Poll: New Forum Rules: Yay or Nay?

[Lucem712]

The Escapist is coded in such a way that locked threads are removed/deleted completely after 30 days (or something like that.)

That's the reason that they don't just lock old threads and be done with it.

So, they should fix that.

When they write the code to automatically lock threads after 30 days of no replies, they should also remove the bit of code that removes/deletes locked threads.

Or is this somehow an impossibility?

Well, you should write a ticket to the Tech Team; or post in their usergroup.

As for my personal feelings? I don't think it is all that difficult to not post in old threads. Just takes a bit of care to actually to jump to the last page & see the last post. Though, I've never Necro'd a thread, on purpose or accidentally.

 

[anthony87]

GIGANTO SNIPPU!

I don't want the rule to go anywhere but when someone can get slapped with a warning for literally answering the question of a thread then there's a problem.

 

[SSJBlastoise]

Flaming
Calling people names (or groups who may visit The Escapist), this includes calling others a troll. Calling another user a troll is always an infraction.

I'm curious, is this an updated version of the old rule or was it always in place?

I ask this because numerous times I have seen posts in Xbox One threads that go along the lines of "only idiots would buy an Xbone" and they seem to get away with it. Is this not an example of calling groups of users names? If this kind of crap is cracked down on I will be happy, I'm starting to get sick of posts that say people are idiots for liking something and not getting hit with a warning.

Other than that it seems like it's a decent set of rules.

 

[TomWiley]

GIFs, pointless meme posts and images bigger than 500 px (height or width) should be forbidden as well. Methinks.

And everyone who wrote that Paul Walkers death was "ironic" and felt smart about it should be banned. Just saying...

 

[TomWiley]

Flaming
Calling people names (or groups who may visit The Escapist), this includes calling others a troll. Calling another user a troll is always an infraction.

I'm curious, is this an updated version of the old rule or was it always in place?

I ask this because numerous times I have seen posts in Xbox One threads that go along the lines of "only idiots would buy an Xbone" and they seem to get away with it. Is this not an example of calling groups of users names? If this kind of crap is cracked down on I will be happy, I'm starting to get sick of posts that say people are idiots for liking something and not getting hit with a warning.

Other than that it seems like it's a decent set of rules.

Also this. Moderators seem to allow all kinds of passive-aggressive remarks, ad hominem and indirect insults based on someone's opining or stance, even when it comes to completely pointless things like console preference. The whole Xbox One shitstorm saw countless examples of this. And it always seems like people get away with it.

 

[IceForce]

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this:

Not in the least bit a moderator decision. We have no control over that sort of thing.

My apologies. I used the wrong word there, in hindsight.

Well, you should write a ticket to the Tech Team; or post in their usergroup.

Actually, I might just do that.

 

[Marter]

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this:

Not in the least bit a moderator decision. We have no control over that sort of thing.

My apologies. I used the wrong word there, in hindsight.

No problem. Just figured I'd let you know it's not our call (and I don't necessarily disagree with you, although I figure the tech team has their reasons).

 

[SSJBlastoise]

We've been giving out punishments for this, ever since the Xbox One was announced.

It's trolling, flaming, and being-a-jerk, all rolled into one.

If people are "getting away" with this type of behavior, it's not because we're allowing it. It's because the posts aren't getting flagged/reported.

Cheers for the quick reply. When I usually see that sort of stuff I report and move on so it's my fault for not really noticing if the posts do end up getting modded.

 

[TomWiley]

I ask this because numerous times I have seen posts in Xbox One threads that go along the lines of "only idiots would buy an Xbone" and they seem to get away with it. Is this not an example of calling groups of users names? If this kind of crap is cracked down on I will be happy, I'm starting to get sick of posts that say people are idiots for liking something and not getting hit with a warning.

Moderators seem to allow all kinds of passive-aggressive remarks, ad hominem and indirect insults based on someone's opining or stance, even when it comes to completely pointless things like console preference. The whole Xbox One shitstorm saw countless examples of this. And it always seems like people get away with it.

We've been giving out punishments for this, ever since the Xbox One was announced.

It's trolling, flaming, and being-a-jerk, all rolled into one.

If people are "getting away" with this type of behavior, it's not because we're allowing it. It's because the posts aren't getting flagged/reported.

Whatever you say, but in my experience, flagging often doesn't help. And I have no idea whether it's because the comment in question wasn't considered offensive enough, or if you get so many flagged posts per day you just don't have time to go through them all. Heck, I could probably find you some examples from my own bloody threads if you'd be interested.

What I'm saying is that if you rely so heavenly on flagging, you need a feedback system. Alright, so I flagged a post. Now what? It'd be interesting to know whether the comment was spam-marked or the user warned, or whether the comment was viewed but considered acceptable.

That'd help us users learn where the line goes for other comments and this kind of feedback would make the whole flagging process feel less pointless.

Just putting it out there.

 

[Sarge034]

Also this. Moderators seem to allow all kinds of passive-aggressive remarks, ad hominem and indirect insults based on someone's opining or stance, even when it comes to completely pointless things like console preference. The whole Xbox One shitstorm saw countless examples of this. And it always seems like people get away with it.

Did you really just try to post this right after you said...

And everyone who wrote that Paul Walkers death was "ironic" and felt smart about it should be banned. Just saying...

I posted that Paul Walkers death was ironic, because it was. So you basically said, in a very passive aggressive way, that you wish me to be banned for stating an opinion you disagree with.

snip

Those are interesting positions you take and I agree with very few of them. Let me show you a single example why...

Speaking as a mod, the rule in place means you can say just about whatever you'd like about a piece of content or its creator as long as it isn't inflammatory and/or destructive. Without those elements, you're largely free to agree or disagree as you'd like.

"Have Respect for the Site and its Content

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. Further, discussions instructing or otherwise advocating the circumvention of The Escapist's advertisements, site sponsors, security mechanisms, media protections or similar facilities will not be tolerated. If we find you being slanderous with regard to any part of The Escapist, you will be penalized. 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. In short, if you say something you better be able to back it up with fact. Regardless of what some of our content creators may say, do or provoke within their videos or articles, this does not give members the ability to act in the same way. They are entertainers and if they brought their language or flaming into the forums, they would be held accountable, just as any other forum member of The Escapist would be." - The Escapist CoC (probatum)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct

So according to this section...

"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."

... what you say is true.

HOWEVER, according to this section...

"If we find you being slanderous with regard to any part of The Escapist, you will be penalized. 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. In short, if you say something you better be able to back it up with fact."

... what you say is false.

And this is why. The difference between an inflammatory statement and an opinion is what? For example, I once said in a zero punctuation comment section that the video in question was sub-standard. I noted the lack of jokes, unsatisfying content, and a very monotone delivery by Yahtzee. I noted an issue and stated why I thought it to be an issue. Constructive criticism, no? Well not if you are on a mods shit list. Then you are being inflammatory and adding no discussion value.

The problem with these rules, to put it simply, is that they are so vague as to give mods with an axe to grind unlimited ways to pursue people they don't like. Why not simplify this particular rule to, "You can not insult or harass forum members." Oh wait, that rule is already there. Stifling the discussion and peoples' opinions about content, about art, is very draconian.

 

[sky14kemea]

Since it's a PG-13 forum, having a lengthy discussion about your favourite porn isn't going to be met with open arms. However, it's not illegal to watch porn, so people are entitled to mention that they have done so.
I hope that clears it up slightly?

Fair enough. I do have one question about that (since we're doing some Q&A here).

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.

I think as long as you didn't show any pictures/links or describe the situations in detail, you should be fine. You might want to ask Marter on more information since he's the king of User Reviews. =P

 

[Zombie_Fish]

For example, I once said in a zero punctuation comment section that the video in question was sub-standard. I noted the lack of jokes, unsatisfying content, and a very monotone delivery by Yahtzee. I noted an issue and stated why I thought it to be an issue. Constructive criticism, no? Well not if you are on a mods shit list. Then you are being inflammatory and adding no discussion value.

Here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.409096-Zero-Punctuation-Metro-Last-Light?page=4#17126581] is [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.820801-Zero-Punctuation-The-Last-of-Us?page=6#19821726] every [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.820801-Zero-Punctuation-The-Last-of-Us?page=7#19825775] post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.270997-Zero-Punctuation-Killzone-3?page=8#10458047] you've [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.270997-Zero-Punctuation-Killzone-3?page=8#10458172] made [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.270997-Zero-Punctuation-Killzone-3?page=8#10458890] in response to a ZP video. Notice how none of them have warnings attached to them, which means one of two things:

[ol][li]Your post received no punishment. Thus you had the ability to give constructive criticism.[/li]
[li]Your post was punished but that punishment was appealed and lifted. So the mod couldn't just abuse you the way they wanted and you were still allowed to provide constructive criticism.[/li][/ol]

So please explain how the mods were given free reign in calling you inflammatory.

The problem with these rules, to put it simply, is that they are so vague as to give mods with an axe to grind unlimited ways to pursue people they don't like.

If the staff really wanted to give mods that much power then there wouldn't be an appeal system in the first place. Being a moderator is not easy: the selection process is long, mods regularly give feedback/criticism about each other's actions and people can be removed if the staff think they're unsuitable. That includes being unnecessarily harsh to people they don't like.

 

[viranimus]

I am just as much against thread necro'ing as anyone. But for it to be "explicitly forbidden" Is highly illogical. Consider that individual threads and subjects from the escapist forum feed into search engine results. So if someone happened to be looking up X game, and came across an old forum post discussing it, and felt compelled to chime in on it, Should they be punished for that?

Would that not deter someone from joining this community when they went out of their way to create a profile to post, only to have their first post come with modwrath. Sounds like giving that person every reason to NOT be involved in this community. I know this because I inadvertantly necro'd a thread which was what got me started posting here. As the rule goes, You are never the only one.

So while stricter rules on Necro'ing I think are welcome, Having hard, fast, rigid rules on it could potentially do as much harm as good. Just something to think about.

Captcha: I think so

See, even captcha agrees.

 

[A-D.]

Im going to say "Nay" for several reasons that have been brought up in this thread already.

1: Low Content. Okay somebody define low content for me here, is it a word, 3 words, a picture, a video? When is a post low content and when isnt it? Because i have seen several posts get warnings for what i assume is low content but the amount of text in them varies. Do we have to now count the letters to avoid "low content"? This is a dumb rule, if you have very little to add to a conversation, aside from maybe 1-2 sentences then it shouldnt count as low content, i would agree if someone came in, quoted another guy and went "same here" that it would be low content, unless it was a question and they would like the answer as well..and there we are on the slippery slope.

2: Necro. 30 Days until you cant post in a necro-thread. Interesting, what if somebody posts on the 29th day? or 31st? Here's a thought, if the mods/staff dont want people to necro old threads, lock them. If that is too much work involved, or there isnt some kind of system other than "mod has to change every recent post if its within 30 days" then..its kinda pointless as a rule, isnt it? I will agree that necro-ing year old threads might be a issue, though i have fallen into that trap once as well, but we shouldnt need to open a new thread just because some thread we just spotted passed the 30 day mark.

3: PG-13. Lolwut. Thats really my reaction, i will agree that simply posting profanity and nothing else is bad form at best and should be moderated, but using "adult language" shouldnt be met with warnings, probations or bans. This applies specifically to mods who have different points of view. Say you go into a thread, post something and you get a warning because Mod A thought it was offensive, okay so far. Now the same thing happens again, you dont get a warning because Mod B didnt think it was offensive. If the staff has last say and has no unified single definition of what is offensive and what isnt, then either they set up a guideline as to how many "fucks" we can use per sentence or whatever, or it affects only such posts which contain a massive amount of slurs and profanity. Which leads to my last point..

4: Content Creators and the CoC. They are exempt from the rule. Are you serious? If Yahtzee could come into this thread, call me 2 pages of expletives without getting moderated for it, yet i would get a warning for telling him to bugger off? This is a example mind you, but it illustrates the point. If the Staff sets up rules, they have to be enforced universally, that includes content creators AND other staff. If one group of people is exempt from the rules, then it just creates a class-system and thats neither fair nor healthy for any kind of forum. It goes back to the whole "lead by example" thing, if the staff wants these rules to be taken seriously they also have to abide by them, otherwise this is a joke at best.

I havent read the rules until about..couple months back and when they were changed recently, before that i used basic common sense and it actually worked. And thats kind of a interesting concept when you consider how long i've been here and so far i have never gotten a single warning or anything. Though with this post, that might change.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I think as long as you didn't show any pictures/links or describe the situations in detail, you should be fine. You might want to ask Marter on more information since he's the king of User Reviews. =P

Since I don't actually have any plans for further H title reviews any time soon, I doubt it's really necessary - I mostly just wanted clarification on what constituted as violating that policy. So we can discuss things that might happen to contain or be related to porn so long as we don't post it or describe it directly. Fair enough - I would chalk that up under "common sense" personally. ^^

 

[JoJo]

[HEADING=2]Important Update[/HEADING]​

By official request, I have organised a list of the clarifications moderators have given on how the rules will apply. A full copy of this can also be found in the OP of the thread. If you have a question about the new Code of Conduct, please check the links listed below to see if it has already been answered before asking your question. Thanks!

[li]sky14kemea confirms it is okay to admit to watching porn, and to discuss illegal acts, pedophilia and ad-blockers without admitting to them or advocating that others do so ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.839376-Poll-New-Forum-Rules-Yay-or-Nay#20613362 )[/li]


[li]sky14kemea confirms it is okay to swear in moderation ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.839376-Poll-New-Forum-Rules-Yay-or-Nay#20613539 )[/li]


[li]sky14kemea confirms that the 'illegal acts' will be judged by the laws of North Carolina, US ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.839376-Poll-New-Forum-Rules-Yay-or-Nay#20613539 )[/li]

[li]TimeLord confirms that certain threads, such as the scary thread, will not be subject to the necro rule. Threads to be decided by the discretion of the moderators ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.839376-Poll-New-Forum-Rules-Yay-or-Nay?page=2#20614371 ) [/li]

[li]Marter seconds that cursing is permittable, as long as it is not in excess ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.839376-Poll-New-Forum-Rules-Yay-or-Nay?page=4#20616476 )[/li]

[li]NewClassic gives a general Q&A on various rules and reasons behind them, too much to summarise, just follow the link and read if you're interested ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.839376-Poll-New-Forum-Rules-Yay-or-Nay?page=4#20617328 ) [/li]

[li]JonB confirms that official contributors do experience repercussions for breaking the CoC, though not publicly for professional reasons and answers other concerns related to slander and moderation abuse, in particular noting that constructive criticism of official content will not be punished ( http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.839376-Poll-New-Forum-Rules-Yay-or-Nay?page=5#20619792 ) [/li]

 

[viranimus]

I am just as much against thread necro'ing as anyone. But for it to be "explicitly forbidden" Is highly illogical. Consider that individual threads and subjects from the escapist forum feed into search engine results. So if someone happened to be looking up X game, and came across an old forum post discussing it, and felt compelled to chime in on it, Should they be punished for that?

Everyone has to read and agree to the rules before they start posting.

If someone finds and old thread through a search, and they try to post in it, one would hope they'd read the rules and realize that posting in such an old thread is forbidden.

That's why it's been written into the rules.


In such an example, there's nothing stopping a new user from making a new thread about the topic they want to discuss. And new users frequently do exactly this.

That is mostly understandable. While there may be nothing stopping them, by that same measure if the internet proves one thing its that there is nothing keeping people paying attention to what they are doing.

While my original theoretical may not have been ideal, the point I was trying to make is that the problem with the rules is that these things have to be considered not just on their theoretical and well meaning creation but how they would potentially be used and or abused when put into practical application.

I am in a mood to write so please forgive me for expounding the subject at far greater length. Read if you wish, but it is more for my own edification to "properly" convey the depths of my rumination on the subject. The above serves well enough for TL;DR purposes.

Spoiler: Example: I agree

For example the "I agree" mandate. Sure it sounds reasonable that if you make people type I agree rather than just clicking a box on an update to EULA that they would be more mindful of what they were agreeing to. The failing of that is that this is a generation that has been so bombarded with similar types of web centric affirmations of voluntary compliance that people have also been inadvertently indoctrinated to "just keep agreeing" that the practicality of it nullifies its noble intent. Moreover, this is a community within that bombarded generation that not only blindly agrees with ELUAs, but does so in spite of knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they are "agreeing" to is detrimental and self destructive as seen in the ubiquitous acceptance of catastrophic ELUS and ToS'es required by highly popular to virtually monopolistic organizations like Apple, Sony, MS, EA, Steam Etc.

To summarize this example, making people work more to comply with new terms (for behavior modification as well as maintaining forum control) will make them more mindful of what they are agreeing to in a community that has a heralded history of blindly agreeing with anything even faced with self affliction or knowing they have no intention to comply cannot and will not have its intended effect, even when it was done as a good idea in theory with the best of intentions.

Spoiler: Return to Point Necro

So knowing that well intentioned theory and practical application are often mutually exclusive if not in direct conflict with each other as pointed in the prior example, then it seems that relying on what "should" happen may not be what "does" happen. Just like

...one would hope they'd read the rules and realize that posting in such an old thread is forbidden.

does not translate to mean they WILL do that. Even if it is not out of proactive ambivalence, ignorance or disdain toward the rules. How often does one go looking in a search engine for a subject, is directed to a random web forum where the topic is being discussed and before reading the material the search engine returned the results for that they were looking for, they go to that forums rules first before getting what they came looking for?

Given that people can "one click register to post" via social media (is that still being done here?) so sites can get indirect promotion through friends lists/subscribers and other means to try to encourage and grow a community It puts operating on the hope that people will follow what should be completely reasonable expectations does not confer compliance or really even foreknowledge. Especially when there are mechanisms to bypass "the rules" are built in because of a feared barrier of entry caused by making people jump through hoops that might dissuade them from participating.

So such an assumption is at best somewhat counter productive.

Spoiler: Confliction: Necro Vs Spam Vs Discussion value

So when looking at the rule on Necro`ing (and again I am NOT adverse to holding anti-necro philosophy, quite the contrary) it does present a potential conflict.

While not clearly defined and it might not be a full fledged rule, it has long been frowned upon and bad netiquette to have virtually duplicated topics, especially when ran concurrently. How many "Who is your Waifu" threads must be created, for example. Do any of them offer discussion value that is not identical to the half dozen or so that came before it? Hence the whole "Search Bar Approved" schtick. That is something equally (if not moreso due to the potential of competing threads confusing the community) as understandable and well intentioned as avoiding necro`ing. While there does not seem to be the same clearly and rigidly written defining rule on duped topics (unless it is just fading into the ELUA Wall of text blur) then you have to consider its practical application.

In order to follow an ideal SOP, One would first proactively search find a topic of discussion to make sure it is not already being discussed, then if one already exists the user would then scan through it taking in its discussion value. Then verify if is in fact has activity within the last month or not. Then if it has not, the user is free to open up their own thread on the subject. That is an awful lot of thread homework on its own.

However, what if the point that user wanted to make was to express opposition toward a specific factor presented by a different user in the deceased thread? Sure they can open their own topic, however if their point was one specific facet of the original discussed topic is what they are trying to express going to be enough to merit a subject on its own? A thought so specialized would likely die on its own for lack of discussion value, especially without the original referencing material that inspired the thought. Would it then become acceptable for users to start their own thread and reference posts outside of its originating thread? Does that not open the "out of proper context" door wide open? Does that not basically defeat the purpose of not resurrecting dead threads? Seems to me that would be worse than both Necroing and duped threads put together. I know as someone who has been quoted out of thread (and equally out of context) It is not a pleasant sensation. So if countless replies were launched due to being quoted and...

...then imagine the knee jerk reactions people will start having when they are sitting with multiple tabs open flipping back and forth between threads to figure out "where" they were being quoted from and then double checking their original context vs the way it is being taken to mean. It is hard for many people to keep a single page of posts straight, amplify it when you add Cross Threading to the mix.

So In a summary, I am reminded of Chris Rock in Dogma on belief.


Rules are much the same way. When you make rigid and unyielding by making it a rule, no matter how good the intentions, no matter how far ahead you try to account for every outcome, it is guaranteed that it will result in some being adversely effected due to equally well meaning, noble intentions, Under logical and unforeseeable circumstances, even subjective interpretation. Not saying there should not be rules. Go too far to the other extreme and you have a different but just as bad set of problems, not the least of which is nepotism and subjective inequality. The point is it is better to strike a balance. Limit the amount of imposition and restriction on the community for the sake of liberty. Maintain logical structure to keep order, allow for unforeseeable circumstances by maintaining flexibility and compassion for when it is genuinely needed. Then ensure that what subjective consideration and rule interpretation is handled equally and fairly to prevent nepotism as well as protects against bias that would lead to inequity and discrimination.

(Not saying The Escapist does not. With the exclusion of one reversed misunderstanding of intention I have existed here with little concern for the rules by simply just using common sense and basic netiquette without administrative incident. That is kind of proof that the moderation here, for the most part does manage to strike such a balance)

Basically, it is like much in this world. It is no where near as simple as it might seem to be. I think the call to "think on it further" is much of where the vocal opposition to this round of adjustments is originating.

Edit: LOL I would be the asshole to get ninja'd by a big "clarification update" post.

 

[JonB]

So according to this section...

"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."

... what you say is true.

HOWEVER, according to this section...

"If we find you being slanderous with regard to any part of The Escapist, you will be penalized. 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. In short, if you say something you better be able to back it up with fact."

... what you say is false.

And this is why. The difference between an inflammatory statement and an opinion is what? For example, I once said in a zero punctuation comment section that the video in question was sub-standard. I noted the lack of jokes, unsatisfying content, and a very monotone delivery by Yahtzee. I noted an issue and stated why I thought it to be an issue. Constructive criticism, no? Well not if you are on a mods shit list. Then you are being inflammatory and adding no discussion value.

The problem with these rules, to put it simply, is that they are so vague as to give mods with an axe to grind unlimited ways to pursue people they don't like. Why not simplify this particular rule to, "You can not insult or harass forum members." Oh wait, that rule is already there. Stifling the discussion and peoples' opinions about content, about art, is very draconian.

These rules are as precise as they need to be. I'm not sure how you've misinterpreted the word slander to mean "Opinions" and not "Lies," but you have. This rule means we'd like you not to lie about the site on the site. I'm not sure why you think that we should allow people to spread lies and misinformation of harmful intent about our content, but that's not something these forums are ever going to be for. That these rules exist separately is because we're protecting ourselves, we're protecting those of our content creators who aren't actually forum members, and we're protecting the people who sponsor things like giveaways on our site.

Consider it like this: The Escapist is a big party, and all of y'all are our acquaintances we've invited. You can drink all the beer you want. We're happy to hear about how our party could be better for next time. If you show up to spread lies about us and talk about how you hate parties and our beer sucks, we'll kick you out. You'd do the same at your house party.

If you get a warning and this isn't what you did then that's why the appeals system is in place. Appeal the warning if you think you didn't break the rules, if it's wrong it'll get removed and the mod will be told what they did wrong. Boom. Solved. Mistake solved and everyone learned something.

As to your last concern: We take allegations of moderation abuse very seriously. If you have evidence that a moderator has a vendetta against you or anyone else (and we watch this, because we know which mods give which warnings), I urge you to contact us through the link at the bottom of each page and provide that evidence immediately. If you don't have evidence, and you just think it's fun to accuse volunteers who do hard work that makes this community a better place of being jerks, then I suggest you stop.

Unfortunately, there are perhaps a couple of oversights. Regrettably, this section still exists:

Regardless of what some of our content creators may say, do or provoke within their videos or articles, this does not give members the ability to act in the same way. They are entertainers and if they brought their language or flaming into the forums, they would be held accountable, just as any other forum member of The Escapist would be.

While moderating content creators would obviously be unhelpful, we know from several examples that it doesn't occur and so this section is at best misleading.

Agreed.

I've brought up the following examples before, asking why nothing had been done in these cases, but I got no replies:

Low content: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.398156.16275670
Calling another user a troll: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.834524.20420620
Calling another user illiterate: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.829148.20201954

Not meaning to be rude, but to me it doesn't look like staff are "held accountable" when they make oopsies on the forums.

Damn, that third example there is just plain mean isn't it?

Its amazing that the mods are avoiding this question like a damn plague. And that they havent moderated Carter for actively insulting a forum member calling them illiterate.

When there are problems like this we (the staff) speak with the content contributors directly. You can rest assured that the moderators have done exactly as we asked them to by notifying us. This is not a moderation issue. There are repercussions for content contributors' actions. The repercussion for staff is that your boss yells at you and then the community manager yells at you. (Not fun.)

Those posts are old. The most recent is from September of last year. The nature of our relationship with our staff and content contributors is such that we cannot and will not handle people being "held accountable" for things in public. People who've submitted tickets about such things have received this response, and I swear we've said it in public before, but here we are and I can't find it. Sorry about that.

EDIT: Thanks for updating, JoJo, and sorry to have posted this right after you did so!