Jimquisition: The Adblock Episode

[Bara_no_Hime]

You've driven off/banned wombat of war?!

Okay, this has officially reached the point of madness. Whatever discussion we imagined might take place here, clearly it isn't happening. 900 posts and we might as well be on page 1 - people are doing the exact same thing here as there. If there's anything worthwhile in this mess, I can't find it (feel free to link me the golden message that makes it all worthwhile if I missed it).

Mods - can we lock this ban-bait thread already?

[sub]Note: I didn't intend to return to this thread, but I did so after seeing that wombat of war was banned over it.[/sub]

 

[Marter]

You've driven off/banned wombat of war?!

Okay, this has officially reached the point of madness. Whatever discussion we imagined might take place here, clearly it isn't happening. 900 posts and we might as well be on page 1 - people are doing the exact same thing here as there. If there's anything worthwhile in this mess, I can't find it (feel free to link me the golden message that makes it all worthwhile if I missed it).

Mods - can we lock this ban-bait thread already?

[sub]Note: I didn't intend to return to this thread, but I did so after seeing that wombat of war was banned over it.[/sub]

1) We've said multiple times we can't lock the thread.

2) wombat_of_war wasn't banned for this thread; it was for ticket abuse.

3) Fewer than 5.5% of the posts in the thread have received wrath. It's just a small minority that is having issue.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

1) We've said multiple times we can't lock the thread.

2) wombat_of_war wasn't banned for this thread; it was for ticket abuse.

3) Fewer than 5.5% of the posts in the thread have received wrath. It's just a small minority that is having issue.

1) Not on any of the pages I've read. But fair enough. If you can't, you can't. Is it because it's based on featured content?

2) Above it says "wombat of war was banned for this post" - hence my confusion. ... what is ticket abuse?

3) 5.5% of 900 is fifty (49.5) posts. 50. That is not a small number.

 

[Tony2077]

ad blocking strike me as a necessary evil despite its how some places get some of the funding they get and like some people have said some can get very annoying or deafening

 

[Marter]

1) Not on any of the pages I've read. But fair enough. If you can't, you can't. Is it because it's based on featured content?

2) Above it says "wombat of war was banned for this post" - hence my confusion. ... what is ticket abuse?

3) 5.5% of 900 is fifty (49.5) posts. 50. That is not a small number.

1) Yes. We don't lock content threads.

2) It doesn't list it under any of his other posts. (Usually it says "User was banned for..." but it doesn't in cases like this.) I dunno why it targeted this. Perhaps it was because it was his last wrath. Ticket abuse is sending abusive messages to the staff through the "contact" form. Likely happened in his appeal(s?). I don't know the details.

3) No, but it is in comparison to the 850 other ones, and those are proof that the topic can be discussed without receiving wrath.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

2) It doesn't list it under any of his other posts. (Usually it says "User was banned for..." but it doesn't in cases like this.) I dunno why it targeted this. Perhaps it was because it was his last wrath. Ticket abuse is sending abusive messages to the staff through the "contact" form. Likely happened in his appeal(s?). I don't know the details.

3) No, but it is in comparison to the 850 other ones, and those are proof that the topic can be discussed without receiving wrath.

... I spent 30 minutes on a reply to this and the internet ate it. **sigh**

So sum up.

2) Ah, Ticket as in work order rather than admission. I see. Perhaps, since he said he was leaving, he exited as people on TV often exit their jobs.

3) That's two warnings per page. When I see a thread with 2 warnings per page (and this page already has 4 warnings), I generally consider that a high-risk thread and associate warning rates like that with hotly debated topics where tempers flare. Threads, note, that are often locked.

Also, you say that 850 posts proves that people can discuss the topic safely. I counter with this - how many of those posts are about the topic and how many are discussing the moderation of the thread? Because most of the discussion I've seen in this thread has been about the moderation rather than the topic itself.

I'm not saying that any of this is your fault, mind. You can't lock the thread, so I'm not sure there's anything that can be done at this point. I just find the situation upsetting. This thread is poison and it's hurting a lot of forum members.

....

Actually, I think I said it better this time. Yay me.

 

[Marter]

3) That's two warnings per page. When I see a thread with 2 warnings per page (and this page already has 4 warnings), I generally consider that a high-risk thread and associate warning rates like that with hotly debated topics where tempers flare. Threads, note, that are often locked.

Also, you say that 850 posts proves that people can discuss the topic safely. I counter with this - how many of those posts are about the topic and how many are discussing the moderation of the thread? Because most of the discussion I've seen in this thread has been about the moderation rather than the topic itself.

I'm not saying that any of this is your fault, mind. You can't lock the thread, so I'm not sure there's anything that can be done at this point. I just find the situation upsetting. This thread is poison and it's hurting a lot of forum members.

....

Actually, I think I said it better this time. Yay me.

I'm not going to count the number of posts that are about moderation and those that aren't. It's probably something like a 25-75 split in favor of the topic, but that's just a guess. Yes, there's been a lot of moderation discussion. It's because of a unique situation. This type of thing hasn't popped up before and likely won't pop up again. So I can understand why the discussion on how it's been moderated is taking place. It took place internally, too.

I don't think it's really going to hurt forum members, though. Out of the 50 or so instances of moderator wrath, only 4 (that I counted) were more than warnings. And two of those, wombat_of_war and The Escapist are Facists had their post targeted but they weren't banned for something they said in the thread -- those were warnings that were escalated for other reasons. Warnings don't hurt anyone and given this is a unique situation it's unlikely that much issue is going to come from them. It's not like people were banned outright.

 

[Yoshi Dragon]

i dont just adblock i script block too. for me it is about ripping out everything that slows down my experience of the content i am viewing. scripts on a site used to be used to do interesting things and werent common now on the low side there are 7 items on my script block that are blocked and that besides the actual site which i unblocked. i guarantee you none of those items do anything interesting and since i am the sort of user with 100 firefox tabs the memory space taken up matters. and i dont even wanna know what my adblock is keeping out of my way.

 

[AvangionQ]

Adblock disabled site-wide, I do this for any sites that ask nicely. Hopefully, the ads will be relevant to things related to the content provided on this site ~ will only reenable if the ads are particularly annoying ... well, much more annoying than they usually are, being the reason I enable adblock in the first place. Also, I've seen a few sites that have a script which detects adblock and asks for a $5 donation to keep the site running smoothly. I actually like those kinds of sites and usually donate.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Well, it certainly does seem that there's a pretty common sentiment running throughout this thread regarding the type of advertising that is currently in place on The Escapist. Given that this is an official response topic to a piece of content created by one of the sites most notable staff members, I would certainly hope that The Escapist is listening to what has been said here.

 

[IceForce]

Well, it certainly does seem that there's a pretty common sentiment running throughout this thread regarding the type of advertising that is currently in place on The Escapist. Given that this is an official response topic to a piece of content created by one of the sites most notable staff members, I would certainly hope that The Escapist is listening to what has been said here.

I made a similar comment waaay back on page 4.

There's a mountain of useful feedback in this thread. Let's hope they take it on board.

 

[IceForce]

Jim should have made it clear in the beginning of this thread that it is no exception to those rules.

I agree.

But instead he said this:

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.

That wasn't very clear at all.

 

[CWestfall]

I use a browser add-on that modifies my core browsing experience. I had it disabled on a certain gaming news website I frequent after a plea from a content creator to do so. Then, as I was watching the video with this add-on disabled, a loud auto-playing video ad started up in another tab on this website, and then I turned the add-on back on again.

In unrelated news I just bought a publisher's club membership today.

 

[IceForce]

That beeing said, cosidering marketing companies actualy need to BUY the space for adds on your site, might I suggest that admins stop tolerating every single bullshit add that they get asked to post?

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that ads are not individually vetted by site admins.

If they were, that would add a massive amount of extra workload (considering the hundreds of millions of ads there are out there on the internet).

 

[IceForce]

Wow, look at this. The Escapist is in the news:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140306/06471226459/escapist-website-content-creator-puts-up-video-about-adblock-moderators-warnsuspend-people-discussing-adblock-comments.shtml

That doesn't happen every day.

 

[the_green_dragon]

I'm actually scared to comment on here but I have to voice this:

Jim sterling made a video about adblock and tons of people seem to be getting warned or banned for talking about the issue and subject of said video. This just seems wrong.

I would have thought this post would be exempt.

oh also for the mods: I DO NOT USE ADBLOCK ON THIS SITE

 

[deathmothon]

I really think they shouldn't have modded the first reply to this post. It really sets a bad precedent in everyone's mind. It surely doesn't promote free discussion of the issue.

 

[IceForce]

I really think they shouldn't have modded the first reply to this post. It really sets a bad precedent in everyone's mind. It surely doesn't promote free discussion of the issue.

Really? Of all the warnings in this thread (50+, according to a mod), that's the only one that matters? Interesting.

 

[XDSkyFreak]

That beeing said, cosidering marketing companies actualy need to BUY the space for adds on your site, might I suggest that admins stop tolerating every single bullshit add that they get asked to post?

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that ads are not individually vetted by site admins.

If they were, that would add a massive amount of extra workload (considering the hundreds of millions of ads there are out there on the internet).

Hmm ... fair point. I am not familiar with the exact proces that goes into allowing adds on one's site, so it is entirely posible that on large sites like the escapist adds don't really get screened. Good point about the extra workload too.

Still, they don't actually need to do that extra work. A "suggestion box" type of deal would work just as well. Users can voice their complaints about a certain add or adds that have been intrusive (and other problems they might have, in a civil manner) and the admins can take steps to stop adds like that from entering the site. Like not allowing the people who posted that add to buy add space on the escapist again for that particular add, sending them feedback about the negative reaction/complaints people had about said add and in the case of repeated adds that disrupt the viewing process they could just tell that advertising company to go someplace else. Trouble is for this proces to be effective it needs to happen on all maor sites ... and that is an uphill battle, I tell you that.

 

[XDSkyFreak]

What really drives a nail in the coffin of any discusion on this thread is the rule that states peoplem aren't allowed to mention that they use of addblock ... this means at least one side of the argument (the side that actualy uses addblocking tech) gets silenced if they so much as admit to using it. Look, I get the point against people coming up and saying "I use it and so should you". That I get. But a person comes on a thread dedicated to discusing addblock, it's reasons to exist and be used and when and where it should not be used and says "I use it because my experience on your website has been constantly ruined by intrusive and disruptive adds that you might want to tone down, especialy for people with low bandwith" and that guy gets a warning, and his post gets hidden? That is feedback. As long as no venom was spat at you (and there are plenty such posts that got banned) then why ban the guy for sharing his opinion/thoughts wothout trying to force them?

And I've also read a reply I missed earlier about why such annoying ads get on. Because they offer more money per view. God do I hate short term thinking like that. This is what we call around these parts an unsustainable business model. You get more money per view and make more money in a small time frame. Kudos. You know what also happens? Your prestige gets a nose dive, people get annoyed, they start using addblock, and BAM: you just lost (in many cases forever) thousands of viewers whou could have generated a mountain of cash much bigger than the one you got for that annoying add. You don't get more money with annoying adds, you LOSE money in the long run. It's basic economics, yet aparently today they don't teach the value of a sustainable busines model and instead everyone just goes for "GET AS MUCH MONEY AS FAST AS YOU CAN AND FUCK THE CONSEQUENCES" Trouble is that works (to be PC about it) only in short term business like said annoying adds. When you apply that logic to a long term, potentially infinite term thing like a web-site, congrats: you are running a marathon but you shot yourself in the foot 100 metres into it's course.