Poll: New Forum Rules: Yay or Nay?

[Blow_Pop]

Best or worst case, simply put that user on ignore. If your own ability to control your rage in regards to certain topics is that suspect, then use the tools available to you to avoid fights. Agreement isn't necessary, but the very minimum of courtesy is.

I honestly can't agree more with this point. The ignore button is a beautiful thing. Saves me a lot of rage against people I don't like/agree with and is wonderful for my mental/emotional health. Just like avoiding forums such as R&P.

Publicly, I would like to thank all the mods, not just those whom I know fairly well and talk to often or not, they all do a wonderful job and are genuinely great people. And I am offended at the allegations they play favourites and are out to get certain users. Hell, I may be on a few "favourites"lists but I still get mod action when I fuck up (intentionally or not) and I would call them on that if I didn't. It seems we have this discussiin every time the CoC changes/gets updated. And all I am seeing is a lot of the same b.s. spouted over and over just reworded. And honestly its tiring. That is all.

 

[[REDACTED]]

Actually, discussion about most of those topics can be done, as long as you're very careful about it. Like avoiding links to anything that gives information on how to perform any illegal acts/everything else, and not advocating any of it.(admitting to using it, or telling someone they should do it. etc.)

Does "advocating" illegal acts include saying that they shouldn't be illegal? Because if that's the case, that could really stifle any attempt at a debate.

Also, sorry if this question has already been asked. I haven't read through the whole thread myself.

 

[Sarge034]

Again, I suggest you produce evidence that Mods have "shit lists" or stop claiming that they exist. We watch who mods who very, very closely and investigate any discrepancies. I understand you think the moderation system is open to abuse, but everything in life is open to abuse. Either you trust us to surround ourselves with competent people and weed out the occasional incompetent or you don't. If you don't, kindly leave.

You want proof? They're human beings. You are going to watch someone who has rustled your jimmies much closer and provide them with much less latitude. Now whether this is a conscious or subconscious effort you can't deny that this is a truth. That's my opinion. Opinions do not need to be backed by fact or rational, sometimes they are and sometimes they simply "feel" right. Now I understand I am being critical of your (the staff's) work and you do appear to be a little short with me in your response. It is not my intention to provoke anyone, but simply to provide my opinions and what I see as constructive criticism. I do think you (the staff) do a fairly good job keeping the mods in check and fairly applying the CoC but I will also have my opinions of the system. I understand this is "your party" and I'm an "invited guest", but you can't get mad when your party is a book club and you invited the guests to talk about books. To try to sterilize the conversation to only portray the opinions you (the staff) feel are "right" or "appropriate" is a little disconcerting. (Illegal is a different story, but even that needs further clarification.)

-If and when we find a situation that "supports both parties" we'll say so in an appeals ticket, grant the appeal, and change the CoC again. Until then, we haven't hit one yet and we don't expect to anytime soon.
-Constructive criticism is not slander and is explicitly allowed for in the CoC. If a creator or staff member has their feelings hurt by your legitimate criticism, that's not against the CoC. The word slander has a strict legal guideline that you can use. It is both untrue and malicious speech. I've given this prior to now and I don't appreciate having to give it again. If you, as you state, back up your opinion with facts that apply and weren't a jerk while you did it, then you have absolutely nothing to fear.

Yes, slander is "untrue and malicious speech". However, the US has the first amendment to protect opinions being stated as such. The Escapist has no such protection. So one could easily twist the wording of the CoC to suit their needs. "Untrue" is very subjective when it comes to opinions and "malicious" just means you were being mean to try to discredit an individual. If I stated that, "MovieBob gets all of his reviews wrong because I like everything he doesn't and I dislike everything he does" then I have stated my opinion with "supporting fact", but I have also said an "untrue" (because opinions) fact about a professional reviewer to discredit him as a professional reviewer.

-We're not a government, this is our forum, and how publicly we deal with our internal matters is not something that belongs in your Code of Conduct. You don't get to see what happens when an article has an error in it, and you don't get to see what happens when someone is a jerk publicly. You do not have a right to our internal workings. You do not have a right to our internal workings. There is no public warning because, as I've stated before, the nature of our relationship with those individuals is completely different than our relationship with average users.

And that is your (the site's/staff's) prerogative. I'm just providing an opinion from the other side of the fence. Think of it like the "Fast and Furious" debacle. We, the US populous, knew something very bad had happened (providing mil spec fully automatic capable assault rifles to Mexican cartels) but we, the US citizenry, only saw what looked to be a cover up to protect themselves. It did nothing to earn any trust. Now they might have had a good reason to classify everything, other than self preservation, and there might have been internal repercussions, but we only had their word to go on that it was in fact happening.

Also, if it happened in the forums why not treat them like a forum user? I never said anything pertaining to actual internal workings like articles or the like. I was commenting on forum posts. You have no doubt seen the four or five examples that have been lingering in this thread. That one from Jim Sterling was obviously low content, what's the harm in marking it as such? It shows the community that the rules do get enforced and that low content is not allowed. Win win.

I understand that you believe the CoC to be "too vague," but in practice we're not interested in a twenty or thirty page CoC that accounts for every possible situation. That's a recipe for disaster on an open forum. You've been provided with common sense guidelines that have been gone over by our crack team of lawyers* - adhere to them, work in their spirit, and you have nothing to fear. If you want a huge list of extremely explicit guidelines, I suggest you go elsewhere to find that.

Contrary to your belief I don't want that either. A 20-30 page agreement would foster the "scroll, click, forget" mentality. All I am advocating for is... streamlining is the right word I think. The "Have respect for others" clause in the CoC is ripe for streamlining and clarification. The CoC starts off saying you are free to express you opinions, but then tries to limit "inflammatory topics". Is the issue of females in gaming not inflammatory? Or how about Anita Sarkeesian anything? Having a "crack team of lawyers*" is all good and well, but if them trying to make the CoC short and legally sound prevents the laymen from clearly understanding it then it was all for not.

Like you, we must abide by local laws or go to jail and pay fines. This isn't going to change until you buy us a micronation to rename The Dark Kingdom of Escapia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation] and host our things from. If you want to discuss anarchy and/or why you think web discussions should be completely immune to the United States' limitations on speech, take it to R&P.

So then why not set a hyperlink in the CoC to the NC legal table of contents and state that everything is based on the laws of NC? I'll even provide one...
http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutestoc.pl

 

[sky14kemea]

]

Actually, discussion about most of those topics can be done, as long as you're very careful about it. Like avoiding links to anything that gives information on how to perform any illegal acts/everything else, and not advocating any of it.(admitting to using it, or telling someone they should do it. etc.)

Does "advocating" illegal acts include saying that they shouldn't be illegal? Because if that's the case, that could really stifle any attempt at a debate.

Also, sorry if this question has already been asked. I haven't read through the whole thread myself.

No, because you're just discussing it. Advocating in this sense means telling someone to do it, or telling them how to do it.

 

[[REDACTED]]

SNIP

Good to know, and thanks for responding!

EDIT: Oh fookin' 'ell, this was a low content post wasn't it? I'm trying to think of something insightful to edit it in here, but it's almost 3:00 in the morning and my mind is barely functional.

I regret to say that I voted "nay" in the poll, back before many of the issues had been clarified. For what it's worth, I'm amending that vote now: everything I've read here seems entirely reasonable.

 

[lacktheknack]

Yeah, I don't like the "offensive" rule. I find it to be vague. If someone is saying that "creationism is true and everything in the bible is true" I will bring the wrath of a thousand foreman grill down on him/her and get warning for saying something offensive, then I will give up on this forum. Offensive is so vague that in the end, everything is offensive. I find stupid people to be offensive. I find Bronies to be offensive, etc.

You could... y'know... not. Not everything has to be addressed.

OT: This thread has convinced me that mod abuse does, in fact, exist. In this case, it is people abusing the mods.

 

[Teoes]

..you can't deny that this is a truth. That's my opinion. Opinions do not need to be backed by fact or rational, sometimes they are and sometimes they simply "feel" right.

Wait, what? [in direct response to 'please provide proof to back up your accusations] "What I have said is truth and it is my opinion that it is truth, therefore I don't have to back up my statement in any way"; pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

It is not my intention to provoke anyone, but simply to provide my opinions and what I see as constructive criticism.

I do not believe you. I think you are trying to provoke, just so you can get a warning and then say "See! I was right!". What I have said is truth. That's my opinion. Opinions do not need to be back by fact.

Is that how it works?

 

[sky14kemea]

]

SNIP

Good to know, and thanks for responding!

EDIT: Oh fookin' 'ell, this was a low content post wasn't it? I'm trying to think of something insightful to edit it in here, but it's almost 3:00 in the morning and my mind is barely functional.

I regret to say that I voted "nay" in the poll, back before many of the issues had been clarified. For what it's worth, I'm amending that vote now: everything I've read here seems entirely reasonable.

No, no! That wasn't Low Content at all, since you were replying to me from an earlier conversation.

I know people are super paranoid about Low Content though, so it is always safer to try and think of another thing to say. Even I do that >.>

Edit:

OT: This thread has convinced me that mod abuse does, in fact, exist. In this case, it is people abusing the mods.

*sobs*

I don't feel abused, but thank you for sticking up for us. =P

There's always going to be passionate people on both sides of the argument in threads like this.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I've avoided posting here because I tend to be diplomatic in my dealings (as shown by my totally not bragging about my perfect forum health meter) here on Escapist. But I must say that it really isn't that hard to be mindful of what and how you post. The obligatory low content post aside, here's some guidelines I use to simplify how to avoid mod-wrath:

1. When posting, re-read your text for inflammatory language. Specifically calling out folks with negative language is probably a bad idea. Also obviously personal attacks are guaranteed to be hammered. But keeping your tone civil is key to avoiding the mod-aggro.

2. Even impersonal generalization attacks on a group of people (e.g. going after console-cowboys because you think they're scum of the Earth or other frankly nasty language) can be a bad thing. Its fine if you don't like the console crowd and you can actively say something to that effect with grace and poise. Outright dissing folk for things you don't like is a stupid way of getting attention. Don't do it.

3. Debate vs. Argument. A lot of folk on here don't seem to get that a debate isn't the same thing as an argument and there is a time where you have to step up and invoke the "agree to disagree" stance. Especially when you see the debate turn into an argument. Arguments tend get personal and debates are about issues not personalities.

4. Mods do their job, but like everyone they may make mistakes. Nobody's perfect and there is much much wiggle room even when the banhammer strikes. It would behoove you to inquire a bit on the reason for a warning or temporary ban. But be aware of what the strikes against you already are too. Permabans aren't handed out willy-nilly from what I gather.

5. Again I am making the point of being civil because it really is important. If you honestly believe your position to be correct, it is paramount you give your viewpoint the value of being civil. Any language other than that demeans your point and comes off as at the least ignorant and at the most dickish. In other words: "Don't be a dick"

Now I understand that some things in the CoC aren't always clear and they are that way for a reason. Sometimes being too focused allows loopholes. The loose elements in the CoC are there for mod interpretation. That gives them wiggle room to decide whether or not to hand out a warning/ban. Its a very reasonable system and like everything not perfect. But I do feel this forum does its best to be fair and free of useless clutter. Doesn't always work, but thats an opinion.

 

[mohit9206]

Oh no i posted a comment in a jimquisition video article more than a month old i jope i dont get banned for it I didn't realize the rule.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Oh no i posted a comment in a jimquisition video article more than a month old i jope i dont get banned for it I didn't realize the rule.

Assuming you're talking about this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.836268-Jimquisition-Shaming-PC-Ports-Because-Why-Not?page=6#20631503], the rule is 30 days after the last post in the thread, which was five days earlier. Also, you would need to necro a lot of threads to get banned for it. I don't think I've ever seen someone get more than a warning for necromancy.

 

[Basement Cat]

You want proof? They're human beings.

Aye! Human beings are the lowest and most untrustworthy of all the known sentients in the universe! DOWN W' D' HUMANS!!!

*ahem*

[small]...sorry about that...[/small]

You are going to watch someone who has rustled your jimmies much closer and provide them with much less latitude. Now whether this is a conscious or subconscious effort you can't deny that this is a truth. That's my opinion. Opinions do not need to be backed by fact or rational, sometimes they are and sometimes they simply "feel" right. Now I understand I am being critical of your (the staff's) work---

I served briefly as a Mod last spring and was relieved of my absolute power station not because I was abusing my authority but because I wasn't sufficiently familiar enough with the site's rules at the time--if anything I kept letting posts go unpunished that should have been "whacked" as I used to say. I was too lenient.[footnote]Ironically, I was called or PM'd or referred to by many as (again ironically) the toughest Mod out there/ever. I've joked and toyed with this irony many times. Go figure.[/footnote]

But that brief tour of duty gave me access to the official Staff Forum and the inner workings of the Escapist's powers-that-be.

i.e. I learned how the Staff thinks and how things work here.

You don't know me, of course, but upon my word of honor I can assure you that the Mods don't have the time or interest to have "axes to grind" or have "personal shit lists".

When you become a Mod here the enormity of your responsibilities--riding rein over thousands of site members posting in hundreds of threads in multiple forums on a daily basis--reduces such personal biases to nothing. It's just not worth a Mod's time or effort.

VERRRYYY quickly you become aware that posters who don't abide by the rules are self-doomed. There are many, many thousands of posters (the vast majority of them) who don't have any Warnings whatsoever. Furthermore most of those same posters have never gotten ONE SINGLE warning in their time here.

Don't believe me? Make another thread asking Escapists--including a Poll--about how many Warnings they've ever gotten while being here. I did that last winter and the numbers were conclusive.

But posters who continue to brush the lines with the CoC tend to weed themselves out. It's simply a matter of mere patience.

"Meta-speaking": The very system is set up to proscribe personal Mod bias in no small part manner by the fact that Flagged posts are dealt with on a a first come first served basis which means it depends entirely upon whichever Mod is suffering working at the time who passes judgement on reported posts.

The Staff knows which Mods are dishing out which Warnings. Like JonB said the Staff keeps watch for Mods who abuse their BanHammers and they're not tolerant (as in--at ALL) for Mods abusing their authority.

 

[IceForce]

I promised myself I was finished posting in this thread. Mainly because the number of banned people in this thread, is honestly pretty scary.

However, the following two quotes were just too good to not point out.

I will continue to express my opinions and back them up with facts

Opinions do not need to be backed by fact or rational, sometimes they are and sometimes they simply "feel" right.

Did you serious just say both these things? You realize you've contradicted yourself, right?

And you kind of do need to provide proof of your claims. It's called "burden of proof".
You'll notice I provided proof in this thread myself; examples of posts to back up my claims.

 

[Sarge034]

Wait, what? [in direct response to 'please provide proof to back up your accusations] "What I have said is truth and it is my opinion that it is truth, therefore I don't have to back up my statement in any way"; pretty sure it doesn't work like that.

Nope. What I said was that the proof was in the mods being humans, my opinion is that the CoC gives the mods too much power through being vague, and not all opinions need to be backed by facts, but those were the facts I was backing this particular opinion on (as well as sporadic incidences that I couldn't find if I wanted to). It was a difficult thing to translate that thought into text so I can see where you all might misunderstand what I was trying to say. It was difficult because I was just trying to point out problems with the CoC and this staff member thought I was accusing a mod, or mods, of inappropriate behavior. Completely trying to sidetrack what I was saying. Sorry for the confusion.

It is not my intention to provoke anyone, but simply to provide my opinions and what I see as constructive criticism.

I do not believe you. I think you are trying to provoke, just so you can get a warning and then say "See! I was right!". What I have said is truth. That's my opinion. Opinions do not need to be back by fact.

Is that how it works?

That is most certainly your right to feel that way. However, if I was a mod coming after you I might view that statement as inflammatory or slanderous. I might be able to bullshit my way through that one, but after this thread we will never know as I am certain to never be a mod here... Guess I'm just going to have to be content with the peanut gallery.

Aye! Human beings are the lowest and most untrustworthy of all the known sentients in the universe! DOWN W' D' HUMANS!!!

*ahem*

[small]...sorry about that...[/small]

It's cool, and you are right. Being called a human is not some slanderous thing, but you do have to remember that humans have egos and can be very spiteful.

As for the rest of your post, you have proven my point. The rules are vague enough that you didn't know how to enforce them. If the CoC was clearer in it's meaning you could look and say, "Yes this violates" or, "No, this is ok" and be done with it. However, when you have subjective rules that are enforced through "common sense" then in reality you only have unclear rules that are enforced sporadically.

Did you serious just say both these things? You realize you've contradicted yourself, right?

Yes, two small excerpts out of two different posts. No way that can be taken out of context...

And you kind of do need to provide proof of your claims. It's called "burden of proof".
You'll notice I provided proof in this thread myself; examples of posts to back up my claims.

And I kind of don't need to provide proof of my opinions. It's called "an opinion". I was speaking to the CoC itself being unclear and subjective, to that end I have provided mountains of proof in examples and explanation. It wasn't until the staff member started thinking I was accusing mods of wrongdoing that these "claims" became a thing that I needed to "prove".