New Code of Conduct

[n0e]

If you have a genuine concern about a post that was shortly after edited, and want the staff to review it, then privately flag it up with the staff. This is not that much to ask and we can deal with it effectively.

The above is not a particularly great example of how to handle these problems.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

 

[IceForce]

Yes indeed, back to the topic at hand.

Edit: I also notice that calling someone a troll is no longer specifically stated to be an infraction. Is it no longer worthy of mod wrath or is it just supposed to be implied to be part of a different heading?

I notice this hasn't been answered. But before you answer, a bit of background: (because many of the mods are new)

The previous COC stated "Calling another user a troll is always an infraction." A LOT of users slipped up on this rule, because they (incorrectly) believed that calling an actual troll a troll would be allowed. (Spoiler warning: It wasn't allowed.)

And that's the thing, there are trolls on this forum, as there are on any forum; one cannot deny their existence. So it always seemed a bit silly to moderate people for calling a spade a spade.
Every so often, this forum does get the odd troll thread, and it always seemed like the people who correctly pointed this out in the thread got moderated, while the troll (often) didn't.

Has this changed? Because I notice "Calling another user a troll is always an infraction" is no longer an explicit rule anymore. Are we allowed to identify possible trolls in threads now?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

*SNIP*

If I might propose a compromise between you and the other poster, perhaps reword the rule to this?

Discrimination will not be tolerated on these forums, particularly in regards to racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs.

Perverse remarks will be subject to the PG-13 standard.

As far as my comments on the changes, I like 'em, particularly the addition of rule 0. It'll be a nice change to see that people can't skirt the rules by "Attacking the idea and not the person, but I'm totally attacking the person".

Your compromise is actually perfect, I think that's a very sensible way to handle it. Especially because it doesn't exclude people who are cis, straight, white, and/or Christian, but also includes ever one else too. All too often people try to frame a request for protection as discrimination against the majority. Your idea with fully inclusive language is absolutely perfect, I'm now kicking my self for not thinking to word it the way you did.

As for your own comment, I just hope it doesn't get too contentious, because sometimes people(myself included) don't frame our arguments the best, so it can look like we're striking out at someone personally, when it's not the case.

 

[theSovietConnection]

As for your own comment, I just hope it doesn't get too contentious, because sometimes people(myself included) don't frame our arguments the best, so it can look like we're striking out at someone personally, when it's not the case.

I'm not entirely certain the users who've been here for a while would have much to worry about. The mods who've been here would know your tone, and know whether or not you actually meant anything hostile with what you said. As for the new mods here from GT, they'd learn from the seasoned mods, and will hopefully learn to mod accordingly.

As for your endorsement of my rewording of the discrimination rule, I thank you for it. It does mean a lot, whether I can translate that through text or not.

EDIT: Goddamn drunk me misspelling things

 

[Elvis Starburst]

As for your endorsement of my rewording of the discrimination rule, I thank you for it. It does mean a lot, whether I can translate that through text or not.

This is why I tend to use things like emoticons, or specific wordings to imply that. People who've seen me post know I use ~ at the end of certain sentences. I doubt it's correct to do, but it gives a little flourish I tend to find that implies a positive feeling to the sentence itself (Unless worded differently to imply otherwise). I do these things to ensure tone is never confused. Cause as you said, it's hard to do so on the internet!

I can certainly understand if people see them and sigh, but when tone is hard to see on the internet... I'll take whatever tools I can.

Edit: If this seems kinda odd to just randomly hear from me in such detail, well... The issue several people around here seem to have is understanding people's tones. So... relevant? I guess?

 

[Drathnoxis]

As for the new mods here from GT, they'd learn from the seasoned mods, and will hopefully learn to mod accordingly.

Actually, (for anybody who doesn't know) the new mods are here from GameFront the new users are from GameTrailers. FileTrekker here was listed as an administrator, I'm not sure if that means he's on the payroll or not though.

Also I think your rewrite of the rule is good too, but I still think it's redundant with

Inflammatory Comments / Trolling
You may not post anything that is reasonably considered discriminatory towards other members. (i.e. homophobic, prejudiced or any other comments that would be deemed as hate speech)

This one should probably be rewritten to actually be about trolling, because you can be a troll without necessarily discriminating. It's really about getting people riled up for the heck of it, not being a bigot.

 

[wulf3n]

Wait so, let me get this straight, we can insult anyone we like, as long as we edit our post afterwards?

I didn't say that at all.

Well, kind of.

I'd rather have someone blow off a little steam then instantly regret it and correct their mistake then prevent them from doing that

Personally I'd prefer people learn to control themselves. Were it so easy to take an insult back, especially in a forum that instant messages you every time someone quotes you in a way that doesn't receive said update.

In that sense receiving an infraction is a good thing, especially if the person is remorseful. Actually a good gauge of remorse is a willingness to accept reprimand.

It wasn't until I reached my first block of red that I decided to take a look at my posting habits and rethink the situation.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Personally I'd prefer people learn to control themselves. Were it so easy to take an insult back, especially in a forum that instant messages you every time someone quotes you in a way that doesn't receive said update.

In that sense receiving an infraction is a good thing, especially if the person is remorseful. Actually a good gauge of remorse is a willingness to accept reprimand.

It wasn't until I reached my first block of red that I decided to take a look at my posting habits and rethink the situation.

Granted, it's almost always better for people to consider their speech carefully before posting in an emotionally heated environment. That said, if someone feels bad for saying something rude, even in person, then it almost sounds like you'd be willing to immediately react negatively, and whether or not they apologized or attempted to make amends, the negative reaction is more important than the apology because of what they'd said originally.

That, in itself, is actually just as much of an emotional reaction, just with heavier punitive consequences.

Granted, an apology would've been preferred in the edit (for when the person follows the quote PM back to the thread), but finding a reason to punish just because punishment can be helpful is a bit too Machiavelli for me.

 

[IceForce]

I fully admit that this is anecdotal, but for me personally, the "vast majority" of moderation decisions against me have in fact NOT been correct.

I dunno... maybe other people's experiences have been different, and I've just had a run of bad luck or something.

To be fair, I almost perma-banned you immediately when you emailed my boss directly about some forum shit (twice I think?), and the mods talked me down (multiple times even, every time you're stressing them out I offer).

Hey, Kross, what are your thoughts regarding external archiving services being used on this site? (such as the one that was used to archive the old COC?)

Because I noticed sometimes it doesn't work, like it's being blocked or something, (perhaps due to an IP ban?)

 

[Nemmerle]

Yes indeed, back to the topic at hand.

Edit: I also notice that calling someone a troll is no longer specifically stated to be an infraction. Is it no longer worthy of mod wrath or is it just supposed to be implied to be part of a different heading?

I notice this hasn't been answered. But before you answer, a bit of background: (because many of the mods are new)

The previous COC stated "Calling another user a troll is always an infraction." A LOT of users slipped up on this rule, because they (incorrectly) believed that calling an actual troll a troll would be allowed. (Spoiler warning: It wasn't allowed.)

And that's the thing, there are trolls on this forum, as there are on any forum; one cannot deny their existence. So it always seemed a bit silly to moderate people for calling a spade a spade.
Every so often, this forum does get the odd troll thread, and it always seemed like the people who correctly pointed this out in the thread got moderated, while the troll (often) didn't.

Has this changed? Because I notice "Calling another user a troll is always an infraction" is no longer an explicit rule anymore. Are we allowed to identify possible trolls in threads now?

While I, obviously, can't answer for everyone - at least for myself:

If they're not a troll, then being called one is not going to endear you to them. Some people just have a bad day, or have an unpopular opinion. If they are a troll, then they're going to get off on the resultant excuse to kick off. Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to stick an infraction against someone who accuses someone of trolling, but I'd probably have a word with them about it if anything came of it - and if they persisted in frequently going 'trollololol' despite being spoken to about how unhelpful it was, then we might be looking at infractions being issued. The accusation of itself is, after all, somewhat exploitable - 'everyone's a troll who has an opinion extremely opposed to my own / appears to me to be an idiot' for instance.

There are trolls, as you say there will be some of on every forum. We do need to do things about them. But they have to be dealt with because of an actual behaviour, rather than because of what they are, to avoid the danger of just labelling someone an X and then arbitrarily whacking them with a ban hammer. Status offences, to borrow from real world terminology 'X is a terrorist, therefore...' rather than picking out specific behaviours, tends to be a way of dealing with situations that is open to far too much abuse... regardless of whether the spade is a spade

 

[Jux]

As for the new mods here from GT, they'd learn from the seasoned mods, and will hopefully learn to mod accordingly.

Actually, (for anybody who doesn't know) the new mods are here from GameFront the new users are from GameTrailers. FileTrekker here was listed as an administrator, I'm not sure if that means he's on the payroll or not though.

Also I think your rewrite of the rule is good too, but I still think it's redundant with

Inflammatory Comments / Trolling
You may not post anything that is reasonably considered discriminatory towards other members. (i.e. homophobic, prejudiced or any other comments that would be deemed as hate speech)

This one should probably be rewritten to actually be about trolling, because you can be a troll without necessarily discriminating. It's really about getting people riled up for the heck of it, not being a bigot.

I dunno, I kinda like that they're cracking down on bigotry in general too.

 

[Frankster]

So I'm now explicitly prohibited from making racist or sexist remarks(even though as a half mexican, being racist, especially towards my own race, is part of my cultural background dangit!) yet I still have to put up with a sizeable majority's obsession over scatological comments and euphemisms? I mean if we are going by what makes us uncomfortable, that's a trend I've never really been a part off yet apparently when it comes to being offensive that always gets a free pass.
And to make it clear, no it wasn't the same in previous TOS, it was worded more loosely:
Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks - Remarks such as these are often met with elevated penalties or bans.
Basically the idea was to keep it pg-13 more or less... But there was quite a bit of niggle room.

Contrast this with the more strict wording of new TOS: ANY violation of the following rules will result in an infraction being placed on your account.
And specifically says: Sexist, Racist or Perverted Remarks - As it pertains to the comfort and safety of other posters, please keep sexist, racist, or grossly perverted remarks out of your posts.
This stops really short of an outright ban and heck it might have been a better idea to go the full monty, as it stands I really don't know what I can get away with now and feel it's going to depend a lot on the particular mod.

To give another example, whereas once I could once quote my dad in saying "Son, I hate the whites, I hate the blacks, I hate the yellows and the browns and every other color underneath the rainbow, but I ESPECIALLY hate those fucking mexicans! Bunch of faggots!" (punchline being we ARE mexicans. And because mexican culture is super macho, you pretty much call everything negative gay or ******, heck my dad calls me "puto" at least thrice a day), repeating this under the new TOS would qualify me for one offense automatically..

*grumbles*

 

[Barbas]

(Snip).

That example shouldn't have been acceptable to post for even the past several years.

 

[Frankster]

That example shouldn't have been acceptable to post for even the past several years.

Considering I've used this exact quote on at least 4 occasions (if not more, it sums up my views on racism well enough that I often fall back to it) during my time here I guess I should count myself lucky then. Or (I hope) it was pretty clear I wasn't being serious when saying those things, thus I was given a pass which I probably wouldn't get under the new TOS.

Actually, in ALL my time on the escapist, I've only ever gotten 2 warnings, neither of which was for being offensive in any way so...make of that what you will.

 

[IceForce]

Personally, I wouldn't be too quick to stick an infraction against someone who accuses someone of trolling,

That's interesting to hear, and a marked change from the way this forum has traditionally been moderated in the past.

To illustrate what I mean, I'll use one of my own infractions as an example: (hell, I've got plenty to choose from!)

Spoiler

This message is being automatically sent by the forum system to let you know that you have been issued a warning by a forum moderator.

Warning Details
Post: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/663.933823.23513380
Reason: Flaming. Please do not be rude or accuse other users of trolling.

Being issued a warning does not prevent earning any badges. Please take this as a warning to adjust your behavior on the forums. If you would like to dispute this, please use our contact form [/contact/subject/forums].

The warning has since been lifted, but as you can see, even the mere suggestion that someone might possibly be trolling in any certain particular instance was always met with an automatic infraction, regardless of context. And this example of mine was not unique; it happened like this to other people too. It was almost like the word was being automatically 'word filtered' by a modbot or something.

Anyway so, based on what you're saying, posts like mine linked above would no longer be hit with an "automatic infraction" like they used to under the old COC. That's good to know.

Just so long as all the mods are on the same page, of course. Because if moderator 'X' is being super-lenient but moderator 'Y' is being super-strict, that presents a problem in itself, -- a problem of consistency.

 

[Lacedaemonius]

Why would you ever need to call someone a troll, instead of just reporting them for trolling or ignoring them?

 

[DoPo]

Why would you ever need to call someone a troll, instead of just reporting them for trolling or ignoring them?

An example would be to warn others - if you don't want them to get a warning themselves because they've been baited into trolling, you could say "Ignore UserX - it's a troll". For this you'd have gotten a warning instead. It's a catch-22 situation. Also really effective for the troll themselves - they'd get, at most, one single warning while they can bait several out of people who respond.

Of course, occasionally you do get into a situation where somebody goes "You do not agree with me - you must be a troll", which is indeed unwarranted.

 

[NiPah]

Why would you ever need to call someone a troll, instead of just reporting them for trolling or ignoring them?

An example would be to warn others - if you don't want them to get a warning themselves because they've been baited into trolling, you could say "Ignore UserX - it's a troll". For this you'd have gotten a warning instead. It's a catch-22 situation. Also really effective for the troll themselves - they'd get, at most, one single warning while they can bait several out of people who respond.

Of course, occasionally you do get into a situation where somebody goes "You do not agree with me - you must be a troll", which is indeed unwarranted.

There has been a couple of situations where I thought someone might be baiting others with no interest in debating, I just sent them a PM, works better since you can be a little more candid and you don't interrupt the thread, later that day the other person was banned for ban jumping.

 

[DoPo]

Why would you ever need to call someone a troll, instead of just reporting them for trolling or ignoring them?

An example would be to warn others - if you don't want them to get a warning themselves because they've been baited into trolling, you could say "Ignore UserX - it's a troll". For this you'd have gotten a warning instead. It's a catch-22 situation. Also really effective for the troll themselves - they'd get, at most, one single warning while they can bait several out of people who respond.

Of course, occasionally you do get into a situation where somebody goes "You do not agree with me - you must be a troll", which is indeed unwarranted.

There has been a couple of situations where I thought someone might be baiting others with no interest in debating, I just sent them a PM, works better since you can be a little more candid and you don't interrupt the thread, later that day the other person was banned for ban jumping.

The problem there is that you have to know who the troll is targetting. That could be impossible beforehand or unfeasible if it's just a wide net they are casting