In Regards to Wild West

[Ugicywapih]

I looked at Gryph's record, and he appeared to have been hit three times in short succession for the same post. Either a site hiccup, or the mod giving out the infraction didn't think it went through. Either way, it should be fixed now.

Or it could just be moderators are doing what they want now, apparently that's a thing.

Eh, I guess this is kind of a Hanlon's razor situation.

Calling an entire, nebulously defined, group of users problematic and the root of the problems the forum faces can be considered both insulting and inflammatory. It is, after all, a great way to stoke ire and generate tension, all under the guise of "telling it as it is".

everyone else is powerless to do anything about an issue which has plagued the forum for years.

We can act as nice as we like, as well-behaved as we like, there's still going to be this toxic group of people who refuse to engage in any way other than off-hand slights and collective mockery.

At the risk of misreading your sentiments, I'd like to say there's been some pretty civil discussion a while back in a thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/706.1052844-UK-judge-declares-refugees-too-stupid-to-be-held-accountable-for-their-actions] that seems to have elicited strong emotional responses from both sides, once folks started backing their points of view. Granted, trying to only post when I feel I can reasonably explain my stance takes a fair bit longer than making a simple assertion and it's one of the reasons why I'm often reluctant to engage in a conversation, so it's for the best that not everyone's like that. It's not like this forum couldn't use a little more activity, especially now that WW is gone.
EDIT: Of course, mods have more means to engage problematic behavior than users and it's kind of what they're supposed to be there for, but that being said, I believe it's still not that we, as userbase, are entirely powerless in this situation.

Incidentally, the thread I linked earlier is a WW one - it's a shame it got locked with the rest of the forum, since I've actually been looking forward to the response to my last post. I don't really expect it to be continued in R&P given how subject matter appeared somewhat incendiary to some folks.

Further edits to avoid doubleposting:

Spoiler: This was the criteria

This badge was given to a handful of people if they met the criteria:

1. Had a civil, nice post in the past (could be years back depending on what post I checked out).
2. Changed personality / approach / handle on topics to serious topics because of the Wild West Forum.
3. Tried to have fun, but was mostly serious or had a dark sense of humor compared to how they usually are.

In other words, I would check out the most active users on the WW Forum, see how they were in the past by clicking on one of their old posts (again could be way back or recent), any post that existed before WW came into the picture. Then I would see how they behaved / reacted / posted in the WW, and gave them the badge based on these requirements.

I admit, I did give em out at random and some people probably deserve the badge too- but at the time, I only checked out the most active people and looked into what they needed to obtain this badge.

(It makes more sense if you have any knowledge on Bendy and the Ink Machine game.)

That's curious... I don't remember acting any differently pre- and post-WW. Granted I tend to be a little overly serious, given that tone can be a bit harder to convey over the internet and so many people are ever oh-so-easy to offend, but I've been like that pretty much always, I think.

I think it would make more sense to include and anti-bullying rule in WW's mini-CoC instead of scrapping it altogether, especially after majority of users voted to keep it in an official poll.

We considered it. (Contrary to popular belief, this wasn't a rushed decision or a spur-of-the-moment thing. We discussed and mulled over the options for quite some time before coming to a decision.)

Additional rules had already previously been added to the WW's CoC in light of certain individuals pushing the boundaries. And we just felt that this was a pattern that was destined to continue, - another boundary pushed here, another line crossed there, and yet another rule added to an ever-increasing list.
Not only would this have become more and more confusing for users, ("A rules-free subforum with actual rules? Dafuq?"), but it would also make it more complicate to moderate, especially considering the WW's initial premise of the moderators 'not monitoring' it. (And before someone suggests "well too bad, people can just ignore the bullying and not visit the WW", please bear in mind that it becomes a bit difficult to ignore a call-out thread made about you when you literally see your username emblazoned on the Escapist's home page as soon as you log in, in light of WW threads appearing in the forum widget that no-one has the ability to modify.)

There's also the issue of where to draw the line. How do we phrase an anti-bullying rule specifically for the WW, and more importantly, how do we enforce it? Do we forbid just the call-out threads? If so, what if someone gets called out and dogpiled in a rather nasty way in another otherwise innocuous thread? WW rules would mean we couldn't clamp down on the thread or do anything about it, which would make any watered-down WW-specific rules functionally useless.
Additionally, how do we define bullying? If we go all-in and forbid all personal attacks, then we just have the normal forum CoC, which would mean the WW doesn't really need to exist at all.

Thanks for answering. I imagine starting to regulate WW could indeed lead to rule-creep (and specifically changing it from a "rule free" to "moderated in moderation" environment, if you want to avoid confusion), but at the same time, I also don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing. Admittedly, it would have several cons, most notably increasing mods' workload (both by adding a forum with separate moderation mechanics and because rules, good and well thought out ones in particular, don't write themselves), especially if you want to consider community's stance on the new rules, which would lead to more more negative community feedback overall, long term, which is never an encouraging thing. That being said, it would be a way to preserve the valuable things about WW without tossing the baby with the bathwater and I'm honestly skeptical about the users' ability to skirt the rules long-term.

What I'm thinking, I guess, could be summed up as this:
"We want to provide an open environment, but the no-rules idea was too much, so we're going with rules-lite. You find a new way to skirt these rules and do morally reprehensible stuff, we'll make a rule to specifically prevent that. If several rules crop up this way that can be merged, we do that to keep things as simple as possible, while regulating no more than necessary. Wanna help test that system by being a rules-lawyering twit? FABRICATE DIEM, PVNC"

Ideally any changes to rules would be further accompanied by a non-binding (but taken under serious consideration) discussion of the issue at hand and proposed solution with the users. For example, once an issue is identified and mod team agrees action may be for the best, a thread is made for 48 hours, where they (not all the mods in consensus, obviously, you people have lives of your own, I'm thinking more like a "task force" of 3ish volunteers, who currently have a little time to spare) outline the issue and the proposed solutions to it (if any), for public discussion. After 48h, they (again, just the "task force") start a poll thread with the most common/most interesting solutions to the issue, with the "no action" option ideally available in all but the most egregious examples. This goes on for 72h and provides a clear idea of what the userbase wants that can be more or less easily reviewed by every mod available when making a final decision - again, it would not be directly binding (the userbase doesn't always consider what's legal and what's possible with the limited manpower and of the mod team for example, not to mention ongoing lack of full-fledged tech support), but at the very least, it would provide relevant data for further discussion and help avoid the worst shitstorms. Also, please bear in mind this is just an example that I personally consider reasonable, the main overarching idea is, ask people before you make any big changes.

As for the definition of "bullying", as I said, that's a broad thing, so I suggested banning threads (and only threads, if someone's just being mean to you on the internet... Well, unless it's something really out of whack, like goading a vulnerable person into suicide, it shouldn't concern the mod team on a forum specifically designated as "lightly moderated" IMO) that expressly target individual users. If you feel that's not enough and people are still being too shitty to let them keep at it, well, I guess that's something we could have a nice civil discussion about.

That all is just my point of view, of course. I fully understand the mod team has, again, limited manpower (and TBH, probably motivation as well), not to mention ultimately, it's just you guys who would end up bearing the brunt of the negative consequences of what I'm describing, it's you who make that decision and much as I may regret said decision, I will not begrudge it. I just think that would be better for the site, is all.

 

[PointlessKnowledge]

The biggest problem we had with people providing new content for the site was that people said they were interested...but almost nobody actually followed through and did anything. New Classic was heart broken.

If I recall correctly, PsychicTaco tried doing stuff, and people just complained about it. Maybe there is a different problem with this site?

Also, I miss PsychicTaco.

 

[Basement Cat]

The biggest problem we had with people providing new content for the site was that people said they were interested...but almost nobody actually followed through and did anything. New Classic was heart broken.

If I recall correctly, PsychicTaco tried doing stuff, and people just complained about it. Maybe there is a different problem with this site?

Also, I miss PsychicTaco.

He still comes around occasionally.

The griping about his Taco News columns was ridiculous. RL responsibilities caused him to quit but the complaints didn't help.

One thing I've often found bemusing is the realization that many of our most vocal posters don't realize that they're the ones that drive people away. When n0e signed on several Mods from a different site came along to help out. They were soon driven away by the vicious attitudes that were so prevalent in our forums.

Do you remember how BioWare shut down its forums because they had become so toxic from a large body of posters just pouring bile everywhere all the time? That's how bad the Escapist's forums are considered to be by Mods at other sites.

Folks don't have a clue just how patient and reserved we've been. If we were 1/10th as power crazed/vindictive/biased etc as we're routinely accused of being half of the people who've posted in this thread alone would have been banned long, long ago.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

But everyone knows this is an issue with the forum. Burying your head in the sand and saying "You're not helping!!" when everyone else is powerless to do anything about an issue which has plagued the forum for years.

We can act as nice as we like, as well-behaved as we like, there's still going to be this toxic group of people who refuse to engage in any way other than off-hand slights and collective mockery.

As being a friend of people who have cause many issues on this forum and basically bred the current atmosphere that forum has, I figured you'd know better than anyone. I must admit to being pretty disappointed that your solution is to blame the people who're constantly on the receiving end.

I believe the old adage is: It takes two to tango. There are some posters in R&P that tend to create negative situations or behave with a certain level of toxicity. However, that doesn't mean that all the posters in R&P does that or that posters outside of R&P aren't prone to creating negative situations or exhibiting toxicity. It would behoove us all to remember that, especially in threads like this where emotions run hot and opinions are strong.

But even if we allow for the idea (which I am not buying, to be clear), that a certain group on the forum is causing all this toxicity, that still leaves us with one major question: How is a functional solution to that to create a free zone for all kinds of toxic behavior? If anything, a place where toxicity can run rampant will only further escalate toxic behavior, because that behavior will spill over into places where it isn't allowed. This was something we saw multiple times, when threads in off-topic or R&P suddenly became the new battleground for some feud from WW.

Now, for the sake of transparency, I will say that I don't think R&P is the problem. R&P is just the place where the symptoms are seen most clearly, which is also why I'm investing a lot of my "mod time" to monitoring R&P and trying to create a better climate in there. For me, the problem is simply that the Escapist was one of the websites that didn't pick a clear side during GamerGate. It slanted slightly pro for a while, especially with the hiring of 3 outspoken proponents. However, it never did what other websites did and openly took a side and told its' users to like it or get lost. That along with the influx of members on both sides during the height of GamerGate, created a situation where the forum was largely composed of three sides, two invested and one just wanting the whole thing to be over. Now, some 3 years down line that basic difference of opinion is still there and animosity that flared during GamerGate still lingers and festers. And that's where the problem is with this community today; that a lot of users still haven't moved past those turbulent months of 2014-2015 and old grudges are still clenched tightly. It can most easily be seen in R&P because those users that are active there are an opinionated bunch and the old battle lines are still quite visible, albeit often framed in a larger "culture war"-sort of sense.

In the end, as I said to Vallorn, anyone who wants a solution to this problem has to be a part of the solution. It is incredibly easy to point to someone else and blame them, it takes a lot more introspection and courage to realize that every time you blame someone else, you are being a part of the problem. The mod team is well-aware of which posters generally cause trouble and if no one was "feeding them" (as the lingo goes), they'd be a lot less troublesome and much easier for the mods to isolate and deal with. The report button exists for a reason, if another poster is causing you trouble you can PM a mod, but engaging with them is never the solution.

 

[EscapistAccount]

There's a subset of the community who always try to rules lawyer and game the system for insult and wind people up, to make the forums and threads as toxic as possible to drive away people who don't share their ideological bent or just for the fun of it. This has almost always been a problem in the community, and it's obvious that more and more strict moderation and trying to add new rules to patch up the loopholes isn't working.

I'll be blunter than that though I'm not speaking for you; historically the Escapist has always had a sizable minority of users who were deeply inadequate complete and utter shitheads. Specifically they were the kind of shithead who specialised at doing the pseudo intellectual 'just expressing an opinion' thing in order to attack other users while passive-aggressively trying to kite those users onto a ban. 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.

 

[Saelune]

It's incredibly telling that google no longer considers The Escapist a trusted site.

Too many ads on this site have bad risks of viruses. I feel bad for anyone without the free pub club.

 

[Basement Cat]

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.

 

[EscapistAccount]

I never saw things from this perspective.

While I feel the site made a few mistakes in moderation in the past and that legitimately is a reputation the site got, I want to make it clear that personally I think the bulk of the 'excessive' moderation was down to that core problem. Mods and the CM ended up playing whack a mole with the rules because every time something was banned someone would try and angle shoot their way around it, in a way that plenty of other forums just don't see at scale.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

Before this thread is inevitably closed and because I don't like to create my own threads for a variety of reasons: what's the point of banning people, given the current state of things? I just saw Ezekiel was banned and I was wondering if just talking to those involved wouldn't be a better solution. "He called you a jerk, are you offended? Another strike and he's gone, I can ban him if you want." "No." "And you, will you stop being a dick?" "Sure." "Ok then, stop this nonsense, or else." Apparently even the people involved there didn't want the guy to be banned.

I'm assuming those are the rules, I never read forum rules because I live life dangerously, but maybe it would be better if those rules became extremely flexible, I don't care if a person has X strikes and is on the verge of being banned. Banning people won't make the site any less dead. Specially someone like Ezekiel, who seemed like a decent enough, harmless person, maybe a little too easily triggered, which I'm sure contributed to his ban, but the guy at least created some discussion. I don't think I ever said a word to him but I just think it's a shame.

Unless you guys already do that in which case I wrote all these words for nothing.

 

[SupahEwok]

To the mod who dinged my post up there for, as they put it, "Please don\'t insult other users, even if you do it by vague allegations as to their sexuality."

I was calling my friends idiots, not making allegations regarding their sexuality, of which there is admittedly much to make fun of but not at that particular moment. Please spank me right.

 

[bluegate]

It's incredibly telling that google no longer considers The Escapist a trusted site.

Too many ads on this site have bad risks of viruses. I feel bad for anyone without the free pub club.

You shouldn't feel too bad, modern browsers are implementing internal ad blockers and The Escapist is a target.

Chrome, for example, already blocks ads on the Escapist.

In a few months they could ban every user for blocking ads 😋

 

[Elijin]

I take it we're pretending pubclub actually blocks ads? Because, ok sure. Blocks them behind the giant unicorns.

 

[PointlessKnowledge]

It's incredibly telling that google no longer considers The Escapist a trusted site.

Too many ads on this site have bad risks of viruses. I feel bad for anyone without the free pub club.

You shouldn't feel too bad, modern browsers are implementing internal ad blockers and The Escapist is a target.

Chrome, for example, already blocks ads on the Escapist.

In a few months they could ban every user for blocking ads 😋

Google promoting ad blocking?!?!?

Google must be banned from the Escapist!

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I take it we're pretending pubclub actually blocks ads? Because, ok sure. Blocks them behind the giant unicorns.

Pubclub blocks ads?! Since when? My screen has a little box that shows up lower left, a banner ad, and every ZP video plays with an ad.

 

[Saelune]

I take it we're pretending pubclub actually blocks ads? Because, ok sure. Blocks them behind the giant unicorns.

I take it we're pretending pubclub actually blocks ads? Because, ok sure. Blocks them behind the giant unicorns.

Pubclub blocks ads?! Since when? My screen has a little box that shows up lower left, a banner ad, and every ZP video plays with an ad.

Alright. Log out of your profile and browse the Escapist. See for yourself.

 

[Souplex]

I take it we're pretending pubclub actually blocks ads? Because, ok sure. Blocks them behind the giant unicorns.

Chrome has begun auto-ad-blocking the 'Pist due to its' shoddy ad practices.

 

[Elijin]

I take it we're pretending pubclub actually blocks ads? Because, ok sure. Blocks them behind the giant unicorns.

I take it we're pretending pubclub actually blocks ads? Because, ok sure. Blocks them behind the giant unicorns.

Pubclub blocks ads?! Since when? My screen has a little box that shows up lower left, a banner ad, and every ZP video plays with an ad.

Alright. Log out of your profile and browse the Escapist. See for yourself.

Chrome is notifying me its blocking ads on this page on my laptop, and on my phone while logged on, I get 3/4 page size autoplay video ads on every single page. I'd easily accept that there's more ads without pubclub, but there are still ads.

 

[Saelune]

I take it we're pretending pubclub actually blocks ads? Because, ok sure. Blocks them behind the giant unicorns.

I take it we're pretending pubclub actually blocks ads? Because, ok sure. Blocks them behind the giant unicorns.

Pubclub blocks ads?! Since when? My screen has a little box that shows up lower left, a banner ad, and every ZP video plays with an ad.

Alright. Log out of your profile and browse the Escapist. See for yourself.

Chrome is notifying me its blocking ads on this page on my laptop, and on my phone while logged on, I get 3/4 page size autoplay video ads on every single page. I'd easily accept that there's more ads without pubclub, but there are still ads.

Atleast they seem to be far less shady ads than without pub club. (No viruses and such)

 

[Baffle]

obsessed with trying to prove themselves smarter, and thus better, than their fellow user.

There's always been a certain sense of elitism here generally, as though the user base is in some way more intelligent than that of other, similar websites. Which, in light of the ridiculous crying over this non-event, is quite laughable.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

We need to get back on track guys, we're loosing the thread.

The Wild West was terrible and its a good thing its gone!

Whew! Saved it!