Poll: Open discussion on "rude" and other rules

[Silvanus]

Voted "support". They're pretty necessary if we want the forum to keep some vague level of decorum.

 

[sky14kemea]

However after that person has posted, maybe someone else posts. Maybe they post an even larger rant full of unpleasant snark and barely concealed vitriol and throughout there post imply all kind of things about the OP, implying that maybe they have mental problems? Maybe they are dumb because they grew up in a crackhouse? Did they even go to school? What a terrible person they are? They can barely stand to even speak to them, even being on the same website is repulsive etc...

The second poster will not get a warning because all they did was imply or question, despite being much more unpleasant and coming across as much more hostile and unfriendly than someone simply saying "I think that's dumb", their post will not be moderated.

I think that tends to make for a worse forum experience. I understand that the Escapist doesn't want forums filled with small posts that have little content in it and am okay with most of the current rules trying to reduce that and keep post quality high. However reading through most threads now is a case of trudging through huge amount of snark and hostility just to find the few people actually discussing the thread in a somewhat friendly manner.

Those kinds of posts are my pet peeve, honestly. It's so hard to find the line between "their opinion" and outright "insulting them". I do try to spot when someone is doing it on purpose though, because it would still fall under the "Dont be a jerk" rule, IMO. (Although I do have very bad judgement sometimes, I'm willing to admit that.)

If the Escapist wants more people using their forums then I think they do need to either lighten up the moderation or make the rules clearer. Sorry for the rant, just wanted to get it off my chest.

The problem with re-writing the CoC again is that there will always be people that are unhappy with it, no matter how specific or vague we make the actual rules.

We have eased up on the Low Content rule, to a degree. We no longer infract for someone answering a question with a short answer. However, simply posting a video or "this" under a quote still counts as Low Content.

____________

To the thread in general. I am always open to advice and critisizm about the way Moderation is handled here. As long as you can be courteous I'm willing to have discussions either in threads or via PMs to see how I can improve the way I moderate, and if there's anything I can pass on to the Community Manager or other mods to let them know what people feel the issues are.

I know the main issues like "inconsistency" and no transparency are talked about a lot. Could someone verify exactly what they mean by transparency?

If it's seeing which Mod gave which infraction out, I don't see that changing. That's partly to protect the volunteers from getting, for lack of a better word, "hate mail" from people who felt it was unfair, either through the site or through their personal accounts eg. twitter, steam.

I do know the Staff oversee everything the Moderators do, and they do know which Mods give which infractions to who. If they see someone being openly biased towards a certain user or usergroup/type then they will step in.

Mods are also usually not encouraged to give infractions out when they're personally involved in a thread or topic. We're always told to pass it to someone else who can judge it fairly without emotional attachment.

 

[Aerosteam]

Maybe having a section on example posts would be helpful, so even the mods know what does and doesn't count as being a jerk. Should help with the inconsistency reputation moderation has here.

On the other you get eight strikes in a six month period before banning.

I'm not sure what the case is now, but it's possible for it to be less than that. Like you can have a clean record and one post can shoot it straight up to yellow.

The problem with re-writing the CoC again is that there will always be people that are unhappy with it, no matter how specific or vague we make the actual rules.

We have eased up on the Low Content rule, to a degree. We no longer infract for someone answering a question with a short answer. However, simply posting a video or "this" under a quote still counts as Low Content.

Should the CoC be updated anyway? Just for the low content rule I mean. Since all mods have already loosened up on it without the CoC being updated, getting all users' approval isn't needed then.

 

[Redd the Sock]

Ambiguousness is problematic in any rule set. For example, people often wonder why tax rules are so complicated instead of something like "just pay x percent of your income". Thing is, people don't like paying taxes and have and will continue to go to great lengths to twist what "income" means, how it's valued, or when it needs to be declared. Very specific rules needed to by laid out, and they only get more complicated the more people try to get around them. Yet if left ambiguous you open yourself up to problems of making it easy to try and evade taxes or levy high taxes on someone without just cause.

Rudeness falls into the same problems, but most are reluctant to put firm rules anywhere, usually from both ends of it: we don't want rules set up by people with extreme ideas of rudeness and have all known someone put off by silly things, and we don't want rules too lax leaving us to "just deal with" people the bug us without the ability to enact reprisal. Most of the time this isn't an issue as the penalties for breaking the open ended rules are minor. A temporary suspension from a message board, maybe a lecture from your boss. Yes, I personally think people need to treat the occasional rudeness as a faux pas not to be taken too seriously instead of penalizing people, but most message board systems aren't overly harsh, and there are none I'd concern myself too much with losing access to if it ever came down to that.

Of course, it doesn't always work out that way even off the net. The old chestnut about the guys fired for making a joke about a dongle is an example of how vagueness of the rules is a problem. If they had known that even that level of low brow humor could cost them their jobs, they wouldn't have made the joke that got them in trouble. But they were no doubt told to just not be rude and ran afoul of someone with much different standards than they did leading them to punishment for a crime they didn't know they were committing. More scary to me was the Honey Badger thing at Fan expo: people exiled from that and all expo cons for a vaguely described action with no ability to defend themselves or face their accuser or allegations. Under that level of power and willingness to use it, I want rules fully listed out so I know what I can and can't do with no room for someone to misinterpret my actions.

Don't get me wrong. I support punishment for the breaking of any rule you are told to follow, even stupid ones I disagree with. But if the punishment is worse than a slap on the wrist, you're better ahead to spell out specifics rather than endlessly deal with infractors, appeals, and endlessly justifying yourself to people asking what they did and why it seems they're singled out.

 

[runic knight]

Cheers for this. It's quite nice to see something like this with a positive tilt to it.

Recently I got a strike for a post described as "rude" and "aggressive". While I will accept the action still applies, I find the explanation for and the justification of it to be very poor, and I think it raises the need for a bit of actual, open discussion on the topic.

The problem I am seeing, and the one I raised in my reply, is that the definition of what is or is not "rude" is a nebulous, personal judgment thing at best. As such, because the rules are not clear in the least what actually defines being rude, I have to resort to using what resources they have to determine what actually falls into that ruling. Now I tried doing that in the moderation group before, to... well, lets just say mixed response. Since that was a bit of a bust, I have tried using the other posters in the threads as a barometer to what is or isn't deemed "rude". Sadly I was just recently told does not matter as a means to determine things, so a bust there as well.

So where exactly do I find the definitive way to know what is or is not "rude" or so on in these forums. Because I'll be honest, I am seeing the judgement calls on that one feeling less then consistent at times and as far as rules goes, vague and inconsistent is rarely a good way to do things.

Unfortunately, I feel like that second paragraph, if reframed a little bit, could be kind of Mad Libs'd to fit a lot of things. So, playing devil's advocate a little bit here...

"The problem as I see it, and one I'm raising here, is that the definition of what is or is not acceptable is a function of the written rules exactly at best. As such, because the rules are so concrete, what actually defines being rude, I have to resort to dealing with problem users skirting the rules by never breaking a rule-as-written while creating problems for the forums that doesn't actually fall into that ruling. Now I am stuck only acting on things that fit the exacting guidelines of the rules, rather than users who are actually causing trouble, I have tried using the other posters in the threads as a barometer to what is or isn't deemed "rude". Sadly, regardless of what the users feel, rules are rules, so there's a bust there as well."

There's room for flaws on either ruleset, either precisely written rules or the loose, judgement-call style.

I personally this style of rule set rather than the alternative, but I do see where there are a lot of flaws in the interpretation area. It's something I think does need a lot of work in general. It's hard to have a solid idea of what a forums' needs are in a vacuum, and threads like these help us get much closer to the metal in terms of what people are actually looking for out of the forums, and where we're trying to address something and failing.

It seems a lot of people keep boiling this down more to implementation rather then rules themselves. I still find the vagueness of the "rude" rule to be too loosely defined. As someone else said earlier, a suggestion that actually works is to not use the royal "you" in a conversion. That just baffles me that the difference between a strike or not can be the basis of how you speak with pronouns can imply intent you don't actually have and thus result in a strike. That just seems a little broken to me, to say nothing of how it only aids in issues with implementation. But I want to try to stick to the rules themselves for now, implementation is a slippery slope of conversation.

Also, considering "dealing with problem users skirting the rules by never breaking a rule-as-written while creating problems for the forums" is still an issue now (see the previous points raised by myself and others regarding sniping, baiting, derailing and so on), it kinda feels like a weak justification to keep the current system when fear of the same sort of situation currently happening if changed is used as a reason to support it. If the problem will exist in bother options anyways, naturally I'd want to choose the option that causes the least unneeded harm.

It shows especially when there are criticisms from users like the two I've quoted here. Interpretation is a difficult topic to broach because there's no ready solution for it. There's no easy "This will definitely fix it" solution that's guaranteed to work, and any "good" solution is also subject to flaws as well. Having clearer written rules will help, having moderation transparency would help, having a rating system for posts would help. But for the formermost, the rules would then be subject to a lot of rules lawyering, people looking to define exactly where the line is so they can dance on it with impunity. Too much of that, and the known (and inevitably circulated) exploits may make the forums a terribly toxic place. In the case of transparency and rating systems, they're subject to brigading, which could easily cause the system to become about who has the most friends or the best mass tactics, which is something moderation is already being accused of.

Which isn't to say none of these solutions are viable, many are, but they require the kind of thoughtful, composed implementation that takes time and a bit of research before being implementing. Even in implementation, there are going to be issues, so naturally it takes some looking into.

Just my thoughts.

There will be no perfect solution. Honestly, I think these issues have existed for years now, and the response is always some variation of "we have to be careful" whenever a response to the concerns raised is given. That's true, but it is also a sort of, for lack of a better word, enabling behavior that excuses the current flaws and supports the status quo while waiting for a perfect solution that, honestly, will never come. While improvements suggested do have risks of their own problems, as all changes inevitably do, I would imagine the toxicity you fear the forums becoming and use as reason to wait is already here.

Many people seem to agree the issue with the rules is really interpretation, but that is a thorny and difficult to tackle issue, and one that easily can devolve into personalized shitslinging. As such, since the issue is interpretation, and since trying to go after that is a larger minefield then us regular users can cross, I instead think the solution would be to remove the interpretation issue from the equation as best as makes sense. With regard to the current CoC, that would very much be the loosest defined rules, such as the "rude" one.

Honestly, as a forum goer, not exactly sure how else to try to tackle this problem that doesn't resort to rabble-rousing a mod revolt or just embracing the norm and unabashedly adopting the behavior I see as destructive to the community and discussion.

 

[renegade7]

Well at the end of the day it is their website, so I feel I kind of have to support their right to decide what content appears on their pages.

Just be nice and don't insult anybody, it's not that hard.

And that's the catch. One person may feel a comment is a legitimate criticism while the receiver of the comment may legitimately find it insulting, and it's not always easy to tell who's in the right.

 

[sky14kemea]

On the other you get eight strikes in a six month period before banning.

I'm not sure what the case is now, but it's possible for it to be less than that. Like you can have a clean record and one post can shoot it straight up to yellow.

That is only true in very rare, extreme cases. The health system is set up so you should get 4 warnings before you get on probation. Then you get a 3 day suspension, then a 2 week suspension, then finally your perma-ban. (So it's 7 and the 8th being your ban.) I may have missed out 1 but I need Staff to verify because again, the automatic health bar system usually sets the level of infraction for us.

The problem with re-writing the CoC again is that there will always be people that are unhappy with it, no matter how specific or vague we make the actual rules.

We have eased up on the Low Content rule, to a degree. We no longer infract for someone answering a question with a short answer. However, simply posting a video or "this" under a quote still counts as Low Content.

Should the CoC be updated anyway? Just for the low content rule I mean. Since all mods have already loosened up on it without the CoC being updated, getting all users' approval isn't needed then.

The problem with changing the CoC just for the Low Content rule is that everyone will have to agree to it again before they can post. They're holding back now in order to hopefully rephrase and add/takeaway any additionals. I know [user]ffronw[/user] is working on it currently, so any suggestions or questions about it should be directed to him.

 

[vallorn]

On the other you get eight strikes in a six month period before banning.

I'm not sure what the case is now, but it's possible for it to be less than that. Like you can have a clean record and one post can shoot it straight up to yellow.

That is only true in very rare, extreme cases. The health system is set up so you should get 4 warnings before you get on probation. Then you get a 3 day suspension, then a 2 week suspension, then finally your perma-ban. (So it's 7 and the 8th being your ban.) I may have missed out 1 but I need Staff to verify because again, the automatic health bar system usually sets the level of infraction for us.

The problem with re-writing the CoC again is that there will always be people that are unhappy with it, no matter how specific or vague we make the actual rules.

We have eased up on the Low Content rule, to a degree. We no longer infract for someone answering a question with a short answer. However, simply posting a video or "this" under a quote still counts as Low Content.

Should the CoC be updated anyway? Just for the low content rule I mean. Since all mods have already loosened up on it without the CoC being updated, getting all users' approval isn't needed then.

The problem with changing the CoC just for the Low Content rule is that everyone will have to agree to it again before they can post. They're holding back now in order to hopefully rephrase and add/takeaway any additionals. I know [user]ffronw[/user] is working on it currently, so any suggestions or questions about it should be directed to him.

The recent 8chan thread about the moderation here repeatedly brought up the idea of some degree of public consultation before the new CoC went into place. Would it be prudent to contact ffronw about this and see if such a thing can be set up? That way people will be able to adjust behavior beforehand if necessary and also feel more invested in the rules and CoC.

 

[sky14kemea]

The recent 8chan thread about the moderation here repeatedly brought up the idea of some degree of public consultation before the new CoC went into place. Would it be prudent to contact ffronw about this and see if such a thing can be set up? That way people will be able to adjust behavior beforehand if necessary and also feel more invested in the rules and CoC.

I think that would be a good idea. I can also give him a heads up about doing it, but I would ask for people to PM him about it as well as myself, in order to make sure the idea sticks.

I do want to warn you that he is due to go to E3 for Escapist coverage soon. So the sooner the better, I think.

 

[vallorn]

The recent 8chan thread about the moderation here repeatedly brought up the idea of some degree of public consultation before the new CoC went into place. Would it be prudent to contact ffronw about this and see if such a thing can be set up? That way people will be able to adjust behavior beforehand if necessary and also feel more invested in the rules and CoC.

I think that would be a good idea. I can also give him a heads up about doing it, but I would ask for people to PM him about it as well as myself, in order to make sure the idea sticks.

I do want to warn you that he is due to go to E3 for Escapist coverage soon. So the sooner the better, I think.

Very well, I shall get on that this weekend when my essays are done.

 

[Aerosteam]

Snip

Twas only saying it's entirely possible to get less than 7 chances of changing your attitude within 6 months.

And I know everyone has to agree before the CoC is changed, but I feel like it should have been updated before mods decided to change the rules instead of leaving it and displaying false/old info.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Which isn't to say none of these solutions are viable, many are, but they require the kind of thoughtful, composed implementation that takes time and a bit of research before being implementing. Even in implementation, there are going to be issues, so naturally it takes some looking into.

There will be no perfect solution. Honestly, I think these issues have existed for years now, and the response is always some variation of "we have to be careful" whenever a response to the concerns raised is given. That's true, but it is also a sort of, for lack of a better word, enabling behavior that excuses the current flaws and supports the status quo while waiting for a perfect solution that, honestly, will never come. While improvements suggested do have risks of their own problems, as all changes inevitably do, I would imagine the toxicity you fear the forums becoming and use as reason to wait is already here.

Many people seem to agree the issue with the rules is really interpretation, but that is a thorny and difficult to tackle issue, and one that easily can devolve into personalized shitslinging. As such, since the issue is interpretation, and since trying to go after that is a larger minefield then us regular users can cross, I instead think the solution would be to remove the interpretation issue from the equation as best as makes sense. With regard to the current CoC, that would very much be the loosest defined rules, such as the "rude" one.

Honestly, as a forum goer, not exactly sure how else to try to tackle this problem that doesn't resort to rabble-rousing a mod revolt or just embracing the norm and unabashedly adopting the behavior I see as destructive to the community and discussion.

Honestly, when I say stuff like that, it's usually my way of saying "We're aware of this problem, and discussing internally what sort of solutions are viable."

That said, it's also prudent to remember that any changes we discuss are subject not just within the moderation team, but also various elements of community management and staff. There's a lot of overlap between a lot of bodies in what happens where, and who's authorized to do what, so a lot of what we examine and work with at this level tends to be subject to plenty of regulation and scrutiny. That doesn't mean we're entirely stagnant, just that not every idea discussed is going to be implementable, nor can we promise anything we haven't already gone over exhaustively. There are a lot of wheels turning throughout, so sometimes recognizing an issue and making it right can take several iteration cycles and implementation efforts. For a personal project, that's a smaller cycle than a multi-layered business.

In short, a lot of what we're working on comes far later than the time it's actually being discussed, and often in shapes we hadn't completely planned for.

As for the CoC rewrite, that's a process that is in practice almost from the second a new CoC comes up. Threads like these can also help us get specific ideas for new regulations. Instead of the vague "rude" or "inflammatory" style language in the current iteration, can you think of anything that defines roughly the same thing in a more clear and concise way? Every bit of information that's out there when the CoC is being written is another step forward for it being the best one possible.

The recent 8chan thread about the moderation here repeatedly brought up the idea of some degree of public consultation before the new CoC went into place. Would it be prudent to contact ffronw about this and see if such a thing can be set up? That way people will be able to adjust behavior beforehand if necessary and also feel more invested in the rules and CoC.

I can't promise such a thread could get off the ground, for a number of reasons, but this thread wouldn't be a bad place to discuss some of the potential changes to the current rules. Anything from quoting sections of the existing rules to show where flaws are, to proposing alternatives, would go a long way into painting a clear picture about what could best change and why.

 

[Redryhno]

It would be different if you couldn't freely challenge the infraction, but as is, you can and from what I've read the mods really listen. If there were a lack of accountability then the subjective nature of the rules would be a problem.

The purpose of us having so many warnings to start with before suspensions kick in is to give us the opportunity to gauge where the line lays. The most solid rule here is simply not issuing a direct insult against another person. That's hardly subjective to enforce.

The thing is, there's more than a few posters around that know how to directly insult someone without ever having to directly confront them, and get no warnings as a result due to the "don't be rude" rule being enforced the way it is. And there's been a couple times I've been called out on my junk in a direct manner, only for the poster in question to get a warning, while someone else calls me out on it in a much more low-handed and "rude" way.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm just much more open to being called a "stupid shit and here's why..." than having a paragraph of reasons/insinuations/links to heavily biased studies on why I'm the scum of the earth for having the opinion I hold. Sadly the latter has surpassed the former in terms of frequency(not that it was ever that frequent in the first place, but there were obvious reasons people were warned, now it's a bit more vague in alot of cases I'm seeing)

I love rules like "Don't be a Dick"

Seriously, as someone who has 3 well-deserved warnings for rudeness so far, I'm in full support. I wouldn't want to be on a site where the posts I made that got warnings were considered acceptable.

Plus, it eliminates the rules-lawyering "I'm not touching the line, I'm just behind it" style users after a while. Those guys/gals are jerks.

Right...it lessens that, but it's given rise to pretty much the exact same thing with "I'm not insulting YOU, I'm just insulting everything you stand for and smearing/bringing it out to my light of day, it's not my fault you've got such terrible taste in ideas".

Let's be honest right now, there's nothing wrong with being abrasive in conversation, it's how alot of ideas have come to fruition. The problem is that there's more than just one kind of abrasive, but there's only one kind being punished on a regular basis around here while another is just left to fester and infect the rest of the forum because hey, you can get away with calling someone a slack-jawed, idiotic waste of skin if you go about it that way. Why bother when you can just turn everything into a MEvTHEM and you'll have people back you up? Not because they agree with you on the subject, but because the person you're talking to has the "wrong opinion" on it. Why try to understand one another when we can just make a shitstorm out of someone's (sometimes legitimate, sometimes feigned) ignorance and get internet karma points[footnote]redeemable prizes still in North Korean Beta[/footnote]

I'm not personally asking for the rules to really be changed, just for them to be better defined than "don't be something that can be many things to many people with varying degrees of what is acceptable and what is not" and have somewhat inconsistent execution as to who is warned and who is left to stand spewing their own version of bile. Just that as it is at the moment, there's not a huge amount of discussion going on anymore, just a bunch of gutter snipes, image posting, and "my bologna is better than yours". If it wasn't for the gigantic E and sometimes annoying ads, I'd swear this was Tumblr or the silly parts of the Chans for the amount of good conversation you get.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Right...it lessens that, but it's given rise to pretty much the exact same thing with "I'm not insulting YOU, I'm just insulting everything you stand for and smearing/bringing it out to my light of day, it's not my fault you've got such terrible taste in ideas".

Let's be honest right now, there's nothing wrong with being abrasive in conversation, it's how alot of ideas have come to fruition. The problem is that there's more than just one kind of abrasive, but there's only one kind being punished on a regular basis around here while another is just left to fester and infect the rest of the forum because hey, you can get away with calling someone a slack-jawed, idiotic waste of skin if you go about it that way. Why bother when you can just turn everything into a MEvTHEM and you'll have people back you up? Not because they agree with you on the subject, but because the person you're talking to has the "wrong opinion" on it. Why try to understand one another when we can just make a shitstorm out of someone's (sometimes legitimate, sometimes feigned) ignorance and get internet karma points[footnote]redeemable prizes still in North Korean Beta[/footnote]

I'm not personally asking for the rules to really be changed, just for them to be better defined than "don't be something that can be many things to many people with varying degrees of what is acceptable and what is not" and have somewhat inconsistent execution as to who is warned and who is left to stand spewing their own version of bile. Just that as it is at the moment, there's not a huge amount of discussion going on anymore, just a bunch of gutter snipes, image posting, and "my bologna is better than yours". If it wasn't for the gigantic E and sometimes annoying ads, I'd swear this was Tumblr or the silly parts of the Chans for the amount of good conversation you get.

That's the beauty of it. I'm on another site that has this sort of catch-all "don't be rude" style rule, in addition to their others, natch. They warn/ban people for doing the "I'm not directly insulting you, just your background, core beliefs, and all of your positions" thing. That's part of "Not Being a Dick" too after all.

I figure the main problem isn't the rule itself, but the lack of enforcement.[footnote]Although the site in question does get called "draconian" and worse by people who've been banned for being dicks.[/footnote]

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Well at the end of the day it is their website, so I feel I kind of have to support their right to decide what content appears on their pages.

Just be nice and don't insult anybody, it's not that hard.

And that's the catch. One person may feel a comment is a legitimate criticism while the receiver of the comment may legitimately find it insulting, and it's not always easy to tell who's in the right.

I don't think it is. I don't think "don't insult" is anywhere near as complicated as "don't step on the landmine".

 

[Jux]

So I take it you would agree that the point of the rules is to help foster the sort community in the forums the site would like to see?

Yes.

For the rude though, I have issues with your point there. For one, the current judgement is made by a third party, so there is always bias in interpretation, and for another it projects intent that may not be there.

A third party who is directed by the site owners. It's kind of a 'law of the land' thing. A judge might be a third party arbiter in a civil lawsuit, but that doesn't make it inherently unfair. As for reading into things that might not be there, I would say that between a moderator reading through a particular exchange to get a feel for the discussion, and the appeals system when one wrongly feels they have been modded, I don't have an issue with this. Also, for the long term posters, I'm willing to bet the mods get a feel for how we act. 'Oh there goes Jux again arguing. I see he has had 4 infractions for being rude, so there is a history to consider here, I'm going to flag him again because it seems he hasn't learned his lesson.'

Really, I think the "rude" rule itself is flawed from concept. People should be able to be rude in tone. Not flame-baiting, not swearing up a storm, not telling everyone to screw themselves, but rather expressing exasperation or frustration or even dislike and resentment of the other poster.

Again, that's all up to a degree of interpretation. There are plenty of posters that get away with being combative in their posting where it isn't modded, and not just from people on the supposed anti gg side either.

"Don't Be a Jerk", as a rule, seems pointless and inherently unenforceable to me; worse still, if it were enforceable, it would be discriminatory. Most people can't even tell that others are jerks, it only becomes apparent when they act it out. Some people (notably, many people suffering from ASPD) aren't even capable of not being jerks, even though they can learn which actions are generally not seen favourably in whatever society they live in.

Sure, in the same way that holding people with APD to the same standards as the rest of us is discriminatory. Someone being unable to control their impulses shouldn't necessitate that a private entity make special exceptions for them, or discard a rule entirely, if they're trying to maintain a certain decorum. You say yourself at the end of the post that people can learn what behaviors are frowned upon.

Like, let's take it to a personal level - if I said 'Vallorn is Racist', I'd get a warning for it. If, However, I said 'I think Vallorn is racist, here's some links to his post history supporting this', then, well, that's a subject for discussion.

I actually think the latter would still be subject to moderation. 'I think what you said was racist, and here is why' would likely not be (I think thats an actual example in the CoC). Because 'I think X is racist, and here is why...' is still an attack on ones character, even if there is supporting statements behind it.

 

[Redryhno]

Right...it lessens that, but it's given rise to pretty much the exact same thing with "I'm not insulting YOU, I'm just insulting everything you stand for and smearing/bringing it out to my light of day, it's not my fault you've got such terrible taste in ideas".

Let's be honest right now, there's nothing wrong with being abrasive in conversation, it's how alot of ideas have come to fruition. The problem is that there's more than just one kind of abrasive, but there's only one kind being punished on a regular basis around here while another is just left to fester and infect the rest of the forum because hey, you can get away with calling someone a slack-jawed, idiotic waste of skin if you go about it that way. Why bother when you can just turn everything into a MEvTHEM and you'll have people back you up? Not because they agree with you on the subject, but because the person you're talking to has the "wrong opinion" on it. Why try to understand one another when we can just make a shitstorm out of someone's (sometimes legitimate, sometimes feigned) ignorance and get internet karma points[footnote]redeemable prizes still in North Korean Beta[/footnote]

I'm not personally asking for the rules to really be changed, just for them to be better defined than "don't be something that can be many things to many people with varying degrees of what is acceptable and what is not" and have somewhat inconsistent execution as to who is warned and who is left to stand spewing their own version of bile. Just that as it is at the moment, there's not a huge amount of discussion going on anymore, just a bunch of gutter snipes, image posting, and "my bologna is better than yours". If it wasn't for the gigantic E and sometimes annoying ads, I'd swear this was Tumblr or the silly parts of the Chans for the amount of good conversation you get.

That's the beauty of it. I'm on another site that has this sort of catch-all "don't be rude" style rule, in addition to their others, natch. They warn/ban people for doing the "I'm not directly insulting you, just your background, core beliefs, and all of your positions" thing. That's part of "Not Being a Dick" too after all.

I figure the main problem isn't the rule itself, but the lack of enforcement.[footnote]Although the site in question does get called "draconian" and worse by people who've been banned for being dicks.[/footnote]

That's pretty much exactly what I've been saying for years and nobody's listened...Clearly define the rules, or come down on more than one side for being dicks, if you can't do either, then what is the point of having rules in the first place? All it does is give the people that know how to game the system a leg up and a head the size of Rhode Island, it is sorta the culture around here that the first to get a warning fully loses an argument, no matter how right or wrong they may be, after all.

Also, it's called draconian because the rules aren't clearly defined and the rest of the internet that knows about the Escapist thinks the forums are full of a bunch of stick up their ass, passive aggressive whine machines...so I don't know what to tell you really.

 

[Bizzaro Stormy]

When it comes to rudeness in forums your best bet is to not directly attack someone. Show anger at their idea, not at them. After all attacking someone directly will make them angry and derail a thread into a personal flame war. It happens here a lot and that's why people get banned. Keep it general, keep it polite, and disagree with the idea not the poster and you'll be OK. Keeping foul language to a minimum is also a good idea. As to how fairly it's being enforced, I don't know. It's hard to make a fair decision when people get mad at each other. Usually the arbiter in any given situation, in this case a mod, will go for what defuses the situation.

With that said, that fact that "I like pie" is not 100% of the vote is a sure sign of the terrible taste of most of the posters on this thread. They're voting is the opposite of a la mode.

 

[runic knight]

Honestly, when I say stuff like that, it's usually my way of saying "We're aware of this problem, and discussing internally what sort of solutions are viable."

That said, it's also prudent to remember that any changes we discuss are subject not just within the moderation team, but also various elements of community management and staff. There's a lot of overlap between a lot of bodies in what happens where, and who's authorized to do what, so a lot of what we examine and work with at this level tends to be subject to plenty of regulation and scrutiny. That doesn't mean we're entirely stagnant, just that not every idea discussed is going to be implementable, nor can we promise anything we haven't already gone over exhaustively. There are a lot of wheels turning throughout, so sometimes recognizing an issue and making it right can take several iteration cycles and implementation efforts. For a personal project, that's a smaller cycle than a multi-layered business.

In short, a lot of what we're working on comes far later than the time it's actually being discussed, and often in shapes we hadn't completely planned for.

As for the CoC rewrite, that's a process that is in practice almost from the second a new CoC comes up. Threads like these can also help us get specific ideas for new regulations. Instead of the vague "rude" or "inflammatory" style language in the current iteration, can you think of anything that defines roughly the same thing in a more clear and concise way? Every bit of information that's out there when the CoC is being written is another step forward for it being the best one possible.

Surely you can understand though how it can sound like a feeble handwave and excuse when you hear the sentiment repeated often with no actual change or improvement. Similar to how people grow to interpret the "if you have a problem, go through the official channels" in much the same way when such channels result in no change either. This is especially likely in situation where discussions of rules or moderation tend to resort in being told to stop more often then solutions, as sadly seems to the Escapist forum's policy in that regard. I'd have thought there would be a better place to just let people discuss and argue the rules on the thread rather then having to bounce around a lot before just making my own thread. It seems sort of silly to not have some place that everyone in the community knows is where the rules of their community are discussed and even improved upon. Even a small village will have a townhall. I would certainly propose some sort of official thread for that as at least a first step in that direction.

As for suggestions regarding the rule, I would say that language would be better in targeting behavior that is more demonstrable rather then tone or attitude which is harder to judge through text would be a better way to go about it. If the purpose of the rule is to foster discussion and civility, and I have to imagine that is the case, then target the behaviors that affect that outright. People are always going to find ways to skirt the line, so the rules would need to instead attempt to minimize harm while still fostering the behavior desired from the community. In that I would say the current "rude" rule has been a rousing failure as rather then stop the uncivility and attitude that is seen as the negative influence on the community and discussions, it has merely allowed the rule itself to be weaponized by people who would rather use it as a tool to cause harm than to foster the civility the site seeks. People are still uncivil and have attitudes not conductive to the community the rules would have us imagine the site wants, only now there is an added danger that engaging in the community might be misinterpreted as strike worthy, without even getting to the more sinister beliefs concern motivations for intentional interpretations that some would run with.

As it is, the site can keep the rule, discard the rule, or alter the rule. I'd argue hands down discarding the rule for failing to do its purpose and causing more harm then it is worth, but I understand that it is part of the patchwork ideal of the rules to help get behavior the site wants. Then again I've argued that the site does a lot of things that seem to run contrary to what they seem to want, so make of that what you will. I've been part of communities that will argue to your face if you messed up and why they gave you strikes, and I think the communities were better for it.

As for the details of how to improve the rude rule specifically though... hard to. Flaw being cited most often as interpretation and lack of consistency, any sort of way to tackle the problem there might help. My take is that since the mod interpretation of the rule can't be trusted (being it is the most cited reason for issues), better to remove that and kill that whole problem at the source rather then excuse its existence out of laziness or tradition. But if you have to keep it, I suppose you could define some root standards with regard to what is or is not rude, give examples, explain the underlying "why" and have that be consistently demonstrated and explained to users and mods alike to help establish a baseline. Beyond that, increase transparency outright and deal with the consequences that come with that, including some degree of accountability from the community itself. Yes it could result in making situations harder for moderation, but as others have said, moderation shouldn't be easy or streamlined, it should be fair. Honestly though, if the worry is so great that such a thing would be brigading or whatever, I have to ask why that is as bad a thing as presented. I mean seriously, that is saying that the support for the current system is so low that a small group of outsiders could have such an impact, perhaps it is more a sign of general distrust and unhappiness with the system then people would like to admit to. Hell, one could add aspects of that to a seniority system to unlock if worry is so great and still retain the purpose but that is me going into a more major system overhaul. Make it like citizenship where anyone over the proper age and in good standing can do something toward that end. I don't know exactly, I just can recognize the current system is more flawed then it seems worth.

Point being, if the issue is as people seem to claim that of interpretation, and if there is no way for to address the faults of interpretation without going after the mods as a nebulous collective, then we are sort of left with a handful of options with out to address that flaw.

1. Nothing changes, the problems persist and worsen.

2. Rule removed, interpretation is no longer an issue.

3. Rule remains but transparency/accountability increases, people would perhaps be better able to understand/address the rule.

4. Some mix of the above options or some new solution I don't know yet.

All I do know is that choice 1. has been demonstrated for a while and seems to only get worse.