So, The Escapist is in the news again...

Recommended Videos

Drops a Sweet Katana

Folded 1000x for her pleasure
May 27, 2009
897
0
0
-Dragmire- said:
Caramel Frappe said:
Not sure how to feel honestly... I sympathize with both the users and the mods.

That thread got more flaming then ANYTHING i've ever seen. I admit, I haven't been here as long as other members have, like the ones from 2008 ... but I think we can all agree that might of been the nastiest turn of events in years. My UN Group talked about it with concern and the best thing was to avoid talking about the topic afterwards.
I watched the vid and saw the storm on the horizon so I avoided the comment section. I figured it'd be bad but if you're saying that you haven't seen worse... is it actually worse than when Extra Credits left and the turmoil surrounding that whole situation(which spread to involve several content creators)? If so, my god that must have been catastrophic!

Wait a min...

...wiki...

Holy crap, that was 2011!? Man, time flies!
Why did EC actually leave? I never figured out why due to the confusion and turmoil surrounding it.

OT: I thought that the way that thread was handled was fucking appalling. I would have expected some kind of exemption from the 'NEVER SPEAK OF A%&@*#K' rule since it was a thread by a major content creator for the site, but no. It's rather hard to discuss something you're scant allowed to speak of. It probably would have been a good chance to get some feedback from people who feel that their experience of the site is marred significant by the ads shown on it.
 

Eclipse Dragon

Lusty Argonian Maid
Legacy
Jan 23, 2009
4,259
12
43
Country
United States
Tenkage said:
good way to piss of users, bann em for saying one word. Guess I'll play Russian roulette Adblock!
That's a misconception. You won't get banned for saying the word "Adblock" You won't even get a warning for saying that word. You will get a warning for saying three words however those words being "I use adblock", and even then, you won't get banned. It takes eight strikes to get banned on the Escapist. If people got banned for stating they use adblock, it was because they were on the last stage of their healthbar.

I don't use adblock.

Edit: I would also absolutely love to see Kross fake ban everyone in this thread, it would make my day (although I understand if you decide not to, touchy subject and all).
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
Kross said:
Fappy said:
Man, I wonder how Kross feels about being called out like that XD

I'm not sure if I'd be amused or upset, honestly.
I'd feel e-Famous, but I've been quoted by better writers in the past who were writing something other then a poorly informed blog/forum post. :(

One point I keep seeing is "Sites with gigantic communities like Reddit have tolerable ads"

People miss the point that a website can't just "choose" to have well curated ads. You have to find the people who are willing to PAY for those ads. These people DO NOT pay for ads on "small" websites.
These are often the same people who claim to "make money" on their personal website ads.

These are rarely websites with multiple full time staff and an infrastructure of more then one server.

Your choice at that point is to run more obnoxious ads that pay more, or run low impact ads that don't return enough money to be worth having on the site at all. (At one point we tried out Google ads in the forums, but they didn't pay enough to be worth the annoyance of having to see the ad)

Of course, we don't WANT annoying ads, but our choice is this:
Use the ads that pay, making our best effort to keep them tolerable (which is primarily a reactive rather then pro-active process unless you're a large enough client to lay down ultimatums with ad networks - like Reddit. Though I will say these days things seem to be significantly better in regards to "we don't want X content", obnoxious implementation is often the annoying part)

Live entirely off of Subscriptions - which at the current rate would be several thousand new subscriptions a week, every week. Contributors would have to be funded per episode with donation drives or something similar, or the rate of new subscriptions would have to be much higher/pricier then what it takes to pay full time staff and infrastructure. This also has sustainability issues with bringing in new people with content teasers, etc. Most sites that are subscription-only offer a service beyond reading/watching media, or they have an alternate revenue stream keeping things online (typically this), or they fail as soon as their funding dries up.

Milk venture capitol or personal savings to run the site as long as possible for cheap, not soliciting third party contributions. Eventually the site quietly goes offline, maybe with a donation drive or two to keep it online for a few more months if people really liked whatever we could actually afford to put on it (most of our time would be spent on our other full-time jobs as well). When it goes offline, people comment on the few things they liked, and then move on to the next site that still happens to be online, maybe with a sad comment on their social media of choice.

The only website of size I can think of that manages to live without ads is Wikipedia, and that is primarily due to comped hosting, large entities donating, and later a critical mass of community (when you're that big and unique in your utility, the tiny percentage of people willing to donate large amounts of cash/resources can become a reasonable number)

As far as "alternatives" that some people seem to hint at, this is a problem everyone who tries to run a website full-time would love to solve. Please share your wisdom, you can help solve a major issue, and we'd love to talk about it.

[hr]

We try not to BERATE people about Adblock issues, though many seem to re-iterate that sentiment.
We do try and let you know the state of paying for the website when we have the opportunity.

It's your computer (or at least, it's not ours).
You can Adblock.
You can use Youtube.
You can use other gaming websites.
We're not going to berate people about such things, but we will ensure that our limited resources last as long as possible.
This means minimizing things that take away from the site's funding. This means stating our case as best as we're able.
Please don't waste our resources if you aren't going to help keep things online. If for whatever reason you can't support us, that's fine, but please don't make the extra effort to shove it in our faces (on that note, thanks to whoever posted that news article for keeping it on their own host along with its comment thread). Enjoy such things on your own terms and all is well.

If we can help people see our point of view to the degree where they want to chip in, fantastic. If not, we understand, but please refrain from adding to a discussion if the entirety of your comment is vitriol rather then anything we can use to improve the situation. Many people apparently didn't even realize they were Adblocking us.

Personally, I wanted to ban many of the people whining about moderation in a thread that's not about moderation for being off topic/low content (as very few of them actually contributed to any Adblock discussion other then to say they used it). But I am unfortunately not allowed to make our rules more stringent. These people who unrepentantly offer a vitriolic comment about how they will never support a website, and we should feel honored to have their server load... please, just leave. We don't want you taking up resources. You're literally doing nothing but costing us money and slowing down the site for everyone else.

Reiterating that I am not talking about people who use Adblock, I'm talking about the people who feel the need to post about it without contributing in any way to a discussion (much like any low content "me too" post).


Furthermore, [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.297629]
Could go the Smodcast route, take the most popular shows and do them live in front of people.

If only Yahtzee did live stateside, Evening with him, or Zero Punctuation Live, could sell out a theater or two.

(Unrelated Note: I need to rebuy PubClub, it ran out and a year without the captcha's have spoiled me.)
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
FriesWithThat said:
Why did EC actually leave? I never figured out why due to the confusion and turmoil surrounding it.
Short version: EC raised money in a fundraiser, expected to keep it for "improving the show" (the stated goal).

The Escapist, desperate for money at the time, thought that "improving the show" meant they'd take the money and spend it on improving the show on the server end.

Something went horribly wrong backstage, so what should have been resolved with a confused exchange and profuse apologies instead ended with EC storming off, breaking the userbase in the process.

It wasn't fun.
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
Nigh Invulnerable said:
I posted once in a thread discussing Terry Pratchett's Discworld books and characters. I typed one short post in all CAPS as a reference to the character of DEATH from the books and promptly got a mod warning. Admittedly, it was my entire post, but the warning I got was in reference to the all caps, and that drove me nuts. I'm sure not everyone on the site is familiar with the Discworld, but I think mods need to take context into account more than they do.
P[small]ERHAPS IT IS BECAUSE DEATH ACTUALLY TALKS LIKE THIS, RATHER THAN ALL CAPS, AND THE MODS KNEW THAT[/small].


Dexterity said:
I feel like the mods of this site don't really know how to moderate.. At all.
I think they are doing a good job. There are rules, they follow the rules. That is their job description, that is what they do. The fact that you don't know that suggests that you do not know how to moderate.

Dexterity said:
They abuse their privileges, they'll ban you for calling someone a raddish in a joking manner just as easy as they'll ban you for saying that you're a really big supporter of Hitler.
They would not ban you for that. At most, you will get a warning, and if it was a misread joke, it will be lifted. So, no, that's not really what's happening anyway.

Dexterity said:
It's actually all too rare to see someone who hasn't gotten at least one warning. That shouldn't be the case in any web forum.
Erm, a lot of forums don't even HAVE warnings. From most others I've been in, here is the breakdown of most common ways to handle moderation:
- there is nothing more than the will of the mod. You can get banned straight away, even for your first post which happens to be in the wrong section. Or some are fair but kind of hard to know when you sign up.
- variation of the above - bans only by admins, your posts can still be modded and removed. It's pretty much the same thing but bans are just really rare, yet erasing posts is commonplace
- Karma system. Which is often times really bad to begin with.

So, yeah. Well, in a way, on other forums you won't often see somebody with a warning. But it's most often because other forums don't even have that concept.

Dexterity said:
So apparently the mods are now showing that they can't take criticism. Feedback and criticism exists, it's actually really immature to try and filter that out from a web forum. Really, please try to grasp the purpose of forum moderation.
Feedback and criticism do exist but what you did was more akin to "flaming" than "criticism".

Dexterity said:
Moderators exist to stop spammers, bots, trolls etc from flooding a forum, or to stop flame wars. Just because someone mentions Adblock, makes a post that is 9 words long or calls you out on your inability to moderate properly, it does not mean that they deserve to be banned.
And again you reveal you haven't read the forum rules. Which is what the mods are supposed to be following, rather than a random person's interpretation of their own views of what is right or wrong.

Dexterity said:
Currently, the moderators here disregard the whole point of their job. Forums have moderators for a purpose, can you please, for the love of god, stick to that.
And considering you got two warnings - they are following their purpose. Well done, mods.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
Jan 4, 2010
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
Kross said:
Furthermore, [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.297629]
That link is a great substitute for a virtual middle finger if I have ever seen one XD
 

Marter

Elite Member
Legacy
Oct 27, 2009
14,276
19
43
Okay. Misconceptions abound, so let's clear them up. Again.

1) Not a single user was warned for simply saying "adblock," or for just discussing adblock. Discussing it outside of that thread is still not okay.
2) Approximately 95% of the posts in that thread have gone unwarned. That is proof that, yes, you could discuss it without getting warned. We did make an exception for the thread. We were far more lenient than usual, given the subject matter. If we didn't, almost every post would have been warned. P.S.: Warnings do nothing to hamper your account.
3) There were five posts that resulted in suspensions. Five. Of those five, four of them were for insulting people (users and/or moderation & staff), while the fifth was a combination of adblock admission and insulting other people/this site. So, if you want, one post of ~950 was issued a suspension because of an admission to adblock (even though there was more to it than that, I know how people like to "play" with statistics).
4) Not a single person was banned for what they said in that thread. The two bans that are tangentially related happened because of abuse outside of the thread.
5) We don't lock content threads, we've never (to my knowledge) locked content threads, and as far as I know, we never will lock content threads. Continuing to ask the moderation team to do that is a waste of your time.

I'm sure there's more, but I think those are the main ones.
 

dyre

New member
Mar 30, 2011
2,178
0
0
Adblock aside, I have to wonder why the Escapist is in such a poor condition, financially speaking. There are lots of mid-level gaming sites with significant amounts of content creation as well as active forums, and from what I've seen NONE have the consistently shitty advertising that the Escapist does. Obviously they don't tell the users outright how well they're doing and I haven't bothered reading their 10-Ks, but as far as I can tell they're not in danger of bankruptcy and they're not chronically late in terms of paying their content creators.

To the management here; you guys can say "it's not my fault; I have to take what I get," but at the end of the day, if you use pop up video ads (with sound defaulted ON), then right or wrong, many people will turn on Adblock on your site. That's not a moral judgement; it's just reality.

Maybe you guys need to downsize a bit in terms of content creation; downsizing always sucks but if your expenses exceed your revenue, you're going to have to operate more efficiently. Which probably means cutting costs and people. Perhaps also consider changing the subscription model to put more stuff behind a paywall (like, having your content creators make "special feature" episodes that only subscribers can access, or w/e).

FriesWithThat said:
Why did EC actually leave? I never figured out why due to the confusion and turmoil surrounding it.
The Escapist wasn't paying them (or more accurately, they "intended" to pay them but hadn't done so for several months).
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
Now I'm looking back on my 4Chan days and thinking, "If this is the next forum I'm coming too, maybe I should have stayed."

Ah, it's too late to go back to 4Chan.

I love this website full of crazy people who argue for 27 pages over the littlest things. And oh God, are they good at making this website look bad. Most articles about it I've read, say it's something along the lines of a bunch of elitist pricks who argue for pages upon pages of the smallest things who think incest is ok[footnote]you'd be suprised[/footnote] and honestly, this website's community isn't helping itself.
 

Nigh Invulnerable

New member
Jan 5, 2009
2,500
0
0
DoPo said:
Nigh Invulnerable said:
I posted once in a thread discussing Terry Pratchett's Discworld books and characters. I typed one short post in all CAPS as a reference to the character of DEATH from the books and promptly got a mod warning. Admittedly, it was my entire post, but the warning I got was in reference to the all caps, and that drove me nuts. I'm sure not everyone on the site is familiar with the Discworld, but I think mods need to take context into account more than they do.
P[small]ERHAPS IT IS BECAUSE DEATH ACTUALLY TALKS LIKE THIS, RATHER THAN ALL CAPS, AND THE MODS KNEW THAT[/small].


SNIP
Yes, a warning over a font/formatting choice instead of all caps is clearly in order and an excellent use of a mod's time [/sarcasm]. I get your point, but it's a stupid thing for mods to bother with. There definitely needs to be a little more thought given to some moderation actions than is typically demonstrated though.
 

Andy Shandy

Fucked if I know
Jun 7, 2010
4,797
0
0
Yeah, saw that article yesterday and this was pretty much my reaction.



The article and most of the subsequent comments were pretty hilarious.
 

Mahoshonen

New member
Jul 28, 2008
358
0
0
From the beginning of the thread in question:

Jimothy Sterling said:
Phrozenflame500 said:
Can mods give clarification on how we're to discuss this? Normally adblock threads are instantly closed with participants warned and if there's to even be a comments section for this video they'll have to be some sort of exception.
Briefly discussed with a moderator yesterday that exceptions would have to be made here. I cannot speak for the admins, but I would like to believe they understand that, in order to comment here, an armistice is gonna be needed.
So, about that armistice, Jim?
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
lacktheknack said:
FriesWithThat said:
Why did EC actually leave? I never figured out why due to the confusion and turmoil surrounding it.
Short version: EC raised money in a fundraiser, expected to keep it for "improving the show" (the stated goal).

The Escapist, desperate for money at the time, thought that "improving the show" meant they'd take the money and spend it on improving the show on the server end.

Something went horribly wrong backstage, so what should have been resolved with a confused exchange and profuse apologies instead ended with EC storming off, breaking the userbase in the process.

It wasn't fun.
Pretty much, I'm pretty sure I remember the wording being something like, "Extra funding would go toward Extra Credits". When the crew signed on with the Escapist the EC ip was given over to Themis so from their point of view it sounded like they wouldn't have to pay a few paychecks in return for the use of the name and some pledge incentives. The EC crew considered Extra Credits as the people behind the show and use of the EC name was, they considered, given to use without strings attached as an apology for the delays on their paychecks. Everyone agreed thinking they were all on the same page and everything was fair until James announced what would be done with the extra funds. The issues went public after that... sadly.

Then things blew up and remained in a constant state of blowing up for 2-3 weeks.


... It was a stressful time.

Edited so it's hopefully slightly more legible...
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
Kross said:
So, quick Google search and I'm a tiny bit smarter. It's likely irrelevant to you, seeing as you likely know what you're doing, but I feel like asking the question as I'm interested in the answer - the search tells me there's three ways to make money from advertisers. One is per "impression", which is what I assume you're using and why Adblock is a direct "fuck you" to your income. Getting money every time the ad is shown to a person. It's a steady stream of revenue because it's always there, but the downside is that you're showing whatever's paying you the most, regardless of how irrelevant it is to your userbase (thus generally annoying them and providing nothing to them with those ads).

The second two are more interesting however. Pay per click and pay per actual purchase. Slower, but pay more. Are they entirely unsustainable business models? I can see how they would be in comparison to steady, uncompromising income... but if there's three ways of doing this, I find it a bit difficult to believe that one is simply always better than the others. Is Escapist just one of the sites that's incompatible with the model?

To me, at first glance, it feels that if those models work, there's no reason they wouldn't work for the Escapist. I mean, what they generally assume is providing relevant ads. For relevant ads, you generally want to know your community. And you kinda do, since we're a rather niche one. It's not a particularly hard group to figure out. So aiming for more targeted ads seems like it should work.

I'd rather see a bunch of World of Warcraft ads (despite having no interest in it), than whatever this stupid car advert nonsense is at the bottom of my page at the moment, looking suspiciously like a scam. Speaking of scams, are these links your ads give entirely secure? I mean, I'm assuming you're a tech-savvy person, would you feel safe clicking on each and every single one of them, security-wise speaking, regardless of whether you're interested in whatever content they're offering? Because I feel that's an argument possibly overlooked. If you're allowing it on your site and it's a safety risk, that's a problem. And no matter how much I may trust the Escapist, I can't bring myself to click on that thing just for laughs.
 

KazeAizen

New member
Jul 17, 2013
1,129
0
0
Redlin5 said:
The few times I popped into that thread for a quick view warmed me up. The flames were shooting out of my monitor.

I guess we made the news. Wish we could do that for something like something amazing and unique happening in the Escapist Expo and not a forum war. I remember when someone introduced me to the thread that was a flamewar about math...

Still, I love this place too much to leave over any issue our community starts foaming at the mouth over. It all blows over eventually.
A flame war about Math? You're joking right? Please say yes.....

As for this whole debacle with the latest Jimquisition it is kind of sad that we can't talk about it. However I see why it is a banned subject. I mean people have strong opinions about it and the MODs have to make money. The Escapist is one of the few gaming websites that has trolls and idiots but for the most part is incredibly sane. Sure we may lose our minds when talking about Spider-man 3, Man of Steel, or Anita but generally I see some good discussions going on here.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,836
0
0
KazeAizen said:
A flame war about Math? You're joking right? Please say yes.....
No joke: scroll down [http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-innocent-sounding-topics-that-are-guaranteed-flame-wars/] and see for yourself.
 

Angelous Wang

Lord of I Don't Care
Oct 18, 2011
575
0
0
I kind of blame Jim or Greg or both for the whole thing, Jim knew he was posting, Greg I assume knew what he was posting, and they both knew the rules of forums and that it was a conflicting topic.

Jim should have asked Greg for or Greg should have just had all the escapist staff completely stay out of the thread (except Jim himself).

Just the presence of the mods being there when talking about such a ban/suspension/warning risky topic made people act worse than they would have and made others who might have added something to say stay completely out of it due to fear.

They should have just let the members have a completely uncensored/unmodded discussion about it and trusted the maturer members to throw flags if anyone posted anything inappropriate or got into a serious flame war.

They had a chance to let the members say their piece on the whole issue for once, they had chance to see how their members actually feel about the ad situation on this site, they had to chance to actually see how many of their members used adblock and the like, they had a chance to see how they could improve their handling of ads.

But instead we got what we got.

And it was predictable, as soon as I saw that episode title. I didn't even bother to post my opinion, because I had already seen far to many people get warnings for similar ones by the time I had finished reading the comments.

Really a better option would have just been to disable the thread and not let anyone post. I don't think anybody got anything good out of it, and allot of people would be better off without those warnings/suspensions they got.
 

generals3

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,198
0
0
What i don't understand about that topic is that people got warned solely for being in favor of software blocking advertisement (i saw quite a few warnings where there was no offensive or aggressive language whatsoever). How can there be a discussion if one side is getting censored through moderation? Did they expect a huge bandwagoning of "advertisement blocking software"-haters?
And shouldn't Jim Sterling have simply blocked the comment section to avoid this Napoleonic slaughter instead of giving the illusion there could be a "free" debate?
 

Kross

World Breaker
Sep 27, 2004
854
0
0
Vrach said:
One is per "impression", which is what I assume you're using and why Adblock is a direct "fuck you" to your income. Getting money every time the ad is shown to a person. It's a steady stream of revenue because it's always there, but the downside is that you're showing whatever's paying you the most, regardless of how irrelevant it is to your userbase (thus generally annoying them and providing nothing to them with those ads).

The second two are more interesting however. Pay per click and pay per actual purchase. Slower, but pay more. Are they entirely unsustainable business models? I can see how they would be in comparison to steady, uncompromising income... but if there's three ways of doing this, I find it a bit difficult to believe that one is simply always better than the others. Is Escapist just one of the sites that's incompatible with the model?
Each ad campaign/network has a unique model. Most pay some amount for views, many pay for click, very few pay per purchase. Some ads pay for more then one of those things. A lot of the networks that run tracking pixels use the pixels to track views, so if you block the pixel and get the ad, it often doesn't count (or so I have been told)!

Unfortunately it often comes down to who is willing to pay for ads on our site specifically. So if nobody wants to pay for a per click ad, we're stuck with the per-view ads / etc. If nobody wants to pay for someone in a video to directly pitch their product (which would be my favorite, but I'm not privy/aware of any talks in that direction), we're stuck with flashing idiocy that we try to minimize as much as possible.

(The only site I know of that seems to do well with primarily custom ads is a pay-only forum that has even stricter moderation then here and regularly runs entertaining custom banner ads - sometimes bought by forum users to link to specific threads/site areas. Though you really need a certain critical mass of active users to make that switch. Also, the bulk of their traffic is to this paid forum, rather then periodic unique front page media that people will want to regularly pay to access.)
 
Oct 20, 2010
424
0
0
generals3 said:
What i don't understand about that topic is that people got warned solely for being in favor of software blocking advertisement (i saw quite a few warnings where there was no offensive or aggressive language whatsoever). How can there be a discussion if one side is getting censored through moderation? Did they expect a huge bandwagoning of "software blocking advertisement"-haters?
And shouldn't Jim Sterling have simply blocked the comment section to avoid this Napoleonic slaughter instead of giving the illusion there could be a "free" debate?


Entirely Possible. Or it could be that the entire event is a way for him to Illustrate to Escapist Members and Staff alike, that there IS a problem, by giving it a stage upon which to tout its Akward Bullshit. This way he can allow the point to make itself, simultaneously sidestepping any need to name any names, or point fingers.

And anyways, we still don`t look as bad as a Community as Certain Recent Twittered Debacles, so Yay! Who wants Schwarma?