Poll: Open discussion on "rude" and other rules

[sky14kemea]

What happens if a troll shows up though, do you wait for the mods, or call them a Goblin?

You report the post and ignore them. Or you can also PM a Mod directly to tell them you think they may be trolling or flamebaiting.

Basically the "Don't feed the trolls" rule applies. If they aren't breaking the rules but being obvious about it, just ignore them. They'll eventually move on or slip up at some point.

 

[runic knight]

What happens if a troll shows up though, do you wait for the mods, or call them a Goblin?

You report the post and ignore them. Or you can also PM a Mod directly to tell them you think they may be trolling or flamebaiting.

Basically the "Don't feed the trolls" rule applies. If they aren't breaking the rules but being obvious about it, just ignore them. They'll eventually move on or slip up at some point.

You know, that does sort of undermine the whole idea of the rules being there to promote discussion when the response to someone actively harming the discussion is to just pretend they aren't there and try to work around them in hopes that the moderators swing in favor of stopping the disruptive behavior instead of allowing it for not being "rude".

In practice, it encourages people to give up and leave, and as described before, teaches others that the way to "win" a debate is to be so close to the line that you annoy and destroy discussion while not actually getting strikes for it. Often this is tied with people trying to get other posters strikes. The behavior itself could be described as flamebaiting even, though it seems standard practice by some now to ignore and undermine discussion because people are not allowed to call it out and instead have to rely on a system that, quite frankly, is often not seen as trustworthy or capable to actually handle it properly.

Yeah, not feeding the troll and reporting them sounds good on paper, but when execution doesn't work well, that is a small comfort to those who have to put up with that behavior in the forums over and over again, especially from less scrupulous people who may be trying to get others banned.

 

[IceForce]

On the subject of the 'T'-word rule, I've never been a fan of it myself. If anything, it actually makes trolling EASIER.

If a troll is clever enough, they'll never be moderated for trolling (or they'll be moderated so rarely, ie: no more than once every 6 months, so they never end up banned).
And no matter how outrageous or outlandish their posts or threads get, or how obvious their trolling is, we're still not allowed to call them what they are. This includes pointing out their behavior to other people who might not be aware of the user's history or M.O.

And that's the problem, "just ignore the trolls" doesn't work if people are unaware the person is even a troll to begin with. Which means trolls ALWAYS get fed, at least initially, until someone else (who is unaware) comes along and engages with the troll, and the whole problem starts again.

To make matters worse, oftentimes you'll see people being moderated for (correctly) identifying a troll, while the troll gets away scot-free.
So no, I've never been a fan of that rule myself.

 

[IceForce]

How does someone who only joined two days ago know any of this? You wouldn't happen to be a ban-dodger, perchance?

I'd say no, lurker, reading what people have posted in the past or the recent 8chan thread on moderation are all decent reasons to know about significant forum events. Hell, I know about Mellow Leprechauns but I wasn't around at the time.

Mellow ... what? I must confess, I don't know what that is...

 

[Janaschi]

The current moderation is not really a big issue, I feel. To be frank, I think the moderation on The Escapist is some of the more diligent on the Internet, which is something to appreciate after looking at other communities that can only be explained with terms such as "...bitter..." or "...spiteful..." There are only a few things that I am a bit iffy about:

1. The Escapist has always had stricter rules than many other communities, which is something I like, as it keeps the community from becoming full of outright vitriol. But it has gotten to the point over the past couple of years, where political correctness is beginning to dictate many warnings/bans. There is a huge difference between being rude, and having someone who finds offense at the slightest introduction of strong discussion.
*There is nothing wrong with a little emotionally-charged discussion. It is healthy in many cases, even. So, for instance, if I have a guy in a discussion, that clearly is mistaken about something, and someone makes it clear as to why they are mistaken, I feel that in no way, that they should be banned/warned for condescension (a growing punishment as of late). I am sorry - this is outright political correctness. Might as well and ban all emotional-input while we are at it.

2. I have not been able to figure this out, yet, but in a lot of scenarios that I have witnessed, the moderation is either holding double-standards, or they are too lazy/do not have enough time to hold everyone to the expectations that they hold other members to. If someone is being personally insulted, and the insulted party replies with sarcasm, yet their sarcasm gets them banned for "Condescension," while the other party's personal insults slide, then there is a huge problem with the moderation being seen there. Yet that is becoming interestingly more common, too.

3. Lack of communication - this one annoys me the most. I remember when I received my first warning back in March. I was warned for being rude in a conversation. Looking at their link, my offending comment was over a reply to someone that did not understand what Communism was, yet was using it in conversation to essentially insult a developer studio, and I called them a sensationalist. There is a huge difference between an insult, and an observation, and I still feel, to this day, that I should not have been warned for calling someone out for being exactly that: a sensationalist.

I sent them a message, as I was genuinely curious as to where they drew the line. I was also interested in a reply, because the person I had replied to, was purposefully peppering their rhetoric with words such as "...rape...," and comparing a game studio to Communists, yet they never saw a similar warning to what I received. I never got a reply with them, and I was essentially ignored. I know quite a few others on here that have had a similar experience, too.

 

[IceForce]

I sent them a message, as I was genuinely curious as to where they drew the line. I was also interested in a reply, because the person I had replied to, was purposefully peppering their rhetoric with words such as "...rape...," and comparing a game studio to Communists, yet they never saw a similar warning to what I received. I never got a reply with them, and I was essentially ignored. I know quite a few others on here that have had a similar experience, too.

The appeals process here can be very hit-and-miss.
I actually got a private message of apology from the Community Manager himself, as a response to the last appeal I sent in. However, my experience with appeals prior to had been somewhat less than satisfactory, (which suggests to me that maybe the site staff have taken a few criticisms on board and made improvements in this area).
In any case, my prior experience with the appeals process had been an experience similar to yours. I either got no reply at all, or I only got boilerplate auto-replies and canned responses that had little to no relevance to my actual warning.

But to speak about your situation specifically; I would wager the reason why the person you replied to never got moderated was because they didn't insult anyone on this site (unless you personally happen to be an employee of the game studio in question, of course).

Typically, the mods only step in when insults towards other forum members are posted. They generally don't care about insults directed at anyone else.

 

[Janaschi]

I sent them a message, as I was genuinely curious as to where they drew the line. I was also interested in a reply, because the person I had replied to, was purposefully peppering their rhetoric with words such as "...rape...," and comparing a game studio to Communists, yet they never saw a similar warning to what I received. I never got a reply with them, and I was essentially ignored. I know quite a few others on here that have had a similar experience, too.

The appeals process here can be very hit-and-miss.
I actually got a private message of apology from the Community Manager himself, as a response to the last appeal I sent in. However, my experience with appeals prior to had been somewhat less than satisfactory, (which suggests to me that maybe the site staff have taken a few criticisms on board and made improvements in this area).
In any case, my prior experience with the appeals process had been an experience similar to yours. I either got no reply at all, or I only got boilerplate auto-replies and canned responses that had little to no relevance to my actual warning.

But to speak about your situation specifically; I would wager the reason why the person you replied to never got moderated was because they didn't insult anyone on this site (unless you personally happen to be an employee of the game studio in question, of course).

Typically, the mods only step in when insults towards other forum members are posted. They generally don't care about insults directed at anyone else.

I would hope not, to be honest - I respect The Escapist, and I appreciate their level of moderation, even if there are a few quirks with their system. Sanctimony is something I would not expect from them, though. One cannot hold moral superiority, while holding blatant double-standards like that at the same time.

Slander/libel, and irresponsible use of rhetoric for sensationalist purposes, does not change just because it is being directed at people/organizations/communities outside of this website.

 

[IceForce]

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.

Good points. As far as posting in this thread, I would hope you were safe. First, with the tone of voice I use just think of me as your "canary in the mineshaft". Besides, I think a mod flagging anything other than blatant abuse in this thread, already tacitly endorsed by having mods post in it would be silly and honestly, not something they would do. They're not stupid people, they're given poor guidelines.

Exactly my point. A rule should be enforced, or the rule shouldn't exist at all. It's silly to have rules in the COC that are only enforced some of the time and not others.

In this very thread, apparently the "publicly airing your grievances" rule doesn't apply. How was I to know of this exception when I made my first reply to this thread on page 1?
Conversely, when I got warned in a different thread some time ago, for "publicly airing my grievances", how was I to know that the thread I was posting in WASN'T exempt from that rule? (Especially being on the Forum Games board, where I was under the impression that the moderation was less strict. But apparently I was wrong on that.)

So I guess it comes back to an issue of consistency. This very thread, unwittingly and by its very existence, demonstrates that there are one or more rules that aren't 100% consistently enforced.
No, I don't think everyone in this thread should be warned, that would be silly. But perhaps the rule shouldn't even be in the COC at all? Especially if there are going to be unspoken exemptions to the rule at certain times but not others.

 

[IceForce]

Slander/libel, and irresponsible use of rhetoric for sensationalist purposes, does not change just because it is being directed at people/organizations/communities outside of this website.

Possibly. But if you forbade insults toward anyone at all (irrespective of their forum membership), then you would have to start moderating comments such as "Barack Obama is an idiot", for instance.

Basically, it starts to turn into a situation where you're moderating people for their opinions, rather than because they did something wrong.

 

[Janaschi]

Slander/libel, and irresponsible use of rhetoric for sensationalist purposes, does not change just because it is being directed at people/organizations/communities outside of this website.

Possibly. But if you forbade insults toward anyone at all (irrespective of their forum membership), then you would have to start moderating comments such as "Barack Obama is an idiot", for instance.

Basically, it starts to turn into a situation where you're moderating people for their opinions, rather than because they did something wrong.

Exactly my point, which highlights a perfectly valid reason as to why the parameters for warnings/bans should be re-evaluated if the chance is ever present. I digress to something I said earlier: "Might as well and ban all emotional-input while we are at it."

If a conversation gets out of hand, and the thread starts to become destabilized, that is when I understand the need for moderation; even over minor infractions. But everyone has their opinions, and we are not robots - there will be emotions in most cases, when we are expressing our opinions. Expecting otherwise is going against human nature itself.

And that is exactly the problem. The moment I cannot observe that a sensationalist is being a sensationalist - the moment where someone cannot be sarcastic, even to a person that just personally insulted them - the moment when you cannot join a discussion about ideology/personal opinions, and post your thoughts without looking over your shoulder for spontaneous moderation... we are essentially being told to act like robots with no personality.

Tl;dr? I understand moderation. I do not understand, nor respect political correctness. Especially when intentional/non-intentional double-standards are held in the efforts to maintain said political correctness.

 

[veloper]

On the subject of the 'T'-word rule, I've never been a fan of it myself. If anything, it actually makes trolling EASIER.

If a troll is clever enough, they'll never be moderated for trolling (or they'll be moderated so rarely, ie: no more than once every 6 months, so they never end up banned).
And no matter how outrageous or outlandish their posts or threads get, or how obvious their trolling is, we're still not allowed to call them what they are. This includes pointing out their behavior to other people who might not be aware of the user's history or M.O.

And that's the problem, "just ignore the trolls" doesn't work if people are unaware the person is even a troll to begin with. Which means trolls ALWAYS get fed, at least initially, until someone else (who is unaware) comes along and engages with the troll, and the whole problem starts again.

To make matters worse, oftentimes you'll see people being moderated for (correctly) identifying a troll, while the troll gets away scot-free.
So no, I've never been a fan of that rule myself.

I'm glad I'm not the only person to ever wonder about the silly T-word rule.

I guess the Escapist staff secretly enjoy troll posts and don't want the members here to become too educated.

Nothing to do about it except just roll with it.

 

[veloper]

On the subject of the 'T'-word rule, I've never been a fan of it myself. If anything, it actually makes trolling EASIER.

If a troll is clever enough, they'll never be moderated for trolling (or they'll be moderated so rarely, ie: no more than once every 6 months, so they never end up banned).
And no matter how outrageous or outlandish their posts or threads get, or how obvious their trolling is, we're still not allowed to call them what they are. This includes pointing out their behavior to other people who might not be aware of the user's history or M.O.

And that's the problem, "just ignore the trolls" doesn't work if people are unaware the person is even a troll to begin with. Which means trolls ALWAYS get fed, at least initially, until someone else (who is unaware) comes along and engages with the troll, and the whole problem starts again.

To make matters worse, oftentimes you'll see people being moderated for (correctly) identifying a troll, while the troll gets away scot-free.
So no, I've never been a fan of that rule myself.

I'm glad I'm not the only person to ever wonder about the silly T-word rule.

I guess the Escapist staff secretly enjoy troll posts and don't want the members here to become too educated.

Nothing to do about it except just roll with it.

Maybe I can offer some perspective from experiences on a totally unrelated forum, which I will admit was a lot smaller? Calling someone a "troll" can be just as true as calling someone dumber than a bag of hammers, but it's still an insult. More, on heavily moderated forums it tends to result in trolls using the term to troll each other, which turns everyone else OFF.

That's the thing that always seems missing from threads like these, wherever they are... just how few of the MANY people who come to a place every day actually have these problems. Then again, I think that if people who struggled to control and express themselves were able to appreciate that instead of blaming others for their problems, they wouldn't be those people in the first place.

These rules keep a tiny, loud minority of disruptive people in check, so the rest of the userbase can get on with their lives without worrying about someone swooping in and shitting all over them.

But is it really an insult though?
A troll is just a person making troll posts. You don't get any warnings with pointing out how, for example, a poster may be misrepresenting facts (lying) for example, but you will for saying somebody's trolling, or how a troll post "is a 1/10", for example.

It seems smarter to me to actually point out to all the inexperienced members responding to lame, obvious trolls, that such is what a troll post looks like and hope they will learn.

It's not that I really mind it though, because some rare good troll posts can have me in stitches, but the rule just seems a bit out of place on the Escapist. But then again, maybe the admins have an idiosyncratic sense of humor and enjoy the lamer stuff also.

 

[runic knight]

On the subject of the 'T'-word rule, I've never been a fan of it myself. If anything, it actually makes trolling EASIER.

If a troll is clever enough, they'll never be moderated for trolling (or they'll be moderated so rarely, ie: no more than once every 6 months, so they never end up banned).
And no matter how outrageous or outlandish their posts or threads get, or how obvious their trolling is, we're still not allowed to call them what they are. This includes pointing out their behavior to other people who might not be aware of the user's history or M.O.

And that's the problem, "just ignore the trolls" doesn't work if people are unaware the person is even a troll to begin with. Which means trolls ALWAYS get fed, at least initially, until someone else (who is unaware) comes along and engages with the troll, and the whole problem starts again.

To make matters worse, oftentimes you'll see people being moderated for (correctly) identifying a troll, while the troll gets away scot-free.
So no, I've never been a fan of that rule myself.

I'm glad I'm not the only person to ever wonder about the silly T-word rule.

I guess the Escapist staff secretly enjoy troll posts and don't want the members here to become too educated.

Nothing to do about it except just roll with it.

Maybe I can offer some perspective from experiences on a totally unrelated forum, which I will admit was a lot smaller? Calling someone a "troll" can be just as true as calling someone dumber than a bag of hammers, but it's still an insult. More, on heavily moderated forums it tends to result in trolls using the term to troll each other, which turns everyone else OFF.

That's the thing that always seems missing from threads like these, wherever they are... just how few of the MANY people who come to a place every day actually have these problems. Then again, I think that if people who struggled to control and express themselves were able to appreciate that instead of blaming others for their problems, they wouldn't be those people in the first place.

These rules keep a tiny, loud minority of disruptive people in check, so the rest of the userbase can get on with their lives without worrying about someone swooping in and shitting all over them.

But is it really an insult though?
A troll is just a person making troll posts. You don't get any warnings with pointing out how, for example, a poster may be misrepresenting facts (lying) for example, but you will for saying somebody's trolling, or how a troll post "is a 1/10", for example.

It seems smarter to me to actually point out to all the inexperienced members responding to lame, obvious trolls, that such is what a troll post looks like and hope they will learn.

It's not that I really mind it though, because some rare good troll posts can have me in stitches, but the rule just seems a bit out of place on the Escapist. But then again, maybe the admins have an idiosyncratic sense of humor and enjoy the lamer stuff also.

Yeah, it's really an insult. You try calling someone a troll on or offline and see how they take it... shockingly similar to the reaction you'd get from "Fuckhead". If you want to argue that "troll" isn't an insult, fair enough, but I wouldn't base an argument on it.

I imagine they would react the same to "sexist" or "misogynistic" as well, yet use of them tends to be more freely accepted towards groups. I am pretty sure it is acceptable to call people trolls in a group, but not individually, which seems counter-intuitive if you want to avoid insults. It says you can insult en mass, but not directly, which doesn't actually stop insults.

Also worth noting that the word troll has a slightly different meaning online then off, as online it describes a behavior in posting, while off it more often describes a person's looks, so that might not be the best way to argue that point.

Not that it can't be used as an insult, certainly, but people can use a lot of words as insults. That goes back to what others have raised as concern though, is that it isn't that you are insulting, it is that you are insulting and wording it more transparently that is the problem. People can be as rude, condescending and insulting all they like, if they word it well. That doesn't stop people from being jerks, that feeds the ego of those who are and survive for it.

 

[EvilRoy]

I imagine they would react the same to "sexist" or "misogynistic" as well, yet use of them tends to be more freely accepted towards groups. I am pretty sure it is acceptable to call people trolls in a group, but not individually, which seems counter-intuitive if you want to avoid insults. It says you can insult en mass, but not directly, which doesn't actually stop insults.

Actually, that's something that kind of drives me up the wall. I see misogynist and sexist get thrown around left and right as actual accusations and insults without receiving warnings, but the one time I see someone accuse another of misandry and they get an instant warning. I can't even call it a context thing either because far more in the past, but plenty still today, misogynist gets thrown about like rice at a wedding and it never gets called regardless of how why or when its used. They are either both insults or neither are insults, and should be treated as such.

 

[Lightknight]

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 think that's because our rule is more of a "Don't be an overt jerk" than just a "Don't be a jerk" rule. They are looking for clear crossings of the rule that are self-contained within a single post so that when someone says, "Why was this person suspended/banned" the mods don't have to pour through several pages of someone's subtlety and potentially find that they read into things too much at the time. Subtlety is a hell of a thing to moderate.

There's also a difference between being frank and being a jerk.

Regardless, your complaint here is that not enough people are getting a warning. If that's the case, then the rules are erring on the side of fewer infractions than more. That's pretty healthy for a site.