I don't like them, in fact when I saw it I thought back to the previous thread NewClassic had originally created and seem to recall people asking for more structure within the rule system, as it stands these seem to based on circumstance that there's little structure at all. In fact it all appear, at a glance, to attempt to stream any negativity from the forum at all - which just won't happen; at the end of the day a forum is a place for people to discuss various topics; obviously at some point those topics are going to spill out into flaming at some point - it's inevitable and no amount of rules will change that. In fact negativity can still create an interesting discussion; if someone claims they enjoy something, and others agree, but a third party comes into the thread and claims otherwise, would that be classified as "being a jerk"? Such a point is so subjective and based entirely around the forum moderators interpretation of the post [which, as was stated in the previous thread, they don't always gain full insight into the context] that it seems such a strange decision to make it the lead of the new forum rules. Sarcasm, for example, can be read differently by different people - mis-understanding of context shouldn't be a bannable offense...Furrthumore, such a rule just allows a repeat of the original Ad Block bannings, for which a user is banned without justification within the rules, because, as the rules say themselves, it covers all "loop-holes" meaning it has the potential to mean anything.
"Don't troll" was simple, easy to understand, being a jerk; depending on your subjective viewpoint can be anything - from the aforementioned example, to arguing a point against someone else; a forum needn't be overly-wary of its forum content unless it's catering to a younger audience; I hope, and assume, this is not The Escapist's intention [especially with the introduction of "Put Some Effort Into Your Communication") so why the need to treat the communities communication so warily?
How can you expect people to argue reasonably with the introduction of "Have Respect for Others"? I understand the points made, but the wording implies people are unable to attack a persons viewpoint on the matter, which is the whole point of a forum in the first place; sharing alternate views on the subjective; often through combating with another viewpoint. Similarly, "Have Respect for the Site and its Content" just seems like The Escapist disliking the notion people might post negative comments on its content pages - I saw a similar occurrence on Destructoid recently; a news post in which the "reporter" "comically" interviewed the creator of Tetris; the community responded angrily, as they felt the content was poor, and lacked any depth or interest - an interesting discussion was formed, with people asking the content creator to change their style of video. It also seems unfair to enforce this rule when some content creators, MovieBob for example, have questioned the viewers tastes in film in a way that, under this new legislation, would see them banned if it was in text form.
"Put Some Effort Into Your Communication" is fine, though I preferred the previous wording on the statement, but the thought process is still the same. As is "Use Our Forums Appropriately" though I would ask if this extends to linking to users own reviews within the User Reviews section in other threads or is it entirely based around external sources?
