Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[Trolldor]

Funnily enough, if the system has always been in place then they've always had a shit system relying on a perfect moderation team which does not exist.

 

[Trolldor]

OH! I do have a question:

The rules say no trolling, but also no accusations of trolling.
Does this mean that mods will have to fully explain justifications for any action issued for a member's apparent trolling?
And if an appeal is successful, can the mod recieve a warning for a false accusation?

 

[JoJo]

Actually, it has little to do with the current subject. XD

Though, it is still the Pro to what that is to Anti.
n
Might take a while to find it, with the time to find and the fact that my computer is utter shite. >.>

Meh, I'll still look at it.

Well, if you want someplace quick(and this being a place that I also disagree with on several issues, including motivations), try Newgon. Google shall take you there.

Eh, here is to hoping I don't get banned for that. (=_=)

Uggghhh... just looked at that site, wish I hadn't now, feel like I'm about to be sick. I really hope you don't believe that...

As I said, I disagree with them on several issues. :L

Alright... well no offence but considering some of their claims I don't think they're a very good example of "pro-pedo", all I could see were a load of disgusting justifications for child abuse, though I didn't stick around long. That makes it impossible for me to take anything else they say seriously, if they've already abandoned such an evident truth.

Good point. :L

Wait, "evident truth"? That referring to the fact that they are like NAMbLA, but worse? XD

Precisely, there's no way I can accept evidence from people who try to justify hurting innocent children for their own pleasure by pretending that they are doing for the child's sake... if they are willing to ignore the masses of scientific evidence about child abuse then I see no reason to believe anything they claim is valid.

(Also, if you're wondering why I have temporially MasterOfWorlds avatar, that's because I've just made it for him and this is the quickest way to get it to him)

 

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

OH! I do have a question:

The rules say no trolling, but also no accusations of trolling.
Does this mean that mods will have to fully explain justifications for any action issued for a member's apparent trolling?
And if an appeal is successful, can the mod recieve a warning for a false accusation?

That's like asking if a police officer arrests a man because he's acting drunk, but the man wasn't drunk and was released shortly after his sobriety has been proven, should the officer have to serve the man's sentence in the drunk tank.
Which, while it's an interesting and oddly humorous question, has an obvious answer in this day and age: no.

The mods will be alerted to trolls via the users pressing the report button. If a number of users press it, then the mods will get there quicker and try to deal with it asap. If they feel that the post is an "inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic message with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion", then they're allowed to take action on the spot.
If you're the one (not actually you, Trolldor, but anyone reading this) whose post has been brought to the attention of the mods, you can appeal. If it really was just a misunderstanding, or you just happened to post without articulating what you mean to post properly, the mark will be removed.

If you really want to ask about their reasons for thinking your post was in troll-fashion, you can feel free to ask over PM. But, as to if they should take the hit that you narrowly missed, well... Refer to the paragraphs above.

 

[Dastardly]

Ever hear of a little something called sarcasm? Yeah it's fun. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn if you had called me that.

EDIT I don't want people acting like jackasses I just want to have a fucking good time, something your new rules is making hard to do. I could say something else but won't because I'd get banned...

Why do you keep calling them "your new rules?" I don't work here, mate. I'm just a guy who wrote an article once. You know. For fun.

As for the rest of it, I'm just having trouble understanding how these rules really make it so hard to enjoy these forums. I enjoy the hell out of them, personally. I don't even have trouble tossing some good-natured insults back and forth with other forum members that I don't know personally--because the site has a consistently friendly tone to it, thanks to the moderation.

Of course, there are plenty of less-moderated forums out there for people that need that kind of fun. I think those of us that don't should have a place to go, too. The Escapist is that place.

 

[Macgyvercas]

There are new rules? I will look into this matter.

EDIT:
So, I've always had problems with their don't be a jerk rule - when someone's an idiot, they're an idiot.

What worries me most is this:
"Similarly, posts including, advocating, or linking to illegal or adult material are a very quick way to end your time as part of The Escapist community. An example of these are:
Piracy
Ad Blockers
Illegal Drugs in the United States
Illegal Acts in the United States
Pedophilia
Pornography
Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks"
They can't include that? We can't mention piracy or illegal acts? Or porn? I doubt they mean it that way, but it gives them a lot of wiggle room that shouldn't be there. The way I'm reading this bans the entire political forum off the bat.

All political threads consist of those items up there only? Wow, I'm scared now.

Seriously though, we've always punished for those things, even before these rules were put into place. We've just made it easier to understand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the previous rules on those topics something along the lines of "You can have discussions and share your opinions about about them, but don't explicitly advocate their use"? I could be wrong though. And what does this mean now, are we not allowed to talk about them at all, because I have seen of pretty interesting debates the first three on that list. Or is it the standard "Discuss, don't advocate" fare?

EDIT: Please ignore. I didn't see your response to someone else when I posted this.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

I'm... a bt iffy about the whole "health bar" deal. I mean, I know what they're getting at, but it seems a bit... much.

Or maybe that's just my paranoia acting up again...

 

[ynotgriff]

i had no idea, seems like they should have sent people messages or something.

 

[Virgil]

Also, the little part underneath the meter that calls me a citizen..I find it hilarious. Makes me think of 1984.

I was going for Robocop, but 1984 works too

 

[subtlefuge]

All right, THE new rules. And if by "fun" you mean 1984 style moderation, then by all means, this is the best website on Earth.

It's not 1984.

There's a sweet spot somewhere between /b/ and Something Awful, and that's what these rules are.

I mean, you can't be banned for being a Libertarian here.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Oh, oh damn. I made a monumental boo-boo here. The fact that Spinwhiz got suspended kind of made me forget that he was a mod. I figured he was just a member of the site saying something that some people could consider controversial. Yeah, if he's banning people for something he's not fully educated on/he just doesn't like for his own reasons, something needs to be done about that.

Yeah, I do believe that Kulani, the former head mod, overturned Legendary's ban. Now that he is gone though....

Wait, wait, wait...Kuliani's gone?! When did this happen?! Wow, I must really not pay attention to what goes on here.

Then again, I guess ignorance is bliss, so...

*goes back to playing DDO*

 

[ace_of_something]

They're new? they seemed exactly the same to me. I guess I don't worry about it because I don't say things on the internet I wouldn't say to your face.

You know, I get that a lot. "You wouldn't say that bullshit if you were standing in front of me instead of safe behind a computer", and it bothers me because I wouldn't say anything here that I wouldn't say to someones FACE. I don't go out of my way to be insulting or inflamitory, but when someone does a stupid thing, you should tell them it's a stupid thing.

Seems like common sense to me, but apparently I'm alone.

That is why you attempt to use tact. If you say "Hey that thing you said was stupid, stupid!" that's being a jerk. If you say "That doesn't make sense here's why" that is calling someone out without being inflammatory.
I'm not sure if you personally use tact but most people I know who claim "I will tell them how it is" in person tend to have, no tact, or are blunt hurtful butthead.

 

[Virgil]

This has been pointed out and beaten to death, but I feel it's important to reiterate that nothing has actually changed. ... The only change being made is that now ordinary people can see it, which is how it always should have been. The idea of an invisible scoreboard I can't see which counts every perceived infraction and which I can never erase by my good deeds is absurd. A visible one is slightly less so. At least this way it's more honest.

That's exactly the reasoning behind making it public. There has historically been confusion as to why one person was banned for something that another person "got away with", when ban history is always the reason. Now there shouldn't be confusion.

By the way, while "good deeds" are not taken into account directly, they certainly are taken into account on appeals. Someone that is typically reasonable and polite will get a pass, while someone who is unapologetic won't.

i'm a bit ayn randy when it comes to these things;

If you're really Randian, then you'd have no problem with us setting whatever rules we chose, as the forums are our domain and as the owners we are free to set whatever guidelines we like. Anyone that doesn't like the rules, of course, is completely free to leave (and even set up their own forums, with their own rules). That's the purest form of capitalism.

Yeah, if he's banning people for something he's not fully educated on/he just doesn't like for his own reasons, something needs to be done about that.

Here's the deal: we don't want to "be educated". As a company, and a group of people, we have officially decided that we find it creepy, and we don't want it on our site. Spinwhiz, and the guidelines he has set up, are just the representation of that. You happen to disagree, and you're welcome to, but in the end it's not your feelings on the topic that matter here, it's ours. If you want to discuss it, I'm sure you can find some place on the internet that will welcome you, but it won't be on our forums.

If we get enough people, they will not be able to ignore us any longer.

Yes we could. The forums make up a minor portion of our traffic, and the users that actually cause problems make up a minor part of the forums. Even if your group managed to get every member that had ever received a warning, probation, or ban to sign up, which you won't, it would still not be enough people to make a difference.

Don't forget, we know what kind of people will have a problem under the new system and end up getting banned because of it. We expect those people to get banned. It's not something that we didn't already think about.

 

[pepitko]

I don't really mind the harsher forum rules, after all this site does a great job of promoting a reasonable discussion of all sorts of gaming related topics. These topics obviously generate all sorts of feedback, but people need to be respectful of opinions of others, in order for a civilized discussion to take place.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

I'll follow the precedent set by the video producers and articles.

If Jim from the Jimquisition can post lewd pictures why can't I?

If Yahtzee can "ironically" insult everyone so will I (stupid!)

And if MovieBob can perv on about ladies so will I.

I do agree that this will neuter all animated discussion. I would much prefer a "anything goes within reason" sub-forum where we can all have passionate and argumentative discussions.

I may be wrong and this will usher in 1000 years of peace between trolls and humans.

 

[Ubermetalhed]

If we get enough people, they will not be able to ignore us any longer.

Yes we could. The forums make up a minor portion of our traffic, and the users that actually cause problems make up a minor part of the forums. Even if your group managed to get every member that had ever received a warning, probation, or ban to sign up, which you won't, it would still not be enough people to make a difference.

Don't forget, we know what kind of people will have a problem under the new system and end up getting banned because of it. We expect those people to get banned. It's not something that we didn't already think about.

Well that sounds alot like we don't need you faithful forum goers of the escapist, our website can be successful on our own doesn't it?

Shouldn't you actually listen to your users opinions on this?

Although it seems in the last year or so the Escapist has started getting worse as its popularity has grown. Reminds me of TGWTG and Spoony Experiment.

To be honest to see that i'm permanently on probation is a bit ridiculous. You know probation is meant to have an end right?

 

[KnifeyMcStaberson]

this post made with 100% pre-recycled materials.

 

[Xanthious]

I still would like a public answer as to my inquiry about The Escapist staff and ad blockers. Are there members of the staff that use them or do you fellas abide by the guidelines you expect others to follow and either disable or remove them? I expect that a site that punishes people for even so much as admitting to using one would themselves not allow them on any company computer. Right? Or is this a case of telling members to do as you say not as you do?

And let's not kid ourselves this rule is against ad blockers not merely admitting to using them. If you could find a way to tell if they are being used or not and punish those that use them you would. A mod a ways back all but admitted as much.

Again, it would seem that if you feel that strongly as to think it's ok to punish folks for using something that comes standard on most browsers anymore then it would stand to reason the staff shows any website they visit the same courtesy as they expect theirs to be shown and browse them in the full glory of every pop up and layover ad and auto playing video they wish to throw at you.

I can respect strict rules when they are applied to everyone equally. What I don't have a stomach for is hypocrisy and double standards.