Why is necro-ing now bannable? I've always thought it was better than making a new thread on the same topic and it's not like it harms anyone...
Poll: New Forum Rules: Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter JoJo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm still undecided on the new CoC rules, they seem very vague in places and I don't very much like the idea of the double standards i'm seeing. I think the Low Content rule needs to be a bit more explained (i.e. how low is too low?).
I don't agree wholeheartedly with the negative criticism thing, it's a little scary, the no slander part is fine, that's perfectly acceptable, but this bit "This includes, but is not limited to communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give The Escapist, an individual creator, advertiser, site sponsor, product, group, government or nation a negative image." makes me uncomfortable. If someone or something (be it product, person, or nation etc.) is making really bad decisions/laws/comments etc. does this rule mean we can't call them out on it?
That being said, I'm fine with the necroing thing (as I generally don't go past page 1 of a forum anyway) and the targeted harassment and bullying clauses.
I do have a genuine question though, why is any discussion of adblockers not allowed? I don't understand that at all.
I don't agree wholeheartedly with the negative criticism thing, it's a little scary, the no slander part is fine, that's perfectly acceptable, but this bit "This includes, but is not limited to communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give The Escapist, an individual creator, advertiser, site sponsor, product, group, government or nation a negative image." makes me uncomfortable. If someone or something (be it product, person, or nation etc.) is making really bad decisions/laws/comments etc. does this rule mean we can't call them out on it?
That being said, I'm fine with the necroing thing (as I generally don't go past page 1 of a forum anyway) and the targeted harassment and bullying clauses.
I do have a genuine question though, why is any discussion of adblockers not allowed? I don't understand that at all.
This. I used the term "idort" in a thread (obviously referring to someone who owns every console, it's been common in gaming discussions for years now) and got a warning because the mod didn't want to do any research and assumed it was a typo of "idiot" (at least, I assume they assumed that; they don't actually discuss anything, they just lay down the hammer regardless of how ignorant they are of the topic at hand).FalloutJack said:
Even the best-intentioned and most well-written rules can be misapplied by overzealous and unknowledgeable staff.
The majority of the site's profits come from ads. Very intrusive, incredibly annoying, often content-disrupting ads. Even the mention of you blocking them is basically saying you're "stealing" their goods - you're enjoying the content they produce without paying to access it (by seeing ads).lunavixen said:
Excellent! My consistent bitching about said issue has finally netted some results. Although you would think that more people would have done it before anyway just to cut down on the clutter it also tended to create.sky14kemea said:
I'm surprised the Tech team hasn't been notified of it already and dealt with it. It's even worse than the rollover ads you probably know nothing about because you have Pub Club.sky14kemea said:
Also,
on the topic of thread necroing, a list of non-forum game threads it's okay to necro would be nice.sky14kemea said:
At a glance when it forced me agree to them, it didn't look any different from the old one.
Maybe they should format them like patch notes.
Maybe they should format them like patch notes.
We could really use an auto-lock feature so that threads that haven't had a post in 30 days are impossible to reply to. That would stop people coming in from google & performing their foul necromancy.
As for the rule change it really didn't seem different from before that much, a few sections are still a bit ambiguous but there's only one main rule you need to follow round here, which is don't be a jerk.
As for the rule change it really didn't seem different from before that much, a few sections are still a bit ambiguous but there's only one main rule you need to follow round here, which is don't be a jerk.
Never actually heard that term myself. Obviously, they never heard of it either, which leads to problems.AuronFtw said:
Well, that's pretty crappy. Seems a little unfair that a global community is being expected to hold to the laws of one country - even if it is the country that the parent company is registered in. Hmm. Not sure how long this 'US law applies to everyone regardless of nationality' rule has existed (I've only read the forum rules once before, back when I signed up) but now that I know about it I must say I'm not a fan.Jasper van Heycop said:
Is it an auto-playing video if you have to click the spoiler button to view it? It seems rather annoying if you have to click the spoiler button, then have to click the play button for what turns out to be 2 seconds of:sky14kemea said:
It says in the CoC that it's 30 days after the last post in the thread, so a month after the thread has become inactive.TizzytheTormentor said:
The "use the search bar" thing is largely thrown around by older members.
When I first joined, it was said a lot because we were encouraged to necro threads rather than make new ones.
Presumably because the forums are much larger now, it makes more sense to just make a new one.
This could be totally wrong but that's my guess anyway.
I've literally never heard of that.AuronFtw said:
So I Google'd it. First result:
Noun. An intentional, humorous misspelling of idiot.
Followed by other stuff about /v/ coining it for all-console owners. Pro-tip: If /v/ coined it, it probably has offensive connotations. "Idort" is indeed a misspelling of "idiot", and all that means is that /v/ is calling omni-console owners idiots. That's pretty consistent with what /v/ does.
At any rate, if you honestly meant nothing by it, appeal would have been easy.
The majority of the site's profits come from ads. Very intrusive, incredibly annoying, often content-disrupting ads. Even the mention of you blocking them is basically saying you're "stealing" their goods - you're enjoying the content they produce without paying to access it (by seeing ads).
Furthermore, if the site doesn't actively protect their ads, then the value of the ad space plunges. Why would you advertise on a space that allows people to block the ads, after all?
As far as I'm concerned, if you spend half an hour or more on this site per week, there's no adequate reason to not try a year of Pub Club and never fuss about the ads again. Seriously, guys, it's worth it. I wouldn't be in my third year of it if it wasn't. Plus, the site probably gets more value from you if you pay for pub club than they did collecting your ad views, which could result in less relentless ads for people who genuinely can't afford it.
Limit is 30 days from the last post made in the thread. If you post in it after that point, it is considered a necro.TizzytheTormentor said:
Fair enough. I do have one question about that (since we're doing some Q&A here).sky14kemea said:
Recently, I did a review (in the reviews section) on Saya no Uta, which is a visual novel with several graphic sex scenes. My review touched briefly on those scenes (although entirely without descriptions or links or anything) and there was some discussion in the thread that followed about how they were handled. Finally, my review included several warnings to anyone interested in playing the game about the H content.
Since I posted it before the new rules went into effect, obviously my review is Grandfathered in. However, would I be allowed to post that review today if I'd written it a week+ later than I did? Or would a review of a video game with porn in it be counted as "discussion of pornography"?
Just seeking clarification. I don't currently have any plans for more visual novel reviews.
When evaluating the CoC, you should take the rules into account as well as the obvious desire behind them. What i get from this is that the mods are adding more tools to the banning tool box because there are a lot of people that mods have been wanting to ban for a while, that they couldn't reasonably ban under the old rules. The new rules that are worded vaguely were not done so by accident.
The further clarification of old rules, is helpful and would be seen as a step to not have to ban people unnecessarily. The new less specific rules however serve no other purpose than to give the mods more freedom to throw people off the forum that they have likely have already been wanting to kick off. It will also have the nasty side effect of stifling a lot of unpopular opinion which may lead to much more stale discussions here. I'm hopeful this forum doesn't turn into yet another echo chamber full of rote conventional ideas without controversy. But the intent behind such broad rule definitions tell me to expect dark days ahead, Especially since there is no limit to the things people find offensive.
The further clarification of old rules, is helpful and would be seen as a step to not have to ban people unnecessarily. The new less specific rules however serve no other purpose than to give the mods more freedom to throw people off the forum that they have likely have already been wanting to kick off. It will also have the nasty side effect of stifling a lot of unpopular opinion which may lead to much more stale discussions here. I'm hopeful this forum doesn't turn into yet another echo chamber full of rote conventional ideas without controversy. But the intent behind such broad rule definitions tell me to expect dark days ahead, Especially since there is no limit to the things people find offensive.