Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules

[Xpwn3ntial]

Alright. These rules should be pretty easy to follow, most things considered.
I appreciate this site progressing with the times.

 

[Giest4life]

I'm all for civility, don't get me wrong. But the larger the pool of Escapist grows, the larger the chances some jerks will fall into it. I'm glad you guys are modifying the rules a bit, foolish though it may be.

 

[Irridium]

[HEADING=2]Have Respect for the Site and its Content[/HEADING]

We put a lot of work into the content on the site, and if you've just shown up to trample on that hard work, we will remove your comments and ask you to leave. Constructive criticism is welcomed; negativity for its own sake is not.

Thats the one part I have an issue with. The way its worded, it seems that unless we say we like the show/article/whatever or offer advice on how to improve it, we can't say anything. That does not sound good. At all. Its putting down a lot of people's opinion because you don't want people to say bad things about the particular piece of content. I don't have much of a problem with getting rid of people who constantly insult it and/or the creator, but if I was new, said I didn't like something, then had the comment removed, it would seem like you ban any form of negative opinion. I shouldn't really have to explain how that would push people away from the site and its content.

Yes you do provide free content. But just because its free doesn't mean it shouldn't be subjected to the same amount of love and hate as everything else.

 

[DuplicateValue]

Well I'm pretty indifferent to these - I usually just let my own morals judge if my post is okay, and it's seemed to work for me until now.

I've only been put on probation twice, and I know I deserved it both times.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

That's the problem, there's a whole lot there that's context reliant and down to the moderator to decide on.

The simple fact is the more clearly black-and-white a rule becomes, the more loopholes a rule has. The suggestion "Do not link piracy," can be circumvented by "There is a website found at website dot com for this material." Then if you say "You can not directly send a user to any piracy website," then they can post a link on their twitter/blog, and tie it to their Escapist Profile, and direct people to the links on their profile. By the time you've addressed every loophole, you end up with some vague and indistinct version of legalese which is nigh impenetrable to the common reader. It may look something like "In no event can a user on this website, or its host media company's network, act in any way, shape, form, or fashion, through any information on this site or its sister sites, directly or indirectly, use that information to transmit, share, or network any illegal materials as outlined by both United States and local law, regardless of intent, purpose, or methodology. This limitation also applies to communication mediums in which this site is tied, which may include, but is not restricted to, AIM, MSN, Yahoo! Messenger, IRC, ICQ, Skype, Steam, or Meebo...." and on and on and on...

Part of the solution is to have an open set of rules. This keeps things relatively simple and concise. Extra detailing will produce further clouded language, and even though the wording of the rule might be precise down to the very letter, the meaning will likely be lost for a majority of users. Even in those with the pre-requisite ability to refine the language into something coherent, there's still the application of the rule being specific to scenarios. It's why American court cases often need precedents in order to apply a law to a different crime. Instead, what we have are more simple, much more understandable rules.

As for the application, that has to rely on the capability of the Mods. The mods are monitored for good behavior and proper application of Moderation, the standards here are more unified, and if all goes wrong, there are contact forms in which mistakes of these sort can be reported, identified, and addressed.

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

The best move is to not bring it up. There are very, very few situations in which it's necessary for the topic to even be broached. If it is in context of a discussion, then one shouldn't admit to, endorse, or encourage piracy. Although it really is better just to avoid bringing it up.

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.

This addresses a large majority of your post, so I'm going to address it and hope I cover a pretty wide base...

The problem with negativity is it contributes nothing. A good, solid negative post will generate either an argument or a discussion. Oftentimes, the discussion will be hostile in the worst, or at least slightly aggressive if it goes to the hostility route. This is not the sort of way a discussion needs to be held. Dissenting opinions and disrespect can be mutually exclusive. Most times, a person trains themselves into a habit of being inflammatory, there's very little natural tendency to insult at available opportunities.

The practical advice is actually to let a topic run its course without feeling the need to influence it for better or worse by flaming. As a function of a forum, the responder has all the time in the world to compose their thoughts, carefully consider their response, and politely state their points. Or neutrally state their points. Or aggressively state their points. However, regardless of how the points are stated, there was the same amount of time given to the poster in question.

Even if the inclination to flame is instant and "necessary," it can be ignored. It is possible to simply not post in a thread. A discussion can go unremarked upon. It's not unheard of, it's happened to nearly every poster here before, and will likely happen again in the future. The burden of responsibility, at some point, has to fall on the person writing the post. We can't make anyone not do something, but we can put a rule in place to prevent every single thread from devolving into an argument.

As GoldenEyes said, anyone can post in a calm, clear manner without aggression. You've proved that with this very post.

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?

Hm... Definitely context sensitive. Posting a review in a thread asking about "How is this game?" is fine, whereas posting a link in "Do you like rabbits?" is likely not the best idea. Context is key. When in doubt, feel free to PM someone.

I hope that if we do get punished for what we feel was an unfair reason, we can still bring our case before the site mods and try to show our point of view. That way this site doesn't turn into some authoritarian place where disagreeing (with the site or others) is strictly forbidden, no matter how reasonable the disagreement.

Yep. There's a contact form for that very reason, not to mention the PM system, which can always be used.

To what extent are we allowed to lable the stupidity of a post/poster?

Better if you don't. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean it's necessary to call them names. Pointing out errors is more effective than saying "You're stupid" in any case.

I'm pretty out of my scope to answer this one. It's a question for Kuliani.

If I say a show is "stupid, boring pandering horseshit" will I face mod wrath for something like that?

Yep, pretty much.

Yes you do provide free content. But just because its free doesn't mean it shouldn't be subjected to the same amount of love and hate as everything else.

Take the other part of that statement, being "negativity for its own sake is not." One can say "I don't really like that show" without being negative. Saying "This show sucks." is, but less so if it's stated "This show sucks because..."

Being negative is ill-advised, in any given situation, but it's not necessarily a bad thing to simply state an alternative decision. The more negative you are, the more likely you are to be offensive, the less likable you seem to other posters, the more reports you're likely to receive. And so on.

But yeah, dislike a show all you want. Just, as per rule one, don't be a jerk about it.

I don't want to quit this site but I also don't want to be probated any time I make a joke or act like a fool. It's just a websites forums, I mean if I went out right and told someone to fuck off for no reason that's being a jerk. But screwing around a bit is not being a jerk at all.

It's all about context. Making a joke of even potentially crude humor might be enough to make someone's bad day worse. How one can act with one's friends isn't always the same as how one can act around strangers. I wouldn't want to spend my time off being called a terrible person in real life, why would we want to allow it on the forums?

Jokes don't have to be inflammatory. And if it's the case that they can be, then save them for someone who definitely won't be offended.

 

[Internet Kraken]

-snip-

You lied to me.

When I raised concerns about the Escapist moderation, you said you were working on it. You said that you were going to improve the rules. That you were going to improve moderation. And I believed you.

But this? This is the exact opposite of improvement. This is a step backwards. This is ridiculous. Giving mods free reign to delete any post they want? Yeah, that's horrible. How can you expect the community to understand your moderation when you just remove anything you dislike? This wouldn't accomplish anything other than allow the Escapist to bury comments they don't approve of, not because they harm the community but because they are against the sites content.

All these new rules do is take all the problems I had with moderation and make them acceptable in the Escapist's eyes. You haven't improved the forum rules. You've used them to justify bad moderation. As someone who has been using this site for over a year and has paid for the publisher's club, I feel betrayed.

 

[Ewyx]

Hmm... if I understand correctly, we shouldn't promote illegal behavior. That means any piracy related thread will either be completely one sided?

Or does this mean the end of those stupid threads?

 

[Actual]

Beware of using sarcasm. The mods sometimes don't like it. That or I'm just an ass.... maybe both.

You were probo'd for posting on the Advice forum. The mods there are hardline; if you're not being ultra nice you get probation.

I've been told by a 'blue' mod that it's because the advice forum is new and attracts trolls that they're just going to stamp on every potential troll until the forum settles down.

Personally I think the advice forum needs to be destroyed and anyone who makes a teen angst advice seeking thread has it hidden and themselves given a warning.

But I understand the forum was made to keep those tween-attention seekers away from the general populace.

EDIT: On topic; the rules seem very common sense. However there is a lot of room for interpretation, as such they can't be judged until we see them in action, see how the mods apply them.

In theory these rules could be used to ban everyone who doesn't agree with the mods.

With sensible application they will make the forum a better place.

I do hope they start correcting, or issuing warnings for spelling and grammar.

 

[delet]

You were probo'd for posting on the Advice forum. The mods there are hardline; if you're not being ultra nice you get probation.

I've been told by a 'blue' mod that it's because the advice forum is new and attracts trolls that they're just going to stamp on every potential troll until the forum settles down.

Personally I think the advice forum needs to be destroyed and anyone who makes a teen angst advice seeking thread has it hidden and themselves given a warning.

But I understand the forum was made to keep those tween-attention seekers away from the general populace.

Speaking of, wasn't the purpose of the Advice Forum to get all those threads off the front page? I thought it was going to work a lot like the Religion & Politics board in that I pretty much never see a thread relating to those subjects unless I take a trip to the board itself. What's the point of having an Advice board if it does nothing to clean up the threads it's supposed to be clearing out?

 

[Actual]

You were probo'd for posting on the Advice forum. The mods there are hardline; if you're not being ultra nice you get probation.

I've been told by a 'blue' mod that it's because the advice forum is new and attracts trolls that they're just going to stamp on every potential troll until the forum settles down.

Personally I think the advice forum needs to be destroyed and anyone who makes a teen angst advice seeking thread has it hidden and themselves given a warning.

But I understand the forum was made to keep those tween-attention seekers away from the general populace.

Speaking of, wasn't the purpose of the Advice Forum to get all those threads off the front page? I thought it was going to work a lot like the Religion & Politics board in that I pretty much never see a thread relating to those subjects unless I take a trip to the board itself. What's the point of having an Advice board if it does nothing to clean up the threads it's supposed to be clearing out?

I always wondered why I never see the R & P threads on the front page! Thanks for making me realise, what a fool I am.

If they're not going to take my advice and destroy the advice forum with a prodigious quantity of fire, they should do what you've mentioned and keep the threads off the front page.

 

[Irridium]

Yes you do provide free content. But just because its free doesn't mean it shouldn't be subjected to the same amount of love and hate as everything else.

Take the other part of that statement, being "negativity for its own sake is not." One can say "I don't really like that show" without being negative. Saying "This show sucks." is, but less so if it's stated "This show sucks because..."

Being negative is ill-advised, in any given situation, but it's not necessarily a bad thing to simply state an alternative decision. The more negative you are, the more likely you are to be offensive, the less likable you seem to other posters, the more reports you're likely to receive. And so on.

But yeah, dislike a show all you want. Just, as per rule one, don't be a jerk about it.

But where exactly is the line?

For example, Kraken up there posted something that didn't insult anyone, that he felt betrayed by the whole thing, and that he doesn't like all of this. And now it appears he's suspended and it doesn't say why. I suppose you could say that him saying you lied is insulting, but its how he feels. He's not insulting anyone, he's stating his honest opinion about the whole thing, and now he's suspended. And unless something happened in PM's that I don't know about, it just seems unnecessary.


EDIT: Nevermind, Kuliani explained it. Still though, it would be far better if you edited the user's most recent post with an explanation of why he/she was probated/suspended/banned.

Still though, my concern still stands. Someone being a jerk is open to interpretation. One person could assume one person is being one while another wouldn't consider it so.

 

[Kuliani]

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 called humor and can be constructive in its own ways.

Even the most well intentioned "constructive" criticism can still (and very easily) be seen as negative.

What about the content provided by the Escapist? Do these new rules apply to them?
'Cause if it does... Then that would mean the end of Yahtzee, MovieBOB and ENN!

Then where would you be?!

We'd probably turn into a gaming version of Cosmopolitan.

Example of a game we would review: http://www.interactive.org/games/video_game_details.asp?idAward=1999&idGame=673

 

[Marter]

So...not much has changed then?

I mean, before these "new" rules, you would face mod wrath for the same things. I don't really see any changes with these new ones.

It's basically a "use common sense" set of rules, and seems just fine to me.

 

[jboking]

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.

This addresses a large majority of your post, so I'm going to address it and hope I cover a pretty wide base...

The problem with negativity is it contributes nothing. A good, solid negative post will generate either an argument or a discussion. Oftentimes, the discussion will be hostile in the worst, or at least slightly aggressive if it goes to the hostility route. This is not the sort of way a discussion needs to be held. Dissenting opinions and disrespect can be mutually exclusive. Most times, a person trains themselves into a habit of being inflammatory, there's very little natural tendency to insult at available opportunities.

The practical advice is actually to let a topic run its course without feeling the need to influence it for better or worse by flaming. As a function of a forum, the responder has all the time in the world to compose their thoughts, carefully consider their response, and politely state their points. Or neutrally state their points. Or aggressively state their points. However, regardless of how the points are stated, there was the same amount of time given to the poster in question.

Even if the inclination to flame is instant and "necessary," it can be ignored. It is possible to simply not post in a thread. A discussion can go unremarked upon. It's not unheard of, it's happened to nearly every poster here before, and will likely happen again in the future. The burden of responsibility, at some point, has to fall on the person writing the post. We can't make anyone not do something, but we can put a rule in place to prevent every single thread from devolving into an argument.

As GoldenEyes said, anyone can post in a calm, clear manner without aggression. You've proved that with this very post.

I don't think anyone here believes that it is impossible to make a claim in a calm, clear manner, myself included. The question I have is this: Isn't there some worth to an irate comment? Doesn't it allow the one that it's directed at the opportunity to better examine their own views by seeing them critically attacked. This is one of the fundamental beliefs of public debate. It's fine to dissent calmly, but it doesn't stand much of a chance to draw significant attention to anything. A clearly negative comment can do that and I would argue that you don't want to get rid of all negative comments. However, by making the rules for what gets you moderated so vague, you will slowly weed out all negative comments, no matter if their outcomes would be good or bad.

(note, I am not saying you should call the OP a moron, rather that you should not be afraid to attack an idea with everything you have)

If I say a show is "stupid, boring pandering horseshit" will I face mod wrath for something like that?

Yep, pretty much.

Yes you do provide free content. But just because its free doesn't mean it shouldn't be subjected to the same amount of love and hate as everything else.

Take the other part of that statement, being "negativity for its own sake is not." One can say "I don't really like that show" without being negative. Saying "This show sucks." is, but less so if it's stated "This show sucks because..."

Being negative is ill-advised, in any given situation, but it's not necessarily a bad thing to simply state an alternative decision. The more negative you are, the more likely you are to be offensive, the less likable you seem to other posters, the more reports you're likely to receive. And so on.

But yeah, dislike a show all you want. Just, as per rule one, don't be a jerk about it.

Hold up. If I said, "Let me tell you why I think this show is stupid, boring, pandering horseshit." Followed up by a list of legitimate reasons that supported my view, I'd be safe?

Or am I forever going to need to remove any bile from my comments all together and go for something more politically correct that I can only imagine would read a little more like this: "While I'm sure many escapists enjoy this show, I believe it has some undesirable traits, but let it be known that this is naturally my opinion and not undeniable fact. Please don't get angry at me for saying I disagree with your view of this content, because I'm sure that what you believe is right for you and the last thing I would want to do is start an argument. After all, arguments have no inherent worth in a discussion,"?


Well, whatever. It's not my website. You all do what you want and I'll stick around if every thread doesn't turn into, "The last character you killed..."

 

[Dango]

They are kinda vague, but overall they seem pretty good and easy to follow, and they're a much quicker read than the old rules.

 

[thecourtlibrarian]

Thank you thank you thank you! I've been watching the Escapist forever, and only got a profile when I wanted to take a quiz-- I've been scared to post on the forums ever since. Man, those angry 14 year olds can be scary....(and college students and middle aged people and whoever else is on here too )

 

[Internet Kraken]

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.

This is something I have been wondering about myself. Regardless of whether or not Movie Bob actually brings up good points in his reveiws, he tends to berate and insult those that oppose his view point in the process. It's part of his style of reviewing. The most obvious example of this would be his Transformers 2 review in which he goes on the equivalent of a fanboy rant.

If the Escapist doesn't want us berating and insulting others so much, why are you guys paying Movie Bob to go on fanboy results that do just that? If you think the Escapist is becoming a less friendly place, maybe you should look to see if any of your content is actually encouraging hostility. Now I don't think Movie Bob's little rants are enough to remove his review show (though I think the Big Picture is absurd no matter what), but if you're going to enforce these rules against users should they not apply to content producers?

One could argue that Movie Bob is being facetious with his insults, much like Yahtzee, but I've never gotten that impression. It always felt like he meant every word he said.