, why not elaborate on the sentiment you intended to share? I mean, I know you're not stupid. There's plenty of thought behind the single sentence you've arrived at that you could use.

And with jokes being the single sentence, if they're not completely obscene, go ahead and post them. Make it an addition to a serious contribution if it wouldn't ruin what you're trying to say.
Unless the entire thing's a lighthearted, ludicrous thread in the first place. The rules are generally more lax in such situations, but I think "Silly threads" should be addressed in the rules. I mean, they're always gonna show up at times, and they don't always meet up to the Escapist standard of post content, but they can be genuinely enjoyable and true to the Escapist's spirit.
Let's make sure to not wind up inadvertently outlawing these.

 

[Sevre]

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?

Low content generally means posts like 'lol', 'this', 'first!' and image only posts. If you can sum up your opinion in one sentence then by all means go ahead.

 

[Nerf Ninja]

pretty much off topic but...

There are obviously some mods in here and something that has only recently been noticed by myself is that mods have a different coloured name. Being colourblind I never even noticed before, is it possible that mods could have a more contrasting name for us poor unfortunate souls whose eyesight is a bit poo?

 

[moretimethansense]

Snip

Low content generally means posts like 'lol', 'this', 'first!' and image only posts. If you can sum up your opinion in one sentence then by all means go ahead.

Well that's good to know,
Also what is the policy about piracy?

Obviously linking to Torrents/Cracking sites are right out but what else would result in mod reprisal?

 

[Mechsoap]

how short is an comment allowed to be?

 

[moretimethansense]

how short is an comment allowed to be?

Direct thine gaze gaze upwards. ^-^

 

[Sevre]

Snip

Low content generally means posts like 'lol', 'this', 'first!' and image only posts. If you can sum up your opinion in one sentence then by all means go ahead.

Well that's good to know,
Also what is the policy about piracy?

Obviously linking to Torrents/Cracking sites are right out but what else would result in mod reprisal?

Scroll up to the top of this page, I answered it there

~Sev

 

[teutonicman]

I always thought what was stated in the new rules update was understood with out having to be said? Or is the purpose of this update just to finally put it in black and white?

 

[Wintermoot]

where can I find the new rules? or ALL of the rules at all for some reason I got a suspension for a rule I didnt know existed (untill I got the probation message)

 

[oppp7]

Goddammit, I have to READ something? You guys know how much I hate that, yet you still go ahead and do this...

OT in the edit.

Edit: You added grammar to them? I really don't see any difference aside from the list being smaller.

 

[Mechsoap]

how short is an comment allowed to be?

Direct thine gaze gaze upwards. ^-^

i feel ashamed of myself now...

 

[Nerf Ninja]

Scroll up to the top of this page, I answered it there

~Sev

So for example, in a thread with regards to piracy if someone was to say that they agreed with piracy even if they themselves never pirated, that would be a bannable offence?

Also, not to be a dick but the wording kind of implies that saying you like porn would be a bannable offence

The problem with a vague rule is that people want to know the specifics.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

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!

I appreciate this, as I'm sure everyone who has ever formed a reasoned, and well thought argument only to be referred to as a string of expletives in return.

OT: I kind of assumed that these were the rules already. It's sad that people need to be told to act like adults.

 

[VulakAerr]

I've always found it fairly easy to disagree with somebody on the Escapist forums. I don't think you necessarily have to avoid disagreeing with anybody, even a mod. It's your tone and content that are critical. If you disagree with somebody's viewpoints then is it really too difficult to explain why?

I have noticed lately that people's tone seems to be becoming more and more short-tempered. I'm glad the rules are changing so hopefully we can reverse the admittedly slow descent.

 

[Space Spoons]

Sounds good to me, chief. I'm glad to see that steps are being taken to reign in some of the vitriol, but man, it's kind of disappointing that those steps need to be taken in the first place. Being civil, even on a videogame forum, is not some complicated thing.

 

[moretimethansense]

Snip

Low content generally means posts like 'lol', 'this', 'first!' and image only posts. If you can sum up your opinion in one sentence then by all means go ahead.

Well that's good to know,
Also what is the policy about piracy?

Obviously linking to Torrents/Cracking sites are right out but what else would result in mod reprisal?

Scroll up to the top of this page, I answered it there

~Sev

including, advocating, or linking to illegal or adult material

OK that's mostly clear but

What about admitting to piracy hypothetically? since it neither "including or linking" to
Piracy and isn't necessarily Advocating it either.

Also on a less serious note does that mean we're not allowed to advocate porn? Cause I think I may have broke that a couple of times since the new rules came in already.

EDITED for atrocious misspellings and typos