Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[mjc0961]

I can see other people's health meters by going onto their profiles. Thus I must assume that they can also see mine. Personally, I think my moderation history, even if it is just a graph that shows how many times I've been moderated, is none of any other regular member's business. That should stay between the member in question and the moderators.

A common and recurring complaint on the forums is that UserA got a ban for the same reason UserB got a probation (or "nothing", which was likely a warning). The reason for this is always because UserA had a much longer history of bad behavior than UserB.

Warnings now display on the post, which eliminates one of those issues. The forum health meter showing publicly eliminates the second area of confusion. As a side effect, probation status no longer shows on every post a user makes. Taken together, all those changes should serve to make the moderation process much more transparent - and easier to understand - for everyone.

I understand why the change was made. I just don't agree with it. I feel that with the new rules and moderation system clearly outlined, it's already enough for people to be able to tell why one person gets a warning and the other gets a suspension for the same offense: the second person obviously had more moderations under his belt than the first. Personally that seems clear enough to me without having to see the meters of the two members.

Although, now that you mentioned that warnings will now display on the post, which reminded me that just about any post that got someone a probation, suspension, or ban was already labeled as such (unless the thread got deleted), it's obvious that our moderation history is already out there anyway for anyone who feels like going to look for it. So having the health meters public doesn't seem all that bad by comparison. I still think all of that information should just be between the member and the staff, but since it was all pretty much out there before this anyway, I'm not going to sit here and try to change it all now. Especially as it seems like you guys have some pretty clear and understandable reasons for doing it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I still disagree with it on some level, it's not this huge thing that I think needs to be changed considering all the thought that was put into deciding why things should be done this way. And thanks for addressing my concern, it's greatly appreciated.

 

[ShadowKatt]

Well this'll be fun. I'm not going to last much longer obviously, and it's going to be fun to watch the entire Religon and Politics forum go down in flames.

 

[Spinwhiz]

*snipped*

Hi Spin quoting you because I think this is your domain:

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.

Is that bolded bit there ^^^ just standard legal-ese to disassociate The Escapist with any negativity aimed at America/American government by posters or is it an actionable offence? I infer that it's just for when people are being dicks and saying "Lol.America." to a random news post but I thought it would be prudent to check.

We can't be perverts anymore!? WHAT!? The likely hood of me getting banned in the next few days is very great now.
-image-

That was in the rules? Great, there goes half the forum.

...and the rant rule gets rid of another third


Personally even though these rules were always there unspoken having them explicitly stated intimidates me a bit.

Yup, exactly. We didn't want it to include just The Escapist or just America. Overall, we are asking people just to not say mean and slanderous things that aren't true.

As for rants, people can still let loose in a forum thread, we ask that they have a point, make sure it adds or helps discussion and that the caps and swearing are negated. Some of the best debates have a 3 paragraph "rant" but there is reason and purpose for it. Just blasting out an opinion because of hate or anger does not benefit discussion, it only stops it.

Thank you for clearing that up. I thought that would be the case but better safe then sorry and all.

Sure thing. If people have a problem, they can send in an appeal but honestly, with over 99% of the posters in this forum having less than 2 warnings ever, they just need to keep doing what they are doing because the rules haven't changed, just been updated.

 

[Scorched_Cascade]

Haven't read the rules, but my forum health bar is empty. "Good work, citizen!" it tells me. For some reason that wording makes me a bit nervous.

It's probably reminding you of this:

Spoiler: pic

It reminds me more of the guardsmen from Oblivion. I was hoping that on banned users it said "Stop right there criminal scum!" or "then pay with your blood!". I hope I never have the opportunity to find out.

 

[Jedamethis]

I didn't realise it was that bloody hard to not be a dick. If you're that worried then you probably piss people off enough to deserve it...

I don't mind. The rules have never made stop and think "Hmm, I was about to insult this guy, post CP, and troll the shit out of everybody else, but hey I guess I shouldn't now!"

 

[Woodsey]

You guys are posting too fast, and I'm trying to keep up as best I can, so sorry if I've already been ninja'd.

And really, the mods aren't perfect. If one gives you a stupid sentencing that they then refuse to revoke even though you see it as unfair, as does everyone else in the thread, then that gets counted against you forever.

And that's why there's an appeal system.

OK, but without diving into my own specific example, that's what I meant by "refuse to revoke".

I like it, it'll make my job a bit easier cuz less people will complain about inconsistency. If you have any questions about the new rules, please address them here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/chat/Moderation-Team].

Why don't you have a FHM?

Because I don't know what you mean. Mind explaining?

Forum health metre.

I do, it's empty.

No, none of the mods do. Empty ones still show a grey bar.

I can understand SpinWhiz, but is this not unfair considering you're still general users?

I can see my own, so maybe it's just hidden? I can see that not really being fair, but what if people were to learn our dark pasts??? It'd be anarchy!!

If its hidden, then its less of an issue. More of one it didn't exist.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

My problem is that the health system only goes one way. You can't regain any of the lost points, which will lead to some really unfair bans.

[hr]

The bar needs to drain over time or something.

Otherwise, I really have no major issues with the bar itself existing.

ninjas... damn.

i agree with the "drain over time" thing, because at this point, i'm on permanent probation for some things i don't even remember (and one thing that was hypocritical of them to put me on probation for...)

anyways, it seems only the people who are goody two-shoes always agreeing with people and being PC gamers and subscribing to the Pub club are the ones who won't care, while the rest of us are now on permanent probation for things we probably don't even remember at this point

I can see other people's health meters by going onto their profiles. Thus I must assume that they can also see mine. Personally, I think my moderation history, even if it is just a graph that shows how many times I've been moderated, is none of any other regular member's business. That should stay between the member in question and the moderators.

A common and recurring complaint on the forums is that UserA got a ban for the same reason UserB got a probation (or "nothing", which was likely a warning). The reason for this is always because UserA had a much longer history of bad behavior than UserB.

Warnings now display on the post, which eliminates one of those issues. The forum health meter showing publicly eliminates the second area of confusion. As a side effect, probation status no longer shows on every post a user makes. Taken together, all those changes should serve to make the moderation process much more transparent - and easier to understand - for everyone.

I understand why the change was made. I just don't agree with it. I feel that with the new rules and moderation system clearly outlined, it's already enough for people to be able to tell why one person gets a warning and the other gets a suspension for the same offense: the second person obviously had more moderations under his belt than the first. Personally that seems clear enough to me without having to see the meters of the two members.

Although, now that you mentioned that warnings will now display on the post, which reminded me that just about any post that got someone a probation, suspension, or ban was already labeled as such (unless the thread got deleted), it's obvious that our moderation history is already out there anyway for anyone who feels like going to look for it. So having the health meters public doesn't seem all that bad by comparison. I still think all of that information should just be between the member and the staff, but since it was all pretty much out there before this anyway, I'm not going to sit here and try to change it all now. Especially as it seems like you guys have some pretty clear and understandable reasons for doing it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I still disagree with it on some level, it's not this huge thing that I think needs to be changed considering all the thought that was put into deciding why things should be done this way. And thanks for addressing my concern, it's greatly appreciated.

it also doesn't take into account people with a sense of humor or people who may not understand exactly what constitutes as being "against the rules".

looks like everyone needs to tread REALLY lightly from now on, especially since getting in trouble now has a permanent record... and everyone has a limited number of strikes... just like california's 3 strikes law. and look how well THAT turns out

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

I'm okay with them, as usual.

But the bar makes me terrified. I had completely forgotten I had been warned before. Now I'm being really paranoid.

 

[CarlMin]

How many people have a health meter that looks like this? (or worse)

 

[Not-here-anymore]

I haven't seen this yet. Guess I haven't posted so far today. Hang on whilst I use this post to check

EDIT: Hmm. Not sure about this 'health meter' thing, and a reset over time would be nice. Not that it's been an issue for me thus far.

 

[Gigano]

The actual content of the rules doesn't seem to have changed much (save that "perverted" addendum... not sure just what that one covers), and having a health meter might add a measure of foreseeability and equality to the sanctioning.

On the other hand, I'd certainly hope that the infraction needed to fill the last bar is considerably greater than the one needed to fill the first one, and making the focus on the risk of sanctioning so explicit might have a chilling effect on the more passionate debates and topics.

 

[teqrevisited]

To be perfectly honest I didn't read them. All I do is try not to offend, advertise or post low content spam. Seems to work.

 

[Jory]

In theory it's fine. But most probations and warnings I see I don't think are deliberately offensive or hatemongering at all.

 

[drisky]

How many people have a health meter that looks like this? (or worse)

I think thats the highest people have right now, multiple offenders don't seem to be held to anything higher than yellow for there pre bar offenses.

 

[CarlMin]

How many people have a health meter that looks like this? (or worse)

I think thats the highest people have right now, multiple offenders don't seem to be held to anything higher than yellow for there pre bar offenses.

That's not very good...

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I didn't realise it was that fucking hard to not be a dick. If you're that worried then you probably piss people off enough to deserve it...

Your use of 'you' here could be construed as offensive, because even in the general use of you it's a loaded word that obviously has a target of whoever is reading the post. You have one hard swear word and two mild swear words, your tone is accusatory and your post is only two short sentences long. Under the new rules I suspect that would be enough to get you reported.

I'm really really not trying to get you angry, or troll you, and I'm not going to report you, I'm just trying to point out how even what seems like the most innocuous of posts to you could be misread by anyone and reported. And unless the moderators are really on the ball (which I've never been entirely convinced about) then either everyone will get probations really quickly, or no one will report anyone.

And as for why i've never been entirely convinced of the moderator's alertness, because I know I'll have to justify that to avoid the banhammer. I've had three probations (that i can remember) that have been overturned because my original post wasn't actually offensive. When I've spoken to an admin and they've read it they've agreed that either it was misreported and the moderator never took the time to read it, or the moderator was overzealous. With this new system those mistakes will start getting people banned and probationed unfairly and unjustly, with no way to take back the mark against their record. And that isn't fair.

 

[lemby117]

How many people have a health meter that looks like this? (or worse)

Sigh... I do. I got prohbation for telling a guy to **** off when he was being bigoted and intolerant, Guess I have just got to speak like capcom charecters.