No problem JonB, neither of the posts you responded to had been answered fully anyhow so your responses filled in an important gap there, I've edited a link to your reply into the OP and update post to make it clear the contributor question has been dealt with ^.^
Was a long read but I'm glad to see my understanding of the rules was more or less what the mods and staff think of them. It's always good to have a refresher. ^.^
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.
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.
is in the documentation. It is a bullshit line made to cover asses the next time someone (seems to usually be Moviebob, at least in my case) says something grossly ignorant/offensive and pisses off the userbase to the point where they begin to misbehave.
But, I suppose the argument can be made that no matter how idiotic, insulting, or downright awful a producer might get, we shouldn't lash out in the forums. After all, there's still email, neh?
Well they didn't change the one really dumb thing about the code of conduct and that's the forum health bar...
Treating each infraction as "One standard unit of punishment" can lead to stupid things like someone getting banned for a low content post, or someone getting a warning for being Hitler...
Well, to be fair, if you get 8 infractions (within the span of 6 months) based on low content or Necro'ing threads; you should of learned your lesson around 2 or 5.
Well they didn't change the one really dumb thing about the code of conduct and that's the forum health bar...
Treating each infraction as "One standard unit of punishment" can lead to stupid things like someone getting banned for a low content post, or someone getting a warning for being Hitler...
Well, to be fair, if you get 8 infractions (within the span of 6 months) based on low content or Necro'ing threads; you should of learned your lesson around 2 or 5.
Well 8 in 6 months or 9 in a year, or 11 in 2 years or 13 in 3. I think I've had 5 ticks on my account since they implemented the forum health bar and that was (4 years ago? I want to say, maybe?)
Just because every once in a while I'll do something stupid like post an external link, or accidentally get trolled or something. Maybe if it reset every 6 months... No! It just needs to change.
Well they didn't change the one really dumb thing about the code of conduct and that's the forum health bar...
Treating each infraction as "One standard unit of punishment" can lead to stupid things like someone getting banned for a low content post, or someone getting a warning for being Hitler...
Well, to be fair, if you get 8 infractions (within the span of 6 months) based on low content or Necro'ing threads; you should of learned your lesson around 2 or 5.
Well 8 in 6 months or 9 in a year, or 11 in 2 years or 13 in 3. I think I've had 5 ticks on my account since they implemented the forum health bar and that was (4 years ago? I want to say, maybe?)
Just because every once in a while I'll do something stupid like post an external link, or accidentally get trolled or something. Maybe if it reset every 6 months... No! It just needs to change.
I had five ticks when it was implemented, I lost three ticks, and I've gotten three back since then. Does that mean the system needs to change? No, I do. I'm "good enough" to keep the healthbar stagnant, but if I want it to empty, I have to get better. Sounds good to me.
I mean, you JUST made a bunch of sardonic, mean and most importantly, unnecessary comments about the mods. You TOTALLY deserved that warning, and you know it as well as I do.
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]
Because the rules are so vague as to allow my comment to be classified as either or. If one was looking to come after me the rules back them up. Otherwise the rules say I'm good.
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.
Ok, let's run with that. Hypothetically, let's say I received a warning for the post I described using the current rules. Because they are so subjective the mod says I was being inflammatory and I say I was providing constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is in itself inflammatory due to the nature of the beast. No creator wants to hear anything bad about their work (IE Yahtzee's "comment section" commentary). So I put in an appeal. Does the community manager stand with me and the rules that say I'm right or the mod with the rules that say they're right?
JonB said:
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.
Well I'll tell you how. The word "slander" is so vauge that it can be applied to any negative opionions.
>slan*der
>
>Law
>noun: slander
>1.the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. A false and >malicious spoken statement.
>plural noun: slanders
>
>synonyms: defamation (of character), character assassination, calumny, libel; More
>scandalmongering, malicious gossip, disparagement, denigration, aspersions, vilification, traducement, >obloquy; lie, slur, smear, false accusation; informalmudslinging, bad-mouthing, smack talk; >archaiccontumely
>
>verb
>1. make false and damaging statements about (someone).
>
>synonyms: defame (someone's character), blacken someone's name, tell lies about, speak ill/evil of, sully >someone's reputation, libel, smear, cast aspersions on, spread scandal about, besmirch, tarnish, taint;
So if EA becomes a site sponsor will speaking ill of them garner mod wrath? Is that not our opinions being silenced and sterilized? Will site content creators still be able to criticize EA because they have different rules?
If I only learned one thing from business law and, more specifically, contract law it is that you must read the rules in the most ambiguous way possible to better refine them. If there is any ambiguity, loop holes, or unclear meanings then people will find them and people will use them. Hell, you all had a mod on here reply that they had to assume certain things about the rules and use common sense to implement them. You know what that is called in legalese? Liability.
>Example< MovieBob never gets it right in his reviews (+explanation of views). Opinion AND malicious gossip/bad-mouthing/smack talk/speak ill of/ and of course make false and damaging statements about. The rules say I can due to constructive criticism of the work but also say I can't due to spreading slander. Just depends if the mod has an axe to grind with me or not.
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.
So, as stated before, what if the rules support both parties due to the ambiguous nature of the CoC?
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.
Notice how I never said a mod was after me or mentioned a mod by name. I'm shining a light on how the system can be abused. In truth, I've seen one mod consistently abuse the rules a while ago and it took a good long while to get rid of him/her. I have submitted one appeal and won due to following the letter of the CoC.
Am I on your shit list? Because if I am then the CoC has a clause that would allow you to mod me for my entire conversation chain on this topic. Might be a bit obvious if you only modded me, but the rules would back you up. That is all I'm getting at. There is to much in the CoC left to subjective words and half explanations.
So in short, no I will not stop. I will continue to express my opinions and back them up with facts unless, of course, you find them to be slanderous. At which point my fears would have been validated.
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.
And this "policy" is ripe for corruption, or at least suspicion of corruption. Can you blame the user base for saying content creators and mods don't get punished when it (supposedly) happens behind the scenes and no trace of punishment is to be found on the offending post? And why not give a warning where a warning is due? They got on the forum. They agreed to the forum rules same as us regular members. They broke the forum rules and... don't get punished like the rest of the forum users?
The longer I'm in this thread the more I feel like...
Disclaimer- I am not, in fact, asking to get modded. This is just the second or third time I've used myself as an example of possible moderation due to that one clause. It is like I'm asking for it when in fact I'm only trying to make a point about the ambiguous nature of the CoC.
Wait...so before it was against the rules to say you watched porn/say it's good? What the actual fuck. This gives me a better idea of the age range of this site. If it really is this...immature. I'll probably have to leave seeing as I obviously don't fit the demographics...
To be honest, I'd have to look at an errata A:B-ing comparing the 'new' rules to the old ones, since they seem to be more or less the same, perhaps save some fine print I missed.
For what it's worth, to any mods reading this, I appreciate your collective diligence and even handed approach to enforcement. It's been my experience that you've been willing to make allowances for discussion of certain infractions provided they contribute to a larger discussion, while being swift to descend on people just looking for a fight and to generate bad noise. It's an indication of integrity and care uncommon to large forums.. I'm no saint, but I've always felt I was dealt with fairly, even in punitive circumstance, so thank you and cheers.
Wait...so before it was against the rules to say you watched porn/say it's good? What the actual fuck. This gives me a better idea of the age range of this site. If it really is this...immature. I'll probably have to leave seeing as I obviously don't fit the demographics...
Not really, the old rules could have been interpreted to mean that but only because they were written vaguely, no-one was ever actually moderated for saying they watch porn or advocating it. Polls show that the site demographics are mainly older teenagers and young to mid twenties though, so take that as you will.
[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]
Is that the same North Carolina that until relatively recently, forcibly sterilised men, woman and children from minority groups and other less than pure races? The laws of North Carolina doesn't really seem like the most moral benchmark for judging an international gaming community.
Still, it's good that North Carolina has apologised for the enforced sterilisation laws and eugenics program, I wouldn't want to get moderated for admitting I passed a poor black woman on the street and didn't punch her in the ovaries.
What about if I made an off-hand comment about my intention to plough a cotton field with an Elephant? That's an illegal activity under North Carolina law, so would I be moderated for that comment, or let off since I only alluded to my intention to break North Carolina law, rather than explicitly admit to doing so.
Apparently under North Carolina law "Organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume.". How will this affect moderation of cosplay threads or discussion about the Escapist Expo?
Other things that are apparently illegal activities under North Carolina law include singing off-key, having sex without the shades pulled or in any position apart from missionary, having oral sex, playing bingo for longer than 5 hours, serving alcohol at a bingo game, so would any of those things be considered moderated illegal activities under the CoC?
If we really are going to be held accountable under North Carolina law, then we should really be provided with a list of all the laws of that state and all the nuances that make it different from our own local laws and common sense understanding of the law.
On the other hand, if we're not going to be held accountable under every North Carolina law, then who gets to pick and choose which laws we're suppose to follow or not? Is it going to be down to individual moderators and their own personal interpretation of North Carolina law, or will there be an official list for all users to read and follow?
Wouldn't it be better for our actions not to be judged by North Carolina law at all, rather than the legality of our admitted actions be judged by North Carolina law except when they're not?
That's kinda what this thread reads like to me. I'm not sold on the new rules. Especially that bit on not posting in ways that give The Escapist a negative image. Call me crazy, but what if The Escapist is actually being negative? When site contributors like Grey Carter go out of their way to call someone illiterate, there's definitely an issue. Anyway, the site will be managed in whatever way they see fit. My input counts for little to nothing. That's fine. I can always take my business elsewhere. I'm really only here for the forum. I don't watch videos, and I rarely read articles.
[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]
Is that the same North Carolina that until relatively recently, forcibly sterilised men, woman and children from minority groups and other less than pure races? The laws of North Carolina doesn't really seem like the most moral benchmark for judging an international gaming community.
Still, it's good that North Carolina has apologised for the enforced sterilisation laws and eugenics program, I wouldn't want to get moderated for admitting I passed a poor black woman on the street and didn't punch her in the ovaries.
What about if I made an off-hand comment about my intention to plough a cotton field with an Elephant? That's an illegal activity under North Carolina law, so would I be moderated for that comment, or let off since I only alluded to my intention to break North Carolina law, rather than explicitly admit to doing so.
Apparently under North Carolina law "Organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume.". How will this affect moderation of cosplay threads or discussion about the Escapist Expo?
Other things that are apparently illegal activities under North Carolina law include singing off-key, having sex without the shades pulled or in any position apart from missionary, having oral sex, playing bingo for longer than 5 hours, serving alcohol at a bingo game, so would any of those things be considered moderated illegal activities under the CoC?
If we really are going to be held accountable under North Carolina law, then we should really be provided with a list of all the laws of that state and all the nuances that make it different from our own local laws and common sense understanding of the law.
On the other hand, if we're not going to be held accountable under every North Carolina law, then who gets to pick and choose which laws we're suppose to follow or not? Is it going to be down to individual moderators and their own personal interpretation of North Carolina law, or will there be an official list for all users to read and follow?
Wouldn't it be better for our actions not to be judged by North Carolina law at all, rather than the legality of our admitted actions be judged by North Carolina law except when they're not?
What you have done is known as "reading far too deeply into it".
The purpose of the "Don't Advocate Illegal Stuff" law is twofold: 1. They don't want to get into trouble with the law for "fostering illegal activity", and 2. they don't want to devalue their adspace.
Now, drop the pedantics.
No, drop them.
Now.
Good. Now, looking at the situation with a grain of common sense, which of these two (or both, or neither) is likely to get the website in trouble with North Carolina authorites and scare away advertisers: A satire thread about plowing fields with elephants, or a thread on the best place to buy hashish?
[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]
Is that the same North Carolina that until relatively recently, forcibly sterilised men, woman and children from minority groups and other less than pure races? The laws of North Carolina doesn't really seem like the most moral benchmark for judging an international gaming community.
Still, it's good that North Carolina has apologised for the enforced sterilisation laws and eugenics program, I wouldn't want to get moderated for admitting I passed a poor black woman on the street and didn't punch her in the ovaries.
What about if I made an off-hand comment about my intention to plough a cotton field with an Elephant? That's an illegal activity under North Carolina law, so would I be moderated for that comment, or let off since I only alluded to my intention to break North Carolina law, rather than explicitly admit to doing so.
Apparently under North Carolina law "Organizations may not hold their meetings while the members present are in costume.". How will this affect moderation of cosplay threads or discussion about the Escapist Expo?
Other things that are apparently illegal activities under North Carolina law include singing off-key, having sex without the shades pulled or in any position apart from missionary, having oral sex, playing bingo for longer than 5 hours, serving alcohol at a bingo game, so would any of those things be considered moderated illegal activities under the CoC?
If we really are going to be held accountable under North Carolina law, then we should really be provided with a list of all the laws of that state and all the nuances that make it different from our own local laws and common sense understanding of the law.
On the other hand, if we're not going to be held accountable under every North Carolina law, then who gets to pick and choose which laws we're suppose to follow or not? Is it going to be down to individual moderators and their own personal interpretation of North Carolina law, or will there be an official list for all users to read and follow?
Wouldn't it be better for our actions not to be judged by North Carolina law at all, rather than the legality of our admitted actions be judged by North Carolina law except when they're not?
I ask you then, what would be your alternative? There's no worldwide accepted set of laws, somewhere has to be the baseline. There are far too many laws to write out every one that's banned from the forum individually, so it might as well be based on the location where the website is hosted, not to mention as Lack pointed out that the Escapist doesn't want to risk landing itself in legal hot water if it's seen to be facilitating crime. Realistically, you know as well as I do that the mods are never going to be handing out warnings for advocating ploughing a cotton field with an elephant, as with all the rules there's an element of moderator discretion involved.
However fine you distil the rules, there will be always be discretion involved, I mean different people have different opinions what counts as 'trolling', or 'flaming', or 'slander' for example. The rule works fine as it is, just don't advocate obvious crimes (e.g. violence, drugs, sexual assault) and you won't have any problems.
I wasn't on a mods shit list so they weren't actively trying to find something to punish me for.
Ok, let's run with that. Hypothetically, let's say I received a warning for the post I described using the current rules. Because they are so subjective the mod says I was being inflammatory and I say I was providing constructive criticism. Constructive criticism is in itself inflammatory due to the nature of the beast. No creator wants to hear anything bad about their work (IE Yahtzee's "comment section" commentary). So I put in an appeal. Does the community manager stand with me and the rules that say I'm right or the mod with the rules that say they're right?
Well I'll tell you how. The word "slander" is so vauge that it can be applied to any negative opionions.
And this "policy" is ripe for corruption, or at least suspicion of corruption. Can you blame the user base for saying content creators and mods don't get punished when it (supposedly) happens behind the scenes and no trace of punishment is to be found on the offending post? And why not give a warning where a warning is due? They got on the forum. They agreed to the forum rules same as us regular members. They broke the forum rules and... don't get punished like the rest of the forum users?
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.
-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.
-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.
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.
Jamash said:
JoJo said:
[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]
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.
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.
If somebody posts a load of bilge, inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations/assertions/whatnot with no discussion value, you can either ignore it or flag it for moderation. Responding to them will likely bump the thread up a few places and prolong its life.
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.
Draw the distinction between offended sensibilities, and offensive speech.
I, for example, don't particularly care for the Amish lifestyle. I personally believe that the creation and usage of technology will solve more problems than it creates, and the existence of this sort of technology is for the betterment of everyone. By extension, I personally feel that avoiding all technology will likewise stifle which technologies thrive and prosper enough to make major progress. This can be anything from better methods of communication to major advances in medical technology. To me, these are good things.
However, you will never find me grabbing an Amish person by the lapels and shaking them for their beliefs. Their lifestyle choices and behaviors are theirs to make. I will not call them names. I will not belittle them. I'll disagree with them, but that's as far as the buck goes. To assume all malice to what is otherwise a passive behavior isn't having offended sensibilities, it's being offensive.
To use your example, taking offense at an idea (Christianity) is not the same as taking offense at an individual (user). If you truly feel that the religion is false, then argue your points. Make your positions known. Cite sources. Explain how and why these things are important. If you wield your opinions like a weapon, intentionally "bring the wrath ... down on him/her," you're admitting that what you're doing is an aggressive and offensive act. Would it really surprise you if that garnered moderation?
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
This gives me a better idea of the age range of this site. If it really is this...immature. I'll probably have to leave seeing as I obviously don't fit the demographics...
