Poll: New forum rules - Yay or Nay?

[jml spells jumle]

Hmm. 33 pages in one day on this topic.

Mods: Do you think maybe there's a point the community voicing such strong, consistent opinions on this newly instituted system? Hmm?

Aside from the fanbois, the overall flavor is that this is bollocks. This isn't soviet eastern Germany in 1966..is it? Its not an Orwellian future? Ming the Merciless isn't running the world? 3 noes.

Its not so much that these rules were implemented (which is bad enough). Its that the Escapist management team felt that the community needed to be rigidly controlled in this manner. Really? Do you really need to magnify your previous rules? Do you think so little of your customer base that you feel they need to be rigidly controlled and monitored?

I'm not saying that lightly. Look at the feedback.

I have to wonder what meeting took place that this idea of treating your customer base like 5 year olds was a great idea. I hear the fanbois saying, "Well, it'll keep out the riffraff and we'll have a more quality community.". Really, guys? Really? If you pay attention to who is dissenting in this thread, you'll notice that the majority have been around for quite some time, many of them with subscriptions that have helped to financially maintain the health and longevity of the Escapist. Dissent != lack of community quality, rather a fostering of critical discussion and thought. I thought that was an integral part of the Escapist at one point, not this rule-mongering.

I'm not in kindergarten. I don't need gold stars to tell me that I've been good, and I sure as heck don't need to be sent into a corner to know that I've stepped outside of acceptable bounds. Being here, though, establishes from your first post that is the way things are run around here.

Treat your customers and patrons with respect, not fear of reprisal, and you will garner the benefits of a mature community. Carry a whip and switch it at every opportunity, and you will fan the flames at the base of your own failure..

This. It's pointless to add why I agree with this person because it's pretty much already been said. If you do post "This" after quoting something, it's more likely that someone is going to read it aren't they? So it's more likely to open up more discussion and stating more opinions, which will be the point of the thread like in most forums.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

So, there´s been an update to the rules. If you haven´t seen it, it´ll come up when you try to post.

So anyway, what does the Escapist think of this new set of rules? Yay? Nay? Don´t care?!

Personally, i think the rules are just as good as usual, but the whole forum health meter thing sounds a little unfair. I mean, you can NEVER get strikes back? That sounds kinda impractical.

Let´s be hypothetical here: Let´s say a poster reaches the last zone before a ban, but decides he/she doesn´t like to be banned and stops acting like a twat. 9 months pass with plenty of posts and not a single infraction, but then, this poster makes one post that could be classified as offensive/jerkish etc. And they´re banned. I dunno. Just doesn´t sound fair to me.

I voted "Some yay". If they got rid of the "Forum health meter" i´d be good. I don´t think infractions should be measured in this way.

Don't know if this has been said, and I'm sorry if I'm like the 50th person to tell you, but there is a way to remove infractions, it's one for every 6 months not an asshole and for 2 years of nothing bad, everything is removed. There's also the groups. I like it, it makes the whole reporting and finding out if a person is a jerk a whole lot easier.

 

[carpathic]

Look, I don't take part in any other forum on the internet, and here I have been put on probation twice.

Once for congratulating someone on their 1000'th post. Apparently "congratulations" was not enough content.

The second time was when a mod suspended me for a post I had made nearly a week previously for "not enough content". (it was like my sixth post finishing off a disagreement with someone)

When I finally get permabanned, it will likely be for "not enough content" because sometimes I don't feel the subjective need to write a book to answer a question.

When I get banned, I'll just come and watch ZP, and the escapist will lose the revenue from me watching the adverts while on the forum.

 

[the_maestro_sartori]

Surely it'll make no difference to the vast majority of posters that don't act like dickheads?

Don't be a dickhead, and it doesn't effect you

 

[JoJo]

It's the equivalent of posting what they've already posted.

Then why post it again if you have nothing to add to it, everyone will have already read it and if you don't add any more points or counter-points then there's nothing to debate about.

What if they've already explained that in their post? What could the other person who agrees add to it?

What if you can't think of anything else at that moment? You have nothing else to say, but you agree with what they said. People shouldn't be eventually banned for that.

The mods here just seem to judge people immediately without letting them give a reason, or the moderators themselves don't even have a reason, yet they can do worse stuff like said above.

If you can't think of anything to add then don't post, there's no rule saying you have to post in every thread you read. If you really HAVE to "this" someone then atleast put a sentence afterwards stating why you agree with them.

I never said you have to post in every thread you read, also read that post again, you seem to have missed the point. And read the paragraph above.

This is a discussion-based forum, by quoting someone and solely adding "this" or a picture you aren't adding anything new to the conversation, so you're just filling up space. On some forums that's allowed which is fine, that's their decision, but here we expect users to put atleast a little bit of effort into their posts. If you don't like that, then I'm sure there's a multitude of other forums out there with more relaxed rules you can visit.

As for the mods, with all due respect, you have 19 posts meaning unless you're the ultimate lurker I highly doubt you've had much experience here.

Actually, I have got experience here. I've lurked here for a few months and I've read things where people have complained about this website on other sites. There was one thread on if you're a furry or not and if you think it's OK to be a furry, aylaine (I think that's her name) locked it because the people "weren't being nice" (not exactly on those lines). Then I saw a thread where the escapist said they wanted to be improved and she said that she wanted people to talk about sex maturely. And she's done that. I find that extremely ironic. The thread didn't have any flame wars or anything, just people arguing and debating over furries and their views on them.

I didn't see that particular thread, but I know on the subject of furries a minority of users have rather negative views and that sort of thread is just asking for tension to break out. Indeed, those who treat furries in such a way aren't talking about sex maturely, they are just trying to offend them and their preferences. I personally would rather that mods deal with offenders individually rather than locking threads, but it's nothing to get worked up over.

As a regular user for a year, I have found that the mods stick to a very particular rule set and any unfair moddings are quickly reversed by the appeal board (there was even a guy a while back who admitted he was a pedophile, but didn't molest or anything, intially he was banned but after a lot of people complained that he hadn't broken any rules the ban was revoked. If that doesn't show that the mods are fair, I don't know what does.)

Nothing does show the mods are fair because they aren't. That ban was unfair and there probably wasn't much thought about it, I bet they didn't ask the person why they made that post or anything. The mods just decide to ban people straight away, not letting the person even give a reason. It just shows that the moderation team don't put much thought into their actions.

I'm posting this for the escapist to try and improve, it obviously won't work, because I've seen endless people do similar to this before and it hasn't worked. It'll just end up with you still convinced that it's a good idea, despite the fact that a lot of people have a problem with it, so really you should change it. Then you'll threaten to warn/suspend me if I make another post on this thread about it, when all I'm trying to do is help you out and give you advice to improve.

As for the rules, it always should have been like this, showing how many warnings/bans you've had.

The Escapist has no problem with those who give advice, as long as they do so in a polite manner (as you are now). Indeed, I myself am a member of several user-groups advocating freedom of speech here and making sure rules are applied correct, I was part of the group that managed to get the 6-month warning removal amnesty. If the mods were really so unfair then they would have ban-hammered us long ago, the fact they allow us to exist shows that they are able to be open and accept criticism.

Also a point is that most people who had problems with the new rules wasn't because of the low-content rules (which have always existed here), but because of the permancency of the punishments which has since been altered to be fairer.

 

[JDKJ]

What does "inane" have to do with "low content?" The former, I would think, speaks to some sort of qualitative characteristic having to do with a lack of intelligence. The latter is, I would think, purely quantitative (i.e., insufficient content). Is it not possible that I post a "high content" wall of text that's as inane as inane can be? And a "low content" post that's pure genius in its substance? If you really are attempting to define "low content" by virtue of "inane," that suggests to me that your regulatory scheme isn't as well-thought out as you claim it is. That definition doesn't at all strike me as a very useful working definition.

For example and not to complain, I posted a photo of some kook wearing a tin foil hat and which contained the words "It's a Conspiracy" and received a "low content" warning for doing so despite the fact that my post was quote at least five times by responses substantive in nature. I can't see how a post quoted five times is failing to add to the discussion. On those facts, I would think it's actually promoting discussion.

But as you've said, it is yours to define (notwithstanding whether it works or not).

To clarify: "Low content" isn't necessarily quantitative. And you're right, you can have an absolutely monstrous post with absolutely nothing of relevance, though rarer. Those will be equally punished if noticed. That said, image macros almost always fall within "low content". If you absolutely must reply with an image, expand on it. Image macros rarely have any kind of discussion value, and number of quotes does not relate to quality of content.

In retrospect, while that image might have been appropriate (or not, I'm not looking at the thread), couldn't you honestly have said anything else about it? Ya know what I mean?

Cheers.

What you actually mean to say is that you couldn't have said anything else about it. The poster may very well have sene a lot more to that image, so might have other posters. What you personally see is irrelevant.

But therein lies the rub!! It isn't irrelevant! It's entirely relevant. What a moderator sees or doesn't see is what, in essence, determines how they respond. And, of course, there's no way for a moderator to be absolutely objective. What anyone sees or doesn't see is, I think, always a product of their own subjectivity.

 

[JDKJ]

What you actually mean to say is that you couldn't have said anything else about it. The poster may very well have sene a lot more to that image, so might have other posters. What you personally see is irrelevant.

Au contraire, that's exactly why we have defined rules, to prevent interpersonal subjectivity.

But are the rules as well-defined as you claim they are? Let's take, for example, the "picture rule" and ask ourselves if this is a "picture" as that word is used in the rule:

? . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-??. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:?. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .?~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ?~,_. . . ..?~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .?=,_. . . .?-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~?; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .?=-._. . .?;,,./`. . /? . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..?~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-?
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--
*deep sigh*

Arguably, it isn't. It doesn't involve image tags and is actually made up of textual characters. Is it the sort of low-content face-palm rot that both the "low content" and "picture" rules were intended to capture? Arguably, it is -- and if not, it ought to be. The point being that perhaps terms like "picture" aren't as well-defined in the rules as they could and ought to be. Which leaves their definition open to subjective ad hoc interpretation by both users and moderators.

 

[jml spells jumle]

It's the equivalent of posting what they've already posted.

Then why post it again if you have nothing to add to it, everyone will have already read it and if you don't add any more points or counter-points then there's nothing to debate about.

What if they've already explained that in their post? What could the other person who agrees add to it?

What if you can't think of anything else at that moment? You have nothing else to say, but you agree with what they said. People shouldn't be eventually banned for that.

The mods here just seem to judge people immediately without letting them give a reason, or the moderators themselves don't even have a reason, yet they can do worse stuff like said above.

If you can't think of anything to add then don't post, there's no rule saying you have to post in every thread you read. If you really HAVE to "this" someone then atleast put a sentence afterwards stating why you agree with them.

I never said you have to post in every thread you read, also read that post again, you seem to have missed the point. And read the paragraph above.

This is a discussion-based forum, by quoting someone and solely adding "this" or a picture you aren't adding anything new to the conversation, so you're just filling up space. On some forums that's allowed which is fine, that's their decision, but here we expect users to put atleast a little bit of effort into their posts. If you don't like that, then I'm sure there's a multitude of other forums out there with more relaxed rules you can visit.

There's been huge walls of text of people posting, someone agreeing and getting suspended. But it's apparently OK and puts a lot of effort if you make a post that's a line long? Yeah, that's definitely a fuck load of effort right there.

I didn't see that particular thread, but I know on the subject of furries a minority of users have rather negative views and that sort of thread is just asking for tension to break out. Indeed, those who treat furries in such a way aren't talking about sex maturely, they are just trying to offend them and their preferences. I personally would rather that mods deal with offenders individually rather than locking threads, but it's nothing to get worked up over.

And there will always be negative views on something, you're meant to post your views on a forum, otherwise, what was the point in this forum? If someone hates furries just because they're a furry, people could try to convince them that most of them aren't bad people. Not lock the whole thread just because there may have been about three people who hate furries when most people were talking about sex maturely. It was more of an example than me getting worked up.

Also a point is that most people who had problems with the new rules wasn't because of the low-content rules (which have always existed here), but because of the permancency of the punishments which has since been altered to be fairer.

No they haven't, at the start there wasn't a low content post rule. I know that there was someone who got a warning for a low content post before that rule even existed.

Why don't they make a character limit instead of making people guess and get suspended or warned?

 

[JDKJ]

It's the equivalent of posting what they've already posted.

Then why post it again if you have nothing to add to it, everyone will have already read it and if you don't add any more points or counter-points then there's nothing to debate about.

What if they've already explained that in their post? What could the other person who agrees add to it?

What if you can't think of anything else at that moment? You have nothing else to say, but you agree with what they said. People shouldn't be eventually banned for that.

The mods here just seem to judge people immediately without letting them give a reason, or the moderators themselves don't even have a reason, yet they can do worse stuff like said above.

If you can't think of anything to add then don't post, there's no rule saying you have to post in every thread you read. If you really HAVE to "this" someone then atleast put a sentence afterwards stating why you agree with them.

I never said you have to post in every thread you read, also read that post again, you seem to have missed the point. And read the paragraph above.

This is a discussion-based forum, by quoting someone and solely adding "this" or a picture you aren't adding anything new to the conversation, so you're just filling up space. On some forums that's allowed which is fine, that's their decision, but here we expect users to put atleast a little bit of effort into their posts. If you don't like that, then I'm sure there's a multitude of other forums out there with more relaxed rules you can visit.

There's been huge walls of text of people posting, someone agreeing and getting suspended. But it's apparently OK and puts a lot of effort if you make a post that's a line long? Yeah, that's definitely a fuck load of effort right there.

I didn't see that particular thread, but I know on the subject of furries a minority of users have rather negative views and that sort of thread is just asking for tension to break out. Indeed, those who treat furries in such a way aren't talking about sex maturely, they are just trying to offend them and their preferences. I personally would rather that mods deal with offenders individually rather than locking threads, but it's nothing to get worked up over.

And there will always be negative views on something, you're meant to post your views on a forum, otherwise, what was the point in this forum? If someone hates furries just because they're a furry, people could try to convince them that most of them aren't bad people. Not lock the whole thread just because there may have been about three people who hate furries when most people were talking about sex maturely. It was more of an example than me getting worked up.

Also a point is that most people who had problems with the new rules wasn't because of the low-content rules (which have always existed here), but because of the permancency of the punishments which has since been altered to be fairer.

No they haven't, at the start there wasn't a low content post rule. I know that there was someone who got a warning for a low content post before that rule even existed.

Why don't they make a character limit instead of making people guess and get suspended or warned?

Because, if you scroll back up this thread and read the relevant posts from some moderators, low content doesn't have much to do with the amount of characters used in making a post. Despite attempts by those moderators to shed light on the issue, I'm still not entirely certain what it does have to do with, but it certainly doesn't hinge on anything as simple as mere character amount.

 

[subtlefuge]

If everyone used ad-blockers, there would be no Escapist.

If moderators had been a little nicer introducing the service or discussing how adblock hurts them, rather than behaving like car salesmen ("I'm not going to get a sale out of you, so I could give a rat's butt what you think, loser" being the attitude of several moderators, and yes, I can provide proof), the reaction to Pub Club might have been better.

Also, any time somebody is selling something intangible with little concrete value, there's the issue of value for money. It's a hard sell, and a mature individual realizes this and doesn't push it. Check out how Baldurk runs the LP Archive, and works to both make money and not annoy visitors.

We ALL work hard to eat. The Escapist shouldn't treat a small minority like scum just because they choose to block all ads by default, to better protect their computers and privacy. When I go to this website, sometimes all the ads slow down my computer. If I didn't have college work that required adblock off, I would probably run it just to keep everything secure and running fast.

Unfortunately, I would disagree. If you block a website's means to reasonably support its own costs and staff, you are pirating it. It really is as simple as that. If you then come on the forums and basically brag about how you are pirating it, and how everyone else should be doing it too, then you are insulting the staff. They should have every right to IP block and delete you off the face of the Earth. I think a warning is very kind and fair.

 

[JoJo]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

You may wanna go easy on the invitations to like it or leave it. If enough community members take you up on the invitation to leave, there won't be much of a community left. I could be wrong, but I'd assume that the Escapist relies on user traffic to drive advertisers and advertising rates. No site traffic, no advertising dollars. That's why it's important to strike that critical balance between maintaining order in the forums and maintaining robust, user-friendly forums. That "our way or the highway" attitude doesn't contribute much towards striking the appropriate balance.

 

[JoJo]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

You may wanna go easy on the invitations to like it or leave it. If enough community members take you up on the invitation to leave, there won't be much of a community left. I could be wrong, but I'd assume that the Escapist relies on user traffic to drive advertisers and advertising rates. No site traffic, no advertising dollars. That's why it's important to strike that critical balance between maintaining order in the forums and maintaining robust, user-friendly forums. That "our way or the highway" attitude doesn't contribute much towards striking the appropriate balance.

True, but I believe that the majority of users here enjoy the current system of moderation or else they wouldn't be here in the first place. I don't think that relaxing the rules will help anyone as it will just alienate a large proportion of the user base, including myself, who come to this forum because of the strict moderation.

 

[Legion]

Fair enough. I stand corrected. Perhaps my own upbringing inclined me to the assumption that picture-posts weren't aggressively reported. I grew up in a neighborhood where being the tattle-tale was a sure-fire way to get an ass-kicking without sympathy.

No-one can tell on this site though if a specific user has reported someone (other than maybe the mods, don't know abouth that), so that wouldn't apply here.

Of course the mods know who made a report.

Actually, according to a staff member, they don't know who reported. I cannot link it as it was said absolutely ages ago, but one of them definitely stated that it was anonymous.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

You may wanna go easy on the invitations to like it or leave it. If enough community members take you up on the invitation to leave, there won't be much of a community left. I could be wrong, but I'd assume that the Escapist relies on user traffic to drive advertisers and advertising rates. No site traffic, no advertising dollars. That's why it's important to strike that critical balance between maintaining order in the forums and maintaining robust, user-friendly forums. That "our way or the highway" attitude doesn't contribute much towards striking the appropriate balance.

True, but I believe that the majority of users here enjoy the current system of moderation or else they wouldn't be here in the first place. I don't think that relaxing the rules will help anyone as it will just alienate a large proportion of the user base, including myself, who come to this forum because of the strict moderation.

That's your "belief." It certainly isn't an empirical fact. And I get the sense from comments to this thread and the "are the moderator too harsh" thread and similar threads in the past that a fair amount of users have legitimate concerns more about the way in which the moderation here is effected under the current rule system and less about a relaxation of those rules. That is, I think, a legitimate concern. There are certainly some glaring holes in the application. And without constructive feedback from community members, be they the majority or the minority, those holes are unlikely to be plugged. The response to those willing to provide their feedback can't properly be "tough teats." That just tends to degrade the value that the Escapist should be placing on all community members.

 

[JDKJ]

Fair enough. I stand corrected. Perhaps my own upbringing inclined me to the assumption that picture-posts weren't aggressively reported. I grew up in a neighborhood where being the tattle-tale was a sure-fire way to get an ass-kicking without sympathy.

No-one can tell on this site though if a specific user has reported someone (other than maybe the mods, don't know abouth that), so that wouldn't apply here.

Of course the mods know who made a report.

Actually, according to a staff member, they don't know who reported. I cannot link it as it was said absolutely ages ago, but one of them definitely stated that it was anonymous.

That's weird, because I once received an e-mail from the moderators asking me something about a report they mistakenly thought I had made (I suspect that one of my posts was the subject of the report). They obviously know enough about a reporter to know about the reporter's e-mail address.

And if it is truly anonymous, then that's a nonsensical system to employ. I would like to think that who makes the report is considered as part of the process in responding to the report. If not, what stops me from browsing a thread and reporting dozens of posters for the lulz of it? What if I'm a serial reporter? Shouldn't the credibility of my reports tend to diminish after I've made my 1000th report?

 

[JoJo]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

You may wanna go easy on the invitations to like it or leave it. If enough community members take you up on the invitation to leave, there won't be much of a community left. I could be wrong, but I'd assume that the Escapist relies on user traffic to drive advertisers and advertising rates. No site traffic, no advertising dollars. That's why it's important to strike that critical balance between maintaining order in the forums and maintaining robust, user-friendly forums. That "our way or the highway" attitude doesn't contribute much towards striking the appropriate balance.

True, but I believe that the majority of users here enjoy the current system of moderation or else they wouldn't be here in the first place. I don't think that relaxing the rules will help anyone as it will just alienate a large proportion of the user base, including myself, who come to this forum because of the strict moderation.

That's your "belief." It certainly isn't an empirical fact. And I get the sense from comments to this thread and the "are the moderator too harsh" thread and similar threads in the past that a fair amount of users have legitimate concerns more about the way in which the moderation here is effected under the current rule system and less about a relaxation of those rules. That is, I think, a legitimate concern. There are certainly some glaring holes in the application. And without constructive feedback from community members, be they the majority or the minority, those holes are unlikely to be plugged. The response to those willing to provide their feedback can't properly be "tough teats." That just tends to denigrate the value that the Escapist should be placing on all community members.

I'm not saying the moderation is here is perfect, it isn't, I'm defending the rules here which prohibit short posts, which I stand by my belief that the majority here are against. The "mods are too harsh" thread is about a very different issue.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

You may wanna go easy on the invitations to like it or leave it. If enough community members take you up on the invitation to leave, there won't be much of a community left. I could be wrong, but I'd assume that the Escapist relies on user traffic to drive advertisers and advertising rates. No site traffic, no advertising dollars. That's why it's important to strike that critical balance between maintaining order in the forums and maintaining robust, user-friendly forums. That "our way or the highway" attitude doesn't contribute much towards striking the appropriate balance.

True, but I believe that the majority of users here enjoy the current system of moderation or else they wouldn't be here in the first place. I don't think that relaxing the rules will help anyone as it will just alienate a large proportion of the user base, including myself, who come to this forum because of the strict moderation.

That's your "belief." It certainly isn't an empirical fact. And I get the sense from comments to this thread and the "are the moderator too harsh" thread and similar threads in the past that a fair amount of users have legitimate concerns more about the way in which the moderation here is effected under the current rule system and less about a relaxation of those rules. That is, I think, a legitimate concern. There are certainly some glaring holes in the application. And without constructive feedback from community members, be they the majority or the minority, those holes are unlikely to be plugged. The response to those willing to provide their feedback can't properly be "tough teats." That just tends to denigrate the value that the Escapist should be placing on all community members.

I'm not saying the moderation is here is perfect, it isn't, I'm defending the rules here which prohibit short posts, which I stand by my belief that the majority here are against. The "mods are too harsh" thread is about a very different issue.

Outta pure curiosity, what's your understanding of the "no low content posts" rule? As a rule? What precisely does it prohibit?

 

[JoJo]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

You may wanna go easy on the invitations to like it or leave it. If enough community members take you up on the invitation to leave, there won't be much of a community left. I could be wrong, but I'd assume that the Escapist relies on user traffic to drive advertisers and advertising rates. No site traffic, no advertising dollars. That's why it's important to strike that critical balance between maintaining order in the forums and maintaining robust, user-friendly forums. That "our way or the highway" attitude doesn't contribute much towards striking the appropriate balance.

True, but I believe that the majority of users here enjoy the current system of moderation or else they wouldn't be here in the first place. I don't think that relaxing the rules will help anyone as it will just alienate a large proportion of the user base, including myself, who come to this forum because of the strict moderation.

That's your "belief." It certainly isn't an empirical fact. And I get the sense from comments to this thread and the "are the moderator too harsh" thread and similar threads in the past that a fair amount of users have legitimate concerns more about the way in which the moderation here is effected under the current rule system and less about a relaxation of those rules. That is, I think, a legitimate concern. There are certainly some glaring holes in the application. And without constructive feedback from community members, be they the majority or the minority, those holes are unlikely to be plugged. The response to those willing to provide their feedback can't properly be "tough teats." That just tends to denigrate the value that the Escapist should be placing on all community members.

I'm not saying the moderation is here is perfect, it isn't, I'm defending the rules here which prohibit short posts, which I stand by my belief that the majority here are against. The "mods are too harsh" thread is about a very different issue.

Outta pure curiosity, what's your understanding of the "no low content posts" rule? As a rule? What precisely does it prohibit?

It prohibits posts which don't add anything to the conversation: i.e. just a picture with no text or one word or a short phase. It depends mainly on context though, one word posts or pictures alone are usually allowed in the Forum Games and Roleplay section threads.

 

[JDKJ]

snip

You're allowed to have a negative opinion on this forum, such as "I believe that furry is zoophilia and should be illegal", however you aren't allowed to pointlessly flame or launch personal attacks like "Fur-fags like you are sick dog-rapists and should be shot on sight". Unfortunately certain topics often attract the latter and so if a thread is starting to get out of hand the mods will lock it.

Honestly the rest of your arguments I'm not going to bother directly discussing, basically this is how we do things on this forum and you're going to have to accept it or leave it. People come to this forum because we do things a certain way, same reason people go to any forum. I'm not saying this type of forum is superior to any other, just that every site has it's own standards and traditons and if you don't like them, you're free to leave at any time. That's the beauty of the internet, almost unlimited choice.

You may wanna go easy on the invitations to like it or leave it. If enough community members take you up on the invitation to leave, there won't be much of a community left. I could be wrong, but I'd assume that the Escapist relies on user traffic to drive advertisers and advertising rates. No site traffic, no advertising dollars. That's why it's important to strike that critical balance between maintaining order in the forums and maintaining robust, user-friendly forums. That "our way or the highway" attitude doesn't contribute much towards striking the appropriate balance.

True, but I believe that the majority of users here enjoy the current system of moderation or else they wouldn't be here in the first place. I don't think that relaxing the rules will help anyone as it will just alienate a large proportion of the user base, including myself, who come to this forum because of the strict moderation.

That's your "belief." It certainly isn't an empirical fact. And I get the sense from comments to this thread and the "are the moderator too harsh" thread and similar threads in the past that a fair amount of users have legitimate concerns more about the way in which the moderation here is effected under the current rule system and less about a relaxation of those rules. That is, I think, a legitimate concern. There are certainly some glaring holes in the application. And without constructive feedback from community members, be they the majority or the minority, those holes are unlikely to be plugged. The response to those willing to provide their feedback can't properly be "tough teats." That just tends to denigrate the value that the Escapist should be placing on all community members.

I'm not saying the moderation is here is perfect, it isn't, I'm defending the rules here which prohibit short posts, which I stand by my belief that the majority here are against. The "mods are too harsh" thread is about a very different issue.

Outta pure curiosity, what's your understanding of the "no low content posts" rule? As a rule? What precisely does it prohibit?

It prohibits posts which don't add anything to the conversation: i.e. just a picture with no text or one word or a short phase. It depends mainly on context though, one word posts or pictures alone are usually allowed in the Forum Games and Roleplay section threads.

Are you aware that you've just explained not the actual substance or ambit of the rule but, rather, the stated reasoning for the rule (i.e., as stated immediately after the rule, "[t]hese forums are used for discussion and low content posts halts discussion"). What the rule itself actually says is that a low content post "could be anything from answering a question to posting LOL." Which, if you ask me, is a lot like saying that "the city" could be any locale with a population greater than 1,000,000 found anywhere from New York City to the City of Angels. You know what I mean?

One of the fundamental principles of good rule-making is that the rules made should put those subject to the rules on clear and unmistakable notice of precisely what the rules prohibit. Rules that are vague and/or ambiguous don't accomplish that important notice-giving objective.