Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[Woodsey]

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...

Its less about that, more about the permanency. Just because you can appeal doesn't mean it will work.

I made a joke about roofies, got probated or suspended, and when I appealed it I was told I was "advocating date rape", no question.

And why should something you wrote a year ago have an affect on what you write now, anyway?

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

Take a peek at mine.

EDIT: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Its been fixed!

 

[joystickjunki3]

OK, I am posting right now just to see these new rules. In a moment, I will edit this post to reflect on how I feel about everything.

[edit] Upon reading the new rules, I feel that not much has changed. However, I do think that the Forum Health Meter does seem to be a little harsh; although, at least there is an appeals system. Ultimately, I think that there should be some sort of "cool down" period for the strikes, where after some amount of time, you move down a threshold.

I voted "Some 'Nay."

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I mean, you can NEVER get strikes back? That sounds kinda impractical.

That's my one major concern here. The fact that calling out trolling seems to be considered "flaming" may also be iffy: On the one hand, it's an often misused accusation; on the other, there is such a thing as being deliberately inflammatory for its own sake.

Aside from that, the rules seem reasonable. (The forum health meter itself is a perfectly good idea.)

 

[dragonslayer32]

As with most people, I don't like change. This is no exception. The whole warnings are forever thing is a big no-no. A warning should just be what is is, a warning; it shouldn't be held against someone forever. I will continue to post here but I will be extra vigilant. However, thinking about it now, that is probably why they put that system there...

EDIT: Also, does anyone know if you appeal successfully, do the negated badges become available again?

 

[Canid117]

I also got warned for a picture I posted that was NOT pornography. Yes, it was racy, but it was FAR from porn.

That happened to me once too. You know that duct tape demotivational with the girl in her underwear sitting in a chair? That is porn apparently.

 

[SamuelT]

New rules? I'm posting here just to see these popups, and later edit something in to make this post not warning worthy.

Edit: Most things seem reasonable, though I think that 'no negative voiced opinions about the Escapist' is kinda harsh. Sure, I know alot of time goes into the site, and sure I know that mindless hate is just stupid, but I'm guessing people won't be warned for a similarly unadding comment if they love a certain aspect. "So true." or "Loved it."

I guess we'll see.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The only thing I would add is that warnings go after a while (a long while, say 2 years). I got a probation about 2 years ago when I was much younger and dumber, I don't think that it should still be considered at all as it was so incredibly minor and so long ago.

 

[GeorgW]

Besides for the forum health meters, which I agree, are unfair, my main problem is the pedophilia one, actually. Mainly because they're lumping innocent people with scumbags. Pedophilia =/= child molester. There are pedophiles on here, and one actually got a ban or suspension for saying that he was, until they realized that it wasn't actually against the rules, or against US law, so they had to unpunish them. There are plenty of people who are sexually attracted to kids but know better than to actually act on it. I'm not "condoning" it, I'm just saying that there's a difference between pedophile and child molester, despite what the fear-mongering media wants you to think. However, if the pedophilia thing just means CP, fine, but say that.

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.

This, especially the bolded part, disturbs me. Exactly how far are they going to go to make sure that the advertisers and governments aren't being "slandered"?

So wait? I am never going to go from yellow to green again? Or was that just poorly written?

No, that's what they're saying.

snip

Hey GeorgW, nice to talk to you again. I'm quoting you to get your attention. Now that I have it, I'm sure you've read the rest of my post, but I'd like you to clarify, what does the pedophilia thing mean? Does it mean that people like LegendaryGamer0 can expect a banhammer visit soon, or is it just anti-CP?

I brought up the paedophile point when I first became a mod, that it should maybe be specified to child molester, but it was buried in like 50 other questions so I never got a response to that. I never brought it up again cuz it felt like such a silly little thing, but if you haven't already, maybe PM Spin about it. The way I see it though, is that being a paedophile and advocating it isn't the same thing, but I see how that's confusing.

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.

I can only speak for myself, but I always take context into consideration and make sure to make an informed decision before I do anything, and I'll be even more careful now that you're only allowed 8 strikes. In fact, I'd say I'm probably the most lenient of the mods, but I've still managed to give out some pretty severe punishments. So, you know, most of the time it's justly deserved. Also if you appeal the infraction and it gets removed, that bar of the health meter will also be removed, so the mark is not permanent if it wasn't just and you appeal it.
As for the post you quoted, it's aggressive, but not inflammatory and clearly a joke, so I would let that go. But that's just me, these things will always be subjective, there's no way around that, that's why we have an appeal system.

 

[Spinwhiz]

Besides for the forum health meters, which I agree, are unfair, my main problem is the pedophilia one, actually. Mainly because they're lumping innocent people with scumbags. Pedophilia =/= child molester. There are pedophiles on here, and one actually got a ban or suspension for saying that he was, until they realized that it wasn't actually against the rules, or against US law, so they had to unpunish them. There are plenty of people who are sexually attracted to kids but know better than to actually act on it. I'm not "condoning" it, I'm just saying that there's a difference between pedophile and child molester, despite what the fear-mongering media wants you to think. However, if the pedophilia thing just means CP, fine, but say that.

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.

This, especially the bolded part, disturbs me. Exactly how far are they going to go to make sure that the advertisers and governments aren't being "slandered"?

So wait? I am never going to go from yellow to green again? Or was that just poorly written?

No, that's what they're saying.

snip

Hey GeorgW, nice to talk to you again. I'm quoting you to get your attention. Now that I have it, I'm sure you've read the rest of my post, but I'd like you to clarify, what does the pedophilia thing mean? Does it mean that people like LegendaryGamer0 can expect a banhammer visit soon, or is it just anti-CP?

Exactly, thank you! So if I say "Apple you suck!" I get banned?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say "only if they're paying to advertise on here when you say it".

So the Review forum goes to Hell in a handbasket? Escapist is advertising Duke Nukem Forever. A random poster posts a review: "Duke Nukem SUCKED!" BAM! The Banhammer smites him!

No, not at all. If you say The Escapist is only previewing it because they are advertising, then you are going to be penalized, because that is slanderous.

How do we know if it's true or not? I find it difficult to take that mods can hand out warnings based on information THEY may know but common posters will NOT.

Easy, be able to back up what you say with fact or ask others who make statements to back them up. It's how a true debate actually works.

 

[Spinwhiz]

Don't care about the punishments but one thing that I see commonly on this website is people being told off for low content posts. Why not just set a lower limit for the number of characters in a post? Then that's one less thing the mods have to worry about and everyone's happy.

Good question. In regards to the other sites I frequent, most people just fill the extra character spaces with crap. We have no doubt members of The Escapist have lots to say, as most of the debates I see are spectacular and most opinions are well thought out and helpful.

Still, sometimes there's not much to say. What counts as low content?

"First", "LOL", an answer, a picture, a link...anything that doesn't take a brain cell to write. There is always more to write in order to advocate more discussion. If you want to answer someone's question, send them a PM.

Then please explain my Warning for a thread that had none of the above?

Send me a PM, I'd be happy to help.

 

[Futurenerd]

As for seeing warnings and probations get erased, currently it's not going to happen. We are holding people accountable for their actions and we feel 8 strikes is more than enough. 99.9% of the forum members don't have more than 2 warnings (if I'm not mistaken, 82% don't have any infractions). If people can't learn how to be respectful towards others and follow very simple rules, they won't be here for long. Everyone has a bad day but even off of the internet, if you do something stupid on that bad day, you are held accountable. The same goes for The Escapist forums.

I do agree with you, however I do feel it's a little harsh to NEVER forgive people for even the tiniest offenses.

 

[Ladette]

Hooray! I'm on permenant probation with no chance to get out of the yellow. So if I get a warning I instantly get suspended? Wonderous.

Not liking the health meter at all.

 

[HBaskerville]

People that own things do what they want with them. Rightfully the owners of this site don't want their community to post slanderous text about the people that advertise (ie. game companies, the US Govt, etc) on the site. So, if you do slander an advertiser, you get punished. The moderators will continue to make the judgement on what is a punishable offence.

There is nothing wrong with this. This is a business and they need to keep advertisers happy in order keep making money. They need to protect themselves. The old saying in politics is true: "You dance with the ones that brought you."

The "health" meter will have a chilling effect on specific discourse, which seems to be the reason they created it. I believe it will be an effective way to remind community members to temper their comments. As long as you temper your comments and keep strongly negative or controversial opinions to yourselves you will be fine.