In Regards to Wild West

Marik2

Phone Poster
Nov 10, 2009
5,462
0
0
Basement Cat said:
EscapistAccount said:
The Escapist was famous for three things back in the day; Zero Punctuation, the insanity of its moderation and the toxicity of its user base.

That's the problem the site never addressed; not specific mod loopholes but that it fostered a community which aggressively gamed any loophole it found and was obsessed with trying to prove themselves smarter, and thus better, than their fellow user.
I never saw things from this perspective.



I'm definitely going to think about it. It's enlightening.

Thank you.
I'm in school right now to make this post.

I'm not so much disappointed that the Wild West was closed, as I am disappointed in the fact that there was no warning or discussion about it. It was always my view that the forum was created in order to alleviate mods from the constant passive aggressiveness that this site produces. It was a containment space where people could do almost anything, and it should have helped the mods worry less about the site in general. It's correct that the place became a bit unpleasant from time to time with bullying and harassment, but that can be remedied with a new rule against that.

I know I cracked jokes about liking bullying(yes, bully logic), but the constant harassment and abuse (even though Zontar didn't care) clogged up the forum and took out the fun. Which is why I liked to flood the place with my stolen game threads and called out on call out threads, as it was the only thing I could do as a phone poster. Most of us would actually be fine with a rule that didn't allow call out threads and bullying.

Here are some suggestions that might work if there will be a 2nd chance.

1. Add a final rule about no death threats and excessive bullying

2. If possible, make the Wild West not appear on the main page

3. Maybe make a good mod that only monitors the wild west? Someone who actually understands the place and is well balanced?

Also, I want to give my thanks for at least allowing people to see the Wild West. I was worried that I wouldn't be able to search through some of the threads that had decent discussions. I do love uncensored, unfiltered, and politically incorrect conversations.

I apologize for this post being brief and incoherent. I have a limited time and I could be more thorough with my thoughts if I had my computer.
 

Drathnoxis

Artificial Person
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,726
599
118
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Marik2 said:
I've been waiting for this post. I was curious as to what you'd write. I was starting to think you'd given up on making it.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
Lil devils x said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Still waiting on the R&P closure. There does not exist a worse hive of scum and villainy.
So you are trying to get everywhere you frequent shut down and are calling yourself part of a hive of scum and Villainy? Why would you do that for?! I see how you are.. just trying to create chaos everywhere you go! XD
Nobody who posts there is good, I should know, I post there!
LIES! I am so very very good. :)
 

Ugicywapih

New member
May 15, 2014
179
0
0
RiseOfTheWhiteWolf said:
*longpost snip*
I agree on the CoC rules being too vague. The issue, however, has been summed up by Jojo in a different thread:
JoJo said:
This is something we've discussed at length amongst ourselves, but the main stymieing point over adopting a new Code of Conduct is not lack of will, but technical limitations. For reasons I've never entirely understood, the CoC is hosted on a seperate system to the site's main IMS, and so none of us have the power to change the actual text. In theory, there's nothing stopping us from just drawing up a new set of rules and pinning it at the top of every sub-forum, but I imagine that would just cause confusion, especially for occasional posters who wouldn't necessarily be looking out for new stickied threads.
Granted, this technical limitation might get resolved soon if the rumour about the site being bought out by the Enthusiast Network checks out (I don't recall Menashe confirming anything).
Failing that, however, I'm wondering, if CoC being too loose and open to interpretation is an issue, maybe this could be resolved by having the mod team draft an official interpretation that specifies what's allowed and what is not in more detail? That's what the judiciary branch does in just about any legal system when faced with the issue of enforcing an overly general law and it would solve the issue in that it would set down rules that'd be easier to follow while also reducing the judgement variability resulting from operating on differing personal interpretations of the mod team, all that without a direct change to the CoC.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,307
0
0
crimson5pheonix said:
But real talk, R&Pers are the worst people
I'll fight you on that one, we GIDers deserve the trophy!

P.S. Frankly, if we're talking about the CoC, I'm always a fan of legal minimalism. That's to say, less rules, and tighter rules.

The more, loosely defined rules you have in a system, the more potential contradictions, loopholes, and other flaws start to become apparent, and then you start having to make new laws to fill the holes, but you can never quite patch everything up without lobotomising people (Note, do NOT do this). As myself and many others have said, the current philosophy behind the CoC is much like the US tax code, add an exception here, a new rule there to deal with this or that edge case scenario until you have too many rules with too many loopholes and cracks for people to slip through.

We need a new CoC from scratch, a trimmed down, clean, and clear CoC with rules that aren't open to interpretation. For example.

Rule 1, Nothing illegal in the USA can be posted on the forums.
Rule 2, No no usage of words defined as "swear words" This is a Christian minecraft server after all
Rule 3, Posts must be kept so that they would qualify for a PG13 rating under reasonable inspection.
Rule 4, No post with any of the following: Death threats, racial slurs, homophobic slurs, misandrist slurs, misogynistic slurs. All religions and political ideologies are fair game.

You see the difference? It's all in clearly stating exactly what falls into the purview of the rules. Note, I did leave this so people can insult one another, they just have to be at least passably polite about it rather than calling one another awful slurs. That was a purposeful choice to make my second point.

Look between the rules, people will always post between the rules, don't look at what the rules forbid, look at what they don't, with fuzzy rules you can't easily see it, so we get the needling at the edges of the rules and rule by precedent and such that we have now, where people have learned that viscous snark and bile are allowed so long as you can shroud it enough that it passes a first glance inspection.

I hope this does help the mod team with another perspective on how things might be better changed, few people want this site to crash and burn, I would rather it didn't but at this point, what's left? A dozen or so active users who mostly hate each other? I'll just stay holed up in the 'ol Discord group if that's going to be the case.
 

Armadox

Mandatory Madness!
Aug 31, 2010
1,120
0
0
I actually agree to the idea of a short, specific list. I however do not agree at all to THIS list. Specifically: 4. should have transphobic rhetoric added to it. Number three contradicts number two (Even Adventures in Babysitting from 1987 got to say the word fuck). But that's ok, cause number 2 should be stricken from the books altogether, do to irrelevance. My ACCOUNT is old enough that I should be taking it to the 3rd grade. Most of the people here are the same or similar. Most of the membership on this forum I'm certain is above the age of 21, due to most remaining membership being legacy members. People younger then 18 would not be drawn to forums like this, as it's not the method of communication in vogue. This isn't tumblr, snapchat or twitter.

As the community ages, so should the rules.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
I'd have a problem with your rule 4, vallorn.

So called "hate-speech" is much too vague to render any meaningful metric by which to judge posts.
Since it operates on the oppression-olympics and hierarchies of oppression, it leaves people free to hate on the perceived and allegedly prevailing ruling class, which in the western world is seen as white heterosexual males.
The "most oppressed" are almost taboo to even mention, discuss or debate facts about. Like transsexuals.

I'd be ok with something more along the lines of "No direct or indirect attacks on a poster".
That leaves it free to argue religion and politics without shackles, while also catching those being rude or baiting others.
Just having a different opinion shouldn't cause blasphemy laws or political wrong-think rules to apply.
Or am I missing something in my line of thinking?
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,307
0
0
Vendor-Lazarus said:
I'd have a problem with your rule 4, vallorn.

So called "hate-speech" is much too vague to render any meaningful metric by which to judge posts.
Since it operates on the oppression-olympics and hierarchies of oppression, it leaves people free to hate on the perceived and allegedly prevailing ruling class, which in the western world is seen as white heterosexual males.
The "most oppressed" are almost taboo to even mention, discuss or debate facts about. Like transsexuals.

I'd be ok with something more along the lines of "No direct or indirect attacks on a poster".
That leaves it free to argue religion and politics without shackles, while also catching those being rude or baiting others.
Just having a different opinion shouldn't cause blasphemy laws or political wrong-think rules to apply.
Or am I missing something in my line of thinking?
That's why I didn't use hate speech and restricted it to generally agreed upon slurs. People know not to use the N word in polite conversation or call people after bundles of sticks.
Armadox said:
I actually agree to the idea of a short, specific list. I however do not agree at all to THIS list. Specifically: 4. should have transphobic rhetoric added to it. Number three contradicts number two (Even Adventures in Babysitting from 1987 got to say the word fuck). But that's ok, cause number 2 should be stricken from the books altogether, do to irrelevance. My ACCOUNT is old enough that I should be taking it to the 3rd grade. Most of the people here are the same or similar. Most of the membership on this forum I'm certain is above the age of 21, due to most remaining membership being legacy members. People younger then 18 would not be drawn to forums like this, as it's not the method of communication in vogue. This isn't tumblr, snapchat or twitter.

As the community ages, so should the rules.
I wasn't proposing it as a complete rule set for that reason, this is also why I shouldn't compose longform posts at night... It's by no means perfect but it's the style I was trying to convey more than the rules themselves, the specific, precise wording rather than using looser terms which are unenforceable fairly because of that.
 

Ugicywapih

New member
May 15, 2014
179
0
0
Vendor-Lazarus said:
I'd be ok with something more along the lines of "No direct or indirect attacks on a poster".
That leaves it free to argue religion and politics without shackles, while also catching those being rude or baiting others.
Problem here would be, "attack on someone" can be interpreted in a variety of ways - some people will consider being confronted about their beliefs in any way whatsoever to be a personal attack, some will take legit bashing and shrug it off as a joke or horseplay. I'm down with rule #4 being formulated as it is, especially since it technically includes terms like "cracker" (would strike down #2 tbh, it's a matter of personal culture IMO and I imagine most users here are... "adults" may be kinda much in some cases, but of legal age.), but if you find it to be an issue (it's admittedly kinda narrow, since it specifically mentions slurs, so it includes calling someone a "******", but saying "all black people are criminals thus, being black, so are you" would fly. Also, using the term "race" over, say "ethnicity" could be construed to allow for discrimination based on belonging to a specific ethnic group or nationality so long as it's not directly related to skin colour), how about forbidding "death threats and direct or indirect attacks on a poster based specifically and overtly on their ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or possible illnesses they may be suffering from". Might also wanna add a rule against technical abuse of the servers' IT infrastructure (like, for a totally abstract example, using an unintended quirk in the site's programming to spam autoplay videos). All in all, looks like this just about covers it tho.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Censored by Mods. PM for Taboos
Mar 1, 2009
1,201
0
0
vallorn said:
Vendor-Lazarus said:
I'd have a problem with your rule 4, vallorn.

So called "hate-speech" is much too vague to render any meaningful metric by which to judge posts.
Since it operates on the oppression-olympics and hierarchies of oppression, it leaves people free to hate on the perceived and allegedly prevailing ruling class, which in the western world is seen as white heterosexual males.
The "most oppressed" are almost taboo to even mention, discuss or debate facts about. Like transsexuals.

I'd be ok with something more along the lines of "No direct or indirect attacks on a poster".
That leaves it free to argue religion and politics without shackles, while also catching those being rude or baiting others.
Just having a different opinion shouldn't cause blasphemy laws or political wrong-think rules to apply.
Or am I missing something in my line of thinking?
That's why I didn't use hate speech and restricted it to generally agreed upon slurs. People know not to use the N word in polite conversation or call people after bundles of sticks.
Ugicywapih said:
Vendor-Lazarus said:
I'd be ok with something more along the lines of "No direct or indirect attacks on a poster".
That leaves it free to argue religion and politics without shackles, while also catching those being rude or baiting others.
Problem here would be, "attack on someone" can be interpreted in a variety of ways - some people will consider being confronted about their beliefs in any way whatsoever to be a personal attack, some will take legit bashing and shrug it off as a joke or horseplay. I'm down with rule #4 being formulated as it is, especially since it technically includes terms like "cracker" (would strike down #2 tbh, it's a matter of personal culture IMO and I imagine most users here are... "adults" may be kinda much in some cases, but of legal age.), but if you find it to be an issue (it's admittedly kinda narrow, since it specifically mentions slurs, so it includes calling someone a "******", but saying "all black people are criminals thus, being black, so are you" would fly. Also, using the term "race" over, say "ethnicity" could be construed to allow for discrimination based on belonging to a specific ethnic group or nationality so long as it's not directly related to skin colour), how about forbidding "death threats and direct or indirect attacks on a poster based specifically and overtly on their ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender or possible illnesses they may be suffering from". Might also wanna add a rule against technical abuse of the servers' IT infrastructure (like, for a totally abstract example, using an unintended quirk in the site's programming to spam autoplay videos). All in all, looks like this just about covers it tho.
Ok, slurs is good enough. I guess.
It all comes down to how it will be enforced anyway.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,307
0
0
Looks like things have either quieted down or people have gotten bored about all the constructive discussion going on.
 

Basement Cat

Keeping the Peace is Relaxing
Jul 26, 2012
2,379
0
0
LostGryphon said:
Are you guys totalitarian gits with itchy finger triggers or not?

Also, thank you? Legitimately wasn't expecting that. Does this mean I can throw on a risque avatar too? Maybe some jiggly anime baps or bums?

Also also, I will make a point to avoid mentioning the post in question's sincerity and how I actually do deserve that one warning. I will not mention that at all. Not one bit.
1. Mention it again and, yes, I'll Whack you. You say you've got it coming again...ask for it and it's all yours. <_<

2. Change the Avatar/gif. You've now been told.

I. Am. Not. Joking. About. Changing. Your. Avatar/Gif.

You've been told. My WiFi is iffy, right now. When I come back I expect to see your thingy changed. Fail to do so and I'll whack you. You've been given fair warning. That's just the way it is.

Should you feel specifically
inclined towards whining about others' gifs then please, by all means, whine away so that they may hold you personally responsible for drawing condemnation upon their Avatar/gif.

I. Am. Not. Joking. About. Changing. Your. Avatar/Gif.
 

Tsun Tzu

Feuer! Sperrfeuer! Los!
Legacy
May 3, 2020
1,620
81
33
Country
Free-Dom
Basement Cat said:
1. Mention it again and, yes, I'll Whack you. You say you've got it coming again...ask for it and it's all yours. <_<

2. Change the Avatar/gif. You've now been told.

I. Am. Not. Joking. About. Changing. Your. Avatar/Gif.

You've been told. My WiFi is iffy, right now. When I come back I expect to see your thingy changed. Fail to do so and I'll whack you. You've been given fair warning. That's just the way it is.

Should you feel specifically
inclined towards whining about others' gifs then please, by all means, whine away so that they may hold you personally responsible for drawing condemnation upon their Avatar/gif.

I. Am. Not. Joking. About. Changing. Your. Avatar/Gif.
1. Noted.
2. What? Why? Couldn't even see anything. But suuure.

And I don't get the whining part. I've never done that about anybody, ever, nor do I feel so inclined because I'm not a child.

Mind clarifying that statement?