Poll: Open discussion on "rude" and other rules

[Username Redacted]

To that end I'm genuinely curious if the Escapist mods are a result of people volunteering for the position, those who where asked to take the position or a mix of both avenues.

When the forums need more mods certain users get messaged asking if they want the position or not.

That's discouraging to hear.

EDIT: Also, it's weird to hear you say you don't like a mod who is "invested in discussion", because a common thing I keep seeing other people say is that they wish the mods were MORE invested in discussions, not less.

If a mod is heavily invested in one side of a discussion AND is incapable of behaving like a professional then rules are likely to be more strictly applied (or, worst case scenario, incorrectly applied) to those who they disagree with while being more loosely applied (or, worst case scenario, not applied at all) to those whose side they've taken. If that's the result of someone being more "invested in discussion" then I would prefer if they divest themselves of all assets pertaining to said discussion or, better yet, have them not be a mod anymore.

 

[EvilRoy]

I had three mod actions overturned by appeal to staff, leaving a clear pattern to make me believe it was TopazFusion, who turned out to be heavily invested into discussion, making those. Since he has left/was fired the infraction abuse has stopped, at least for me. This leads me to conclusion that staff isnt pro-active enough about it.

I'm not really understanding your point.

Your incorrect infractions were overturned, and the mod who issued them and abused his powers, was fired. In other words, everything's been dealt with.

Soo, what's your complaint here again?

.

EDIT: Also, it's weird to hear you say you don't like a mod who is "invested in discussion", because a common thing I keep seeing other people say is that they wish the mods were MORE invested in discussions, not less.

Going along with Strad's complaint is the issue of oversight being a strange and unknowable land. This is the one and only forum where I have seen an individual have not one, but two permabans overturned. Now I may not actually like that person, but regardless of whether or not they might deserve the ban I get very worried when I see that kind of thing happening what seems to be fairly often. In the end wrongs were presumably righted and people were unbanned as deemed necessary, but the fact that the staff disagreed with the mods on a fairly serious matter (at least relative to a forum) twice for the same person in a relatively short interval is worrying to me. Seems to point to the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Oversight is great, but it would be better if the left hand actually knew what the right hand wanted to begin with.

 

[BoogieManFL]

To be honest, I've had four warnings and none were well deserved. Well, at least 3 of them. One of them was a low content post. Doing 90 seconds of random thread searching I found several posts with less said AND less characters used. I got that warning solely because someone didn't like what I said and reported me to be spiteful, using moderators as a way to indirectly attack me because that works very well here. That, more than anything is the core issue with warnings here in my opinion. Often it's simply a means of retaliation that is so simple even a troll can do it.

The other 3, only by the most severe eye could they have been worthy of warnings. The things I've got warnings fore were tame enough to be said on the Disney Channel, so, I think the modding comes off as a bit heavy handed because all it takes to get a warning is for your post to be insulting or rude in the literal sense - even if it's extremely tame and mild, something you could say in front of your Grandmother - it doesn't matter. That being said this is still one of the more pleasant forums to visit so in some aspects it must work. It just needs more heart and less cold logic to decide if something is truly in opposition with the spirit of the rules.

For the most part I don't think such rigid rule enforcement is the best way to go about getting the job done. I don't agree with it, but my opinion is irrelevant as it's not my website so I accept it. Unfortunately it has caused me to contribute to discussions less often than I did before, I don't enjoy feeling of having to walk on eggshells when debating with someone.

If you're willing to debate, you shouldn't be so eager to cry for mommy to come to your defense just because you don't agree with what and how someone is saying something. Get some thicker skin and learn to deal with it. Mommy can't always come save you and kiss your boo boos in real life.

 

[likalaruku]

This sounds like one of those slippery slope things that someone with an agenda can take advantage of. Also, sarcasm doesn't convey that well in writing.

 

[Zontar]

Snip

The real problem stems from the fact that there is a very unclear and inconsistent application of the rule. For example, one user can accuse others of supporting the distribution of child pornography without any ambiguity as to the nature of what they are saying without repercussions, while someone stating that someone is being disingenuous will get a strike. That's not even a hypothetical, that actually happened here in the past 2 months.

The rule needs a more clear line between what is and what is not acceptable, and desperately.

 

[runic knight]

Ah yes, the "I was moderated, fight the system" threads... I remember these on Gamespot years ago. Heck, I even remember when they changed the rules, opened voting for new rules, started "after dark" forums... then realized that they were basically being trolled.

It's not exactly a challenge to communicate without insulting someone, we do it most of our lives in almost all contexts. Of course when your ideas are absent, or you lack the ability to form an argument properly, and/or tend to become frustrated... well... shit does happen. That's not the fault of some vague guidelines though, at least not IMO.

It doesn't usually matter what the rules are either, as long as the people in charge enforce them consistently. The idea that some tweaks or re-working will lead to a more perfect union is always a bullshit distraction in my experience, and often the complaint of people facing their expressive limitations.

I suppose you would be unaware, given you are new here and all, but the rules issues have admittedly been a bone I have been chewing on for a while now, probably to the point of annoyance with the mods themselves. I appreciate that you merely skimmed the first post where I specifically state that no, this isn't so much a "I was modded, fight the system" thread so much as bringing to wider discussion the topic itself after noting, not for the first time, that there is really no official place to discuss this sort of thing. Granted that does make it hard to try to attack me as a poster for my motivations instead of my arguments, but I think the conversation is all the better for it.

The problem is not so much people who can't communicate without insulting others, it is that the definition of what is an insult is vague and open to interpretation, which as many other posters have argued, is probably the real point of failure. There is no clear definition and as a result many posts that people thing are fine are punished, while others that people would assume were unacceptable go unopposed. Still, I think that if interpretation is the point of failure, rather then attack mods for that since people are flawed creatures, it would be better to just address the point of failure within the rules themselves and mitigate the possibility of interpretation confusion as much as possible, either by being more clear about things from the start or by removing the rule for something else entirely.

Also you do raise another aspect of concern, that of rules being enforced consistently. Probably a large cause of concern is that they are not. Specifically, rules such as the "Rude" rule are very inconsistently applied and has been the cause of numerous flare ups in the community for a while now. Indeed, this inconsistency in moderation has been an issue raised by people since the inception of the "rude" interpretation rule as there always seemed a correlation between those who were friends with mods and those who got away with far more hostile behavior. While that is by no means evidence I wish to use to make a claim here (Please do not try to argue that point, it will likely derail the thread, I am just mentioning for purpose of complete perspective, not to claim it or defend it), the appearance of that sort of impropriety has only harmed the mod's overall appearance and through that, community trust in them, and is yet another possible reason to address this issue sooner rather then later.

As for your last remark, I am know well there is no perfect solution. In fact, I believe I made that a point in a previous post in this very thread. I do however argue that the current rules can be made better, and that the least defined "personal interpretation" sort of rules are the ones in most need of change if not outright replacement.

 

[SolidState]

Oh for heaven's sake, this thread annoys me. The mods appear to be so out of touch with the community here, it's staggering.

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

Really? No one addressed this? Looks like it's going to have to fall to a long-time lurker from the dark lurking corner to answer this.

From my time lurking (and this point has been mentioned in this thread already), I've noticed there are quite a few users who have been banned, unbanned, re-banned, and unbanned again, often several times over. Which means either there's one or more mods who have no idea what they're doing and/or are making so many mistakes they shouldn't even BE a mod, or it means there's little to no agreement between the mods and the people handling the appeals. (Am I correct in understanding that they are separate people? ie: The mods aren't the ones handling the appeals?)
And since we, the community, cannot see which mod or mods are making these blunders, it means the entire mod staff faces the ire of users who have been wrongly banned, instead of only the mod(s) responsible.

That's a lack of transparency.

Furthermore, when an incorrect ban is overturned, there is no indication of what repercussions or reprimands (if any) the mod responsible will face.

That's a lack of transparency.

Semi-regularly, you will see a user suddenly gets randomly banned, with no link to an offending post and no other reason for the ban given. Often such users have many hundreds if not thousands of posts. And we have no way of knowing why these users have been banned all of a sudden.

That's a lack of transparency.

Going back to a few months ago, it wasn't uncommon to see certain threads get randomly locked, with no reason given, and no one seemed to have the faintest idea of which mod was responsible.

That's a lack of transparency.

Many of the mods (if not, all of them) are members of certain private on-site cliquey user groups. Many of these same user groups also contain users who oftentimes appear to get more leeway with the mods and rules. This naturally leads people (who are outside the group) to assume the worst, with regards to the happenings inside said group. (This assumption was even further vindicated by a recent moderator demotion.)

That's a lack of transparency.

///

So when people complain about a lack of transparency, they're usually referring to one of the above points (or a combination of them). And frankly, the above points should be obvious to anyone who's visited this forum for any length of time.

 

[veloper]

Yes, more transparency would be welcome.

I don't have any problems with this being a nanny forum and I can play any game, but I have wondered about what happened to some of the banned users.
(Of course I prefer total freedom with the only two exceptions being spam and actual harassment, but the escapist still allow more than most.)

 

[IceForce]

I'm dying for this answer: Why, according to the rules you posted, would I be flagged for my post? I have a LOT to say about the inconsistency of the application of these rules,

You answered your own question. Calling the moderation "inconsistent" is enough to get you a warning here. I know because I've been warned in the past for exactly that.

It was in the Forum Games forum, no less, and I said in a post that I felt the moderation was a bit "inconsistent" (that's the exact word I used), and that was literally the only negative sentiment in my entire post.

I got slapped with a warning, and was told that "publicly airing" such "grievances" was against the rules.

And upon further inspection of the COC, they were right:

Publicly airing your grievances or mocking and disrespecting either the moderators in their official capacity or the rules will only get you further warnings.

(I've crossed out the bit that's not applicable in this instance.)

I tried to appeal it. Got nowhere.
I was told that calling the moderation inconsistent counted as a "grievance", and posting this "grievance" in a thread counted as "publicly airing" it. So the warning stayed put.

This is why I'm still nervous about posting in THIS thread, because it's theoretically possible that a mod could come along and whack most of the posts in here, and there would nothing to stop them from doing so.

 

[veloper]

This is why I'm still nervous about posting in THIS thread, because it's theoretically possible that a mod could come along and whack most of the posts in here, and there would nothing to stop them from doing so.

LOL so scared. You know warnings just disappear over time right?
They could slap a warning on everyone in this thread and still no big deal.

 

[IceForce]

LOL so scared. You know warnings just disappear over time right?

Yes, I am aware.

The warning I spoke about above has already disappeared.
It was still pertinent and relevant to the topic at hand, however.

 

[veloper]

LOL so scared. You know warnings just disappear over time right?

Yes, I am aware.

The warning I spoke about above has already disappeared.
It was still pertinent and relevant to the topic at hand, however.

Hmmm, I just checked your account is totally clean right now. You can still break so many eggs you could start some real FUN if you wanted to and easily get away with it.
You have got absolutely nothing to worry about.

Heee as it happens I'm almost a pussy myself atm...

 

[Silvanus]

Oh for heaven's sake, this thread annoys me. The mods appear to be so out of touch with the community here, it's staggering.

Forgive my cynicism, but how would you know?

Recently, other sites have started their own big threads griping about The Escapist-- its moderation, its user base, its content, its everything. These aren't driven by the Escapist's own community; they're primarily off-site campaigns (and often with a not insignificant ideological bent).

If you're a lurker, that's fine, and I'll apologise wholeheartedly. I have nothing at all against lurkers. But if this is another instance of someone following an another site's campaign to affect a change within this one, then just stopit.

 

[Passive Aggression]

A lot of the forums still seem very on edge after what happened with Topaz, it's not much surprise that those seemingly indifferent about the rules are those who find themselves with usergroups in common and even friends of the ex-moderator.

Topaz was also staunchly against any changes to moderation and would argue quite fervently against such changes in topics like this. Which, given what happened creates a very unfortunate image for the staff in question.

I think the staff really owes a lot of a lost faith to the community after what happened with Topaz, and a lot of bridges which were burnt need repairing.

 

[Pseudonym]

While I sometimes feel tempted to write rude comments I can always regocnise when I'm going too far, when I'm pushing boundaries and when I'm in safe territory. I have so far written thousands of posts on various boards, often about controversial subjects, often pissing people off, have never read any of their rules and have always managed to avoid warnings and bans altogether. To my knowledge I have only once been blocked from a youtube channel and that's it. How do I do this? Well, if you have a modicum of common sense and common decency and lurk around for a while before you make your first post to get a feel on the general tone and what is accepted somewhere avoiding problems is really not that hard. Whenever you are in doubt as to whether a specific post will get you warned, don't post it. If you feel like you cannot continue a discussion without making it about the people having the discussion rather than the subject matter, discontinue the discussion. Just steer clear from the grey area. There isn't anything of value there.

Forums like these are, to my knowledge, privately owned and if the owner wanted to kick 50% of all the users out for the lulz he would have that right. We aren't owed any consistent rules. I take rules to be pragmatic guidelines to make sure the discussions remains civil. The rules have to have some consistency to avoid too much salt towards the site itself.

That said, I think the advantage of somewhat vague rules is that you don't have to deal with the sleazy lawyer type of people who will look for loopholes to ruin the tone the site is going for. The mods can just warn them and tell them to behave themselves. If you are constantly pushing the boundaries of what is accepted and are having trouble finding out when you are warnable or bannable you are already doing something wrong.

 

[Silvanus]

I think the staff really owes a lot of a lost faith to the community after what happened with Topaz, and a lot of bridges which were burnt need repairing.

A lot of these burnt bridges seem to be with people who joined long after this stuff actually happened.

 

[Passive Aggression]

I think the staff really owes a lot of a lost faith to the community after what happened with Topaz, and a lot of bridges which were burnt need repairing.

A lot of these burnt bridges seem to be with people who joined long after this stuff actually happened.

Tends to happy when the issue in question is with somebody who can ban others.

 

[Silvanus]

Tends to happy when the issue in question is with somebody who can ban others.

Quite possibly. Also possible it's the result of an off-site effort to change what this place is like. I'd object to either.