Poll: New Forum Rules: Yay or Nay?

[Thaluikhain]

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.

Hey? You think this was intentionally done to allow mods to mod people without giving clear justifications?

 

[JoJo]

I remember a time where this was considered an adult forum and we were allowed to use whatever language we wanted as long as it wasn't excessive or directed at specific users.

The forum has sure gone downhill since then.

If this forum was ever an adult forum, then it certainly wasn't by the time I joined almost four years ago, it's been PG-13 from then until now. As far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong here, there isn't anything specifically in the new rules against cursing unless it's ridiculously excessive, or directed at other users.

 

[cerebus23]

With the kind of content and sheer amount of red meat used in that content, jim and zp especially, how can you not expect people to react to stuff?

why do we have to bite our tongue now? granted i like their stuff i dont have a problem with the stuff heck some of the more controvercial stuff i found hilarious, but if someone feels offended by a gag or something they should have every right to vent their disagreement.

Sometimes content creators do go too far, they are not always 100% in the right, they are only human after all.

Bumping older threads really needs some qualifiers, if a threat is relevant, or has new relevance, why can it not be bumped or necroed? Is it better to make a new thread even if it is number 20 on the exact same topic? what sense does that make exactly?

how about all the bi monthly flame debates that cover the same topics but just different thread titles, where they could probably find the old threads and read every opinion under the sun and loads of flames, instead we just rehash it. and i would be willing to bet as time goes on the constructive debate diminishes and trolling and flame baiting increases, maybe someone should do a study on that, as topics get rehashed.

 

[Aramis Night]

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.

Hey? You think this was intentionally done to allow mods to mod people without giving clear justifications?

I refuse to answer that question. My answer may be deemed offensive and i will be banned. Please don't be offended by my lack of answer.

 

[lacktheknack]

I remember a time where this was considered an adult forum and we were allowed to use whatever language we wanted as long as it wasn't excessive or directed at specific users.

The forum has sure gone downhill since then.

Jesus Christ, man, you've been here less than a year. The forums are improving from their state last year.

snip

I'm going to bet 40 cookies on this being inaccurate, what with new rules ALWAYS being vague and this forum being a bit of a low-controversy echo-chamber already.

 

[Sassafrass]

Nice to finally see the necro rule put in after a year of it being a non-listed rule.
In short, yays and stuff, I guess.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Does this mean posts laden with profanity would be banned? If we're trying to take "PG-13" then, as per the MPAA's guidelines:

A motion picture?s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context.

How are we to interpret this?

I feel so tempted right now to post that one video where Brian Blessed brings on a barrage of expletives.

I think that out of all the new forum rules, the PG-13 one seems the most unnecessary, people here tend to keep it civil anyway from what I have seen, and I don't see what the point in regulating swearing is anyway.

There are few enough words that can appropiately express anger, expletives have the right phonetics to do it succinctly and quickly without being bogged down with words such as "enraged" "overcome with anger and disdain".

Other than that, the rules seem okay, but I still miss DvsBstrd's quips and witticisms.

 

[Callate]

I'm a tiny bit worried about the "perverted remarks" line; it seems excessively vague. If it's just used to keep someone from trying to gross out another forum member as a sort of sideways aggression, that's one thing, but some people find homosexuality, transexuality, BDSM, vore, and "furries" perverse... And I'm not about to say off hand that discussion of any of the above is without merit; I think there have been interesting messages about any and all of the above, and I'd hate to see them go for fear of censure.

 

[Legion]

With the kind of content and sheer amount of red meat used in that content, jim and zp especially, how can you not expect people to react to stuff?

why do we have to bite our tongue now? granted i like their stuff i dont have a problem with the stuff heck some of the more controvercial stuff i found hilarious, but if someone feels offended by a gag or something they should have every right to vent their disagreement.

Sometimes content creators do go too far, they are not always 100% in the right, they are only human after all.

As per the rules, you are perfectly allowed to vent your disagreement. What you are not allowed to do is:

A) Create a thread to vent about it, without any discussion value.
B) Vent at them as individuals.

If you want to say how and why you find it offensive, that is fine. But if you start attacking them personally for it then you would be breaking the code of conduct. "I find this offensive because X. I feel that saying Y was out of order." would be fine. If you make it personal against them by saying things such as "You are an idiot/racist/sexist/troll/whatever" then that is crossing the line.

The rules have not changed in that regard, it was there before.

Or to put it more simply: Criticise the work, not the worker.

 

[lacktheknack]

And PG-13 clearly implies no cursing.

A mod in this very thread said that you can easily get away with "a few fucks".

Also, for someone who's been lurking here forever, you've missed the dozens of times that a staff member have said "This is a PG-13 site", and they've been saying it for years.

 

[JoJo]

Jesus Christ, man, you've been here less than a year.

Judge not a book by its cover.

If this forum was ever an adult forum, then it certainly wasn't by the time I joined almost four years ago, it's been PG-13 from then until now. As far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong here, there isn't anything specifically in the new rules against cursing unless it's ridiculously excessive, or directed at other users.

I can clearly remember that rule. It was before the "don't insult content creators" one. The first time I read the rules was shortly after Yahtzee came to the site.

And PG-13 clearly implies no cursing.

Implies, but the rules also imply from a straight reading that any discussion of an illegal act is prohibited and I can't see that being enforced. Unless we see examples of people being moderated for cursing, I wouldn't consider it a major problem.

On your other point, you joined the site in 2013, so I can't see how you would know so much about what happened years ago unless you have an older account? Is that the case?

 

[FoolKiller]

Now they can give warnings for necroing threads without me getting angry. About time it was put in.

Actually, this is why I voted nay. Its a load of shit. I've accidentally done it to a thread because the stupid site sees you read something and gives you a set of related articles only to show that the article is three years old. If you don't want the thread revisited then you shouldn't shove it in my face to begin with.

Also, this would be easier on the site's end to manage. All you have to do is create a nice little bit of code that locks the thread automatically when 30 days has expired from the time of last post.

Punishing someone for this seems lazy as it could be handled easily and proactively on the forum's end.

 

[IceForce]

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.

Also, this would be easier on the site's end to manage. All you have to do is create a nice little bit of code that locks the thread automatically when 30 days has expired from the time of last post.

Punishing someone for this seems lazy as it could be handled easily and proactively on the forum's end.

I've been saying this for months, but the mods don't seem to be interested in taking this suggestion on board.

Seriously, it wouldn't be that hard to implement. Just auto-lock all threads after 30 days of no replies.

It's simple, it saves people from getting warnings, and saves the mods from the extra work of having to deal with necro threads.

 

[JoJo]

Says something about the rules when they're so vaguely strict that they need either additional explanation or the common sense filter.

Indeed, I've criticised the new CoC in this very thread for that reason.

I'm sure you'll eventually figure it out.

Well, there's three possibilities:

[li]You lurked for years on end before joining, certainly possible but I have doubts over whether a lurker would stay around that long and go to the lengths of knowing a forum's rules in depth[/li]
[li]You had a previous account and abandoned it for personal reasons[/li]
[li]You had a previous account but it was banned[/li]

Any clue on which of these is correct?

 

[Aramis Night]

Now they can give warnings for necroing threads without me getting angry. About time it was put in.

Actually, this is why I voted nay. Its a load of shit. I've accidentally done it to a thread because the stupid site sees you read something and gives you a set of related articles only to show that the article is three years old. If you don't want the thread revisited then you shouldn't shove it in my face to begin with.

Also, this would be easier on the site's end to manage. All you have to do is create a nice little bit of code that locks the thread automatically when 30 days has expired from the time of last post.

Punishing someone for this seems lazy as it could be handled easily and proactively on the forum's end.

As i pointed out in a previous post: Those that run this site know that this rule can be dealt with on their end. They are not inept or stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. The point is for more people to banned at their discretion and to have the CoC back them up in doing so. It isn't about the undesired actions, or else as you pointed out, they would make such actions impossible on their end. It's about rooting out those they deem undesirable.

 

[anthony87]

No change to the low content rule? Shame.