Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules

[megapenguinx]

I kind of wish the only rule we needed was, "Don't Be A Dick".
It would make things so much simpler and so much easier. Unfortunately, being a dick means different things to different people so sadly that might never be the case.
Oh well, good on you 'Pist staff for making things easier for the newbies and making people feel welcomed overall.

 

[mr_rubino]

Y'know, typically when rules are amended, they are made more specific and grounded with information laid out in more detail. The Escapist has taken this in a different direction, making the rules as vague as possible to accommodate the already-pointless moderation contesting feature and making a FAQ thread where every moderator response to questions/concerns is 5 flavors of "Let me reassure you your fears are groundless, and your complaints, moronic."

In this case, it seems a very quick and very obvious protection of Ms. Foiles's contributions (Ms. Mayes is Australian (?) and thus can take care of herself apparently) to the point that a thread created to explain them was necessarily hostile to the users from the get-go.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Is there any-way we could get more a more concrete position on piracy? I don't do it, but punishment for it seems haphazard.

Again, I don't pirate (bad experience with Limewire), but clearer rules would be nice.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Is there any-way we could get more a more concrete position on piracy? I don't do it, but punishment for it seems haphazard.

Again, I don't pirate (bad experience with Limewire), but clearer rules would be nice.

To my best understanding, their pretty much the same as last time. If you do not admit to it, advocate it or link to it, you should be fine. Note that advocate doesn't mean that you cannot support it. For example, a user could say that, while he does not pirate, he does believe that if a user plans to buy the game at a later time after using his pirated copy as a demo, then piracy could be justifiable.

That's the way I see it at least, granted I could be wrong about it.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Also, you weren't given a notification because he edited the post in.

Pretty much this. Same goes for the bit above it. You'd be surprise some of the names I get called. My apologies for responding that way, it's been a long series of weeks.

It's a forum for you guys to tell us we're wrong for feeling the way we do. This place just seems like it's more concerned with BEING right rather than DOING right to me more and more as time goes on. Come to think if it, I'll bet you'll notice the discontent increases as you get to the older users-the ones who have had time to see that, yes, there are gaps in the system.

My biggest concern whenever dealing with something like this is that there's often very little culpability involved with either party. To state that just the users are at fault would be as fallacious as stating that just the mod team is at fault. Both parties have to have a certain amount of responsibility involved, and I feel like neither side is being fair to that. We're both at fault here, and if we both don't walk in accepting that, then we're both going to just keep spinning our wheels.

In all honesty, I feel like this thread was designed to promote the sort of civil-minded coexistence that has been a staple of nearly every emergent society. Words like "dictator" have been aliked to "tyrant" in connotation. By general standards, this place will get no better if we don't listen to what everyone tells us. Otherwise, we become the tyrannical dictators that characterize a gross misuse of power.

However, what I see when I look at threads like these are polarized opinions and limited support options. Either the site is being run to the pinnacle of perfection or is the cancer that is slowly burning itself away. Regardless of where either opinion lies, it becomes nigh-impossible to divine any sort of working solution to "ur doin it rong" or "ur doin it rite." I continually encourage users to promote suggestions, but the suggestions which have come are as vague and unclear as our rules have been alleged to being. Hearing "Make the rules more clear" is too unclear to be operable.

As I stated earlier in this thread, in my experience, the more precise a single rule tries to be, the less likely the rule is to be clear. Even then, every single court case in the United States history is a living proof to the fact that no matter how clearly black and white a rule is phrased, there will always be a gray area. It's inevitable. We've tried to make the specific purpose of a rule clear. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than what we had before? I think it is.

Mods take this personally, myself and others as well, is because our passion is the only thing bringing us back here day after day. I can think of a handful of users who are reported for every single post they do. I clear countless posts from the Queue that have nothing wrong with them. It wouldn't surprise me if you or I haven't been on the business end of a report because someone has issue with what we have done or said in our time here at the Escapist. We take things we invest a lot of time in quite personally.

The reason you're on this thread bringing all this up is because you feel very strongly for the site. To point, you get irritated by how this site ends up sometimes, you said so yourself.

However, the problem with hunting consistency in rule layouts is there's never a good solution for everyone. I can't count on both hands the number of users, old and new, that have asked for new, cleaner Guidelines.

The way I see it, you never needed to change the rules in the first place.

Yet posts prove, time and time again, that there will always be a want for something, somewhere. My first concern with making the moderation or rules more consistent would be making fundamental alterations to how these forums are run.

Posts never seem to say that they want these forums to grow to be something new and exciting. Everyone says they want things to go back to the way they were in the golden days. We all want this forum to be a more personally fulfilling experience. We all take it personally. If we didn't, the mods have less to moderate, and the users less to argue about.

 

[Dags90]

With regards to rules against posting advocating illegal acts, to which jurisdiction does that apply? Local to the user, or local to the server? Is someone from the Netherlands who encourages people to consume marijuana facing a banhammer?

 

[maddawg IAJI]

With regards to rules against posting advocating illegal acts, to which jurisdiction does that apply? Local to the user, or local to the server? Is someone from the Netherlands who encourages people to consume marijuana facing a banhammer?

I would like to assume its unique to the user. The Escapist has been pretty lax about the subject of Marijuana and illicit drug use. I think the rule more likely applies to piracy, torrents and things similar to that.

 

[invader sloth]

So, explain how we can fix it. Talk about the best and brightest possible solutions. I'm all ears.

get rid of the grey area in regards to content.
obviously I only recently created an account, but having been coming to this site for a long time before that, I have to say that the forums seem to have an inconsistent set of morals and standards, especially considering the nature of some of the site's content.

 

[Steppin Razor]

I believe the intent behind the new code of conduct to be good, but I take issue with the way it is worded and how there has been a complete removal of any examples of what is worthy of modwrath. The code of conduct is vague and easily allows for misinterpretation and misunderstanding. The old rules were far from perfect, but they at least provided a guideline that gave users an idea of what was acceptable behaviour. Users familiar with the old rules already have an idea of what is and isn't accepted, but what of new users? For example:

[HEADING=2]Put Some Effort Into Your Communication[/HEADING]
A well-made thread or a well-written comment engages its audience and facilitates discussion. We do ask that posters take just a little time to make their posts as readable as possible and keep their responses on topic. We also ask that you take a moment to check your spelling and grammar.

By this rule, if someone makes a short, but well-written, comment that perfectly sums up their opinion and engages other users, or posts up a picture that accomplishes the same thing, then it would be perfectly acceptable. It is only when you go into this thread itself that you discover that posts are expected to be longer than a single sentence, and that picture responses are frowned upon. The wording of this rule is at odds with what you, the mods, have stated is an acceptable post.

A new user to the site will be greeted with the code of conduct, they'll have a quick read of it, and they will not see anything at all that tells them that short/picture responses are frowned upon. This isn't the user's fault, it is a lack of clarity in the rules themselves as to what is and is not considered to be putting effort into your communication. A slight rewording to include the generally accepted minimum post length and that picture responses aren't tolerated would go a long way to making this rule better, and far less likely to result in drama and histrionics as a user (rightly) points out that there is no such official rule in place against short posts.
[HR]The other point I wish to address at the moment is on this:

[HEADING=2]Penalties[/HEADING]There are no hard and fast rules on what punishment you will receive should you break any of these rules. Instead, we will make the punishment fit the infraction and the individual. We do not enjoy banning people, but we will not hesitate to do so if we think that a person's removal will have an overall positive effect on the community.

I am well aware that punishments have always been up to the individual mods and that one will hand out a warning or a probation for one thing, whilst another will go straight to the suspension for the exact same infraction. Like all systems, this one has flaws, but for the most part I have not noticed too much trouble with it and I am perfectly content with that system as it stands right now.

The new rules on the penalties, however, leaves me scratching my head. Just because there are no hard and fast rules on what punishment will be handed out for what does not mean you should remove any reference to the sort of modwrath a user might receive. Anyone unfamiliar with the old rules will have no knowledge of the punishments that may be handed out, nor will they have any idea of the sorts of punishment that various infractions may result in. A basic summary of the types of modwrath that a user can receive and a couple examples of the sort of behaviour that will generally result in either a warning, probation, suspension or permaban, would improve this immeasurably. This is not to say that a detailed explanation of everything is necessary, just that a basic guideline of what users can generally expect would help to clarify this and clear up any of the confusion surrounding it.

[hr]There are a few other issues I have that I'll probably get around to addressing at some point fairly soonish, but I'm still mulling them over while I try to figure out if I can make any suggestions for improvement. Merely disagreeing without offering my opinion on how to make things better would be rather pointless in this case.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Snip

To touch on your first part, no one will ever be punished for a low-content post, especially if it is their first one and a mod would happily explain it to them. Granted, this could be avoided if they included it in the rules, but low-content posts were a problem even before these rules were in place. No amount of clarification will really stop them, but I'm sure that if the users set the right example, then new users will take notice and learn to write their opinion out in detail.

The second part can also be easily solved by a user who lurks or just a user who looks around a bit. I could easily find an example of probation and suspension over time and eventually, I would probably run into what a ban is.

The rules certainly couldn't hurt from the additions you suggested, but for the most part, the community can show-case what is acceptable and what isn't and most new members can contact a moderator or staff member if they're confused about something. While they may be vague in certain areas, I place my faith that new users will not have a problem with them.

 

[Steppin Razor]

To touch on your first part, no one will ever be punished for a low-content post, especially if it is their first one and a mod would happily explain it to them. Granted, this could be avoided if they included it in the rules, but low-content posts were a problem even before these rules were in place. No amount of clarification will really stop them, but I'm sure that if the users set the right example, then new users will take notice and learn to write their opinion out in detail.

Ah, but what is the point of a rule if the enforcers of said rule contradict it? The rule specifically states that "a well-written comment engages its audience and facilitates discussion". If a user posts a 5 word comment that "engages its audience and facilitates discussion", they will receive a warning from the mods. And they can then argue, (quite rightly) that the mod has warned them over something that clearly is not within the official rules of the site. If you want posts to live up to a certain standard, then you have to let people know what that standard is.

As for punishments, people can and do get hit with probations and suspensions for low-content posts. Granted, they are usually repeat offenders, but it's a simple fact that it does happen. And as for warning the users if it's their first time, I'm certain that including this little bit of information in the rules will at least cut back on the need for some of that. Not everyone reads the rules properly, but at least some people do. And those that do will know not to post "First!" and "LOL" in response to a thread/comment, thereby cutting down on the time the mods have to waste addressing low content posts.

The second part can also be easily solved by a user who lurks or just a user who looks around a bit. I could easily find an example of probation and suspension over time and eventually, I would probably run into what a ban is.

The onus does not lie with the user to figure out what is and isn't acceptable, it lies with the site and the rules themselves. A user should not have to rely on seeing others break the rules to know what they can and can't say, they should be given at least a small idea of what is expected of them. A large amount of this is covered by the "Respect other users" rule, but other infractions that were addressed in the old rules are bound to fit between the cracks of the code of conduct, and when a user does end up being probated or suspended for committing one of these infractions, who is truly at fault? The user who wasn't aware that this wasn't allowed? Or the site for not even providing a basic guideline of acceptable behaviour?

Vague is bad. Too specific is bad. A midpoint between the two is required to balance out the issues of both.

The rules certainly couldn't hurt from the additions you suggested, but for the most part, the community can show-case what is acceptable and what isn't and most new members can contact a moderator or staff member if they're confused about something. While they may be vague in certain areas, I place my faith that new users will not have a problem with them.

Faith is something I am generally lacking in regards to people, so....

I dunno, I guess this is just a difference of opinion where I think that a sizable number of people will misinterpret the vagueness of the whole thing, and you think they won't. Hopefully you turn out to be right and my fears prove to be unfounded.

 

[Claymorez]

Also, the way posts are chosen for modding is sporadic too.

The way they answer these qualms with the new system is just as sporadic. It really shows the issues we have with consistency when the answers are not consistent. We have one mod saying that all posts with negative connotation will be modded and other mods saying it's entirely infraction based. Some have a zero tolerance policy for criticism, while others are pretty happy go lucky about what people say, as long as it isn't fascist.

The level of agreement we see between the moderators in these answers is the greatest gauge we have for evaluating these new rules, and so far they suck.

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!

 

[Claymorez]

Also, the way posts are chosen for modding is sporadic too.

The way they answer these qualms with the new system is just as sporadic. It really shows the issues we have with consistency when the answers are not consistent. We have one mod saying that all posts with negative connotation will be modded and other mods saying it's entirely infraction based. Some have a zero tolerance policy for criticism, while others are pretty happy go lucky about what people say, as long as it isn't fascist.

The level of agreement we see between the moderators in these answers is the greatest gauge we have for evaluating these new rules, and so far they suck.

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!

Yes, yes it would. Why didn't you guys just do this at the start of the entire ordeal?

Combination of reasons, mainly to see how people interpreted the new rules and thus when we went and wrote such a guide/companion we could write it in a way that put to ease any confusions people might have or concerns and thus we could further cover any topics we had missed or removed by accident from the previous rules. At the moment the first form of the guide is going through vetting.