New Code of Conduct

[Kross]

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?)

No problem with long term archiving, but re-hosting content that's still getting traffic so our ads don't pay out is not something I will assist, as it's hard enough to get this place to pay for itself. Same thing as ad-block discussion rules. Ads are unfortunately the most reliable way to pay for content, so anything enabling/assisting in stripping them is rude at best.

When spammers, trolls, ad-stripping proxies, content-rehosting or vulnerability probing crawlers hit the site, I block their entire data center. Very little legitimate ad-viewing traffic routes through a data center, and I generally hear pretty quickly when something like a University peers through one and can't avoid the network allocation. I also white-list anyone who asks nicely about their proxy on a stable IP address.

Unfortunately retroactively reporting abusive traffic from such places is a waste of time, other then saving some companies' abuse handling staff some money/effort on closing currently abusive accounts. New accounts are created or exploited faster then old ones are removed.

TOR is allowed to view the site when not routing through a blocked data center - but not post - due to incredible amounts of spam and other abusive posting.

When we're finally able to turn on encryption (which is currently blocked by CDN costs and ad-network issues), I hope to be able to open things back up a bit more to allow people to connect from whatever is most convenient as part of a larger overhaul. It's unfortunately difficult to justify work time on purely the forums with all of our other current projects, so is nice when I can sneak in improvements as part of other maintenance.

Sites like archive.is like to use free/cheap proxies from all over the place (and are then caught in the firewall blocking various data centers), or are often used by popular aggregation sites to link to current content without giving us ad traffic. They seem to be using Google's cache currently. *shrug*

 

[IceForce]

Sites like archive.is like to use free/cheap proxies from all over the place (and are then caught in the firewall blocking various data centers), or are often used by popular aggregation sites to link to current content without giving us ad traffic. They seem to be using Google's cache currently. *shrug*

Yeah, whoever coded that site is a clever little bugger, because when a direct connection fails, rather than archive.is simply giving up altogether, the site instead attempts to fall back on google's cache.

When we're finally able to turn on encryption (which is currently blocked by CDN costs and ad-network issues), I hope to be able to open things back up a bit more to allow people to connect from whatever is most convenient as part of a larger overhaul. It's unfortunately difficult to justify work time on purely the forums with all of our other current projects, so is nice when I can sneak in improvements as part of other maintenance.

Ah, I was actually going to suggest that as a possible way of clamping down on the banjump problem.

By forcing all site logins to go through https (instead of plain http) not only would this improve account security, but it would also foil probably 90% of banjump accounts. Because most free public proxies only forward unencrypted http data, and fail on the https encrypted stuff. Meaning, banjumpers using such proxies would not even be able to log in to the site.

 

[Drathnoxis]

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

Yeah, but do we really need two separate rules that cover the same thing? You've got "Inflammatory Comments / Trolling" which covers discrimination, and then you have "Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks" which also covers discrimination, and also perverts.

 

[Jux]

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

Yeah, but do we really need two separate rules that cover the same thing? You've got "Inflammatory Comments / Trolling" which covers discrimination, and then you have "Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks" which also covers discrimination, and also perverts.

Possibly redundant, but it seems they're just trying to cover their bases. If it's just one or the other, you're gonna have people trying to rule lawyer their infractions, either 'I wasn't trolling, it's a sincerely held belief' or 'I didn't mean it, I was just trolling'. It feels like the separate rules are there to cover intent.

 

[Drathnoxis]

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

Yeah, but do we really need two separate rules that cover the same thing? You've got "Inflammatory Comments / Trolling" which covers discrimination, and then you have "Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks" which also covers discrimination, and also perverts.

Possibly redundant, but it seems they're just trying to cover their bases. If it's just one or the other, you're gonna have people trying to rule lawyer their infractions, either 'I wasn't trolling, it's a sincerely held belief' or 'I didn't mean it, I was just trolling'. It feels like the separate rules are there to cover intent.

But you could still cover both bases, and more, with less redundant descriptions. For example if we take the description of trolling from the old CoC and use it here:

Posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

and also take theSovietConnection's revised description here:

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.

I think that covers the two infractions much more thoroughly than the current rules.

 

[Nemmerle]

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.

[...]

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.

I don't want to give you any false assurances, which is why I said I could only speak for myself.

The situation you sketch is undeniably one of the potential challenges. You're gonna have something isomorphic to that problem with any set of rules. If there was a big set of rules then there'd always be the spectre of someone playing gotcha with the rulebook. It'd be so big that people would just have to default to acting as they thought best and it'd get pulled out for some rule-lawyering whenever there was a dispute. If there's a smaller more general set of rules, then the problem becomes with how you manage individual judgement in the context of a larger system.

Most likely there'll be some teething problems. We're trying to get some processes in place to help stabilise things a bit on that front. In the mean time, I can only really say how I interpret things and that n0e has, IME, been a fairly reasonable chap.

 

[Strazdas]

Is telling someone else "I'm reporting you" and/or "I'm going to block you" an infraction-worthy offense? It seems like those words don't have any utility other than attempting to anger the other person. Just block/report them in silence and move on, right?

Yes, please don't do that.

Take all your issues to the staff privately, you're exactly right that all this is doing is escalating a problem and not doing anything to improve it.

Personally i think its a matter of honor to tell someone when you blocked them. It allows them to know that you are no longer able to see their posts and explains why you do not interact with them anymore. I Wish anyone that blocked me would tell me about it, preferably with a reason why so i can improve. As i havent blocked anyone on the escapist so far luckily i havent had to report that to anyone yet.

 

[n0e]

Is telling someone else "I'm reporting you" and/or "I'm going to block you" an infraction-worthy offense? It seems like those words don't have any utility other than attempting to anger the other person. Just block/report them in silence and move on, right?

Yes, please don't do that.

Take all your issues to the staff privately, you're exactly right that all this is doing is escalating a problem and not doing anything to improve it.

Personally i think its a matter of honor to tell someone when you blocked them. It allows them to know that you are no longer able to see their posts and explains why you do not interact with them anymore. I Wish anyone that blocked me would tell me about it, preferably with a reason why so i can improve. As i havent blocked anyone on the escapist so far luckily i havent had to report that to anyone yet.

That's fine, but if you feel the need to do that, please do it in a private message, not publicly in a thread.

Cheers!

 

[IceForce]

That's fine, but if you feel the need to do that, please do it in a private message, not publicly in a thread.

Cheers!

Uhh, that's not gonna work, because the ignore function blocks PMs between ignored users.

 

[n0e]

That's fine, but if you feel the need to do that, please do it in a private message, not publicly in a thread.

Cheers!

Uhh, that's not gonna work, because the ignore function blocks PMs between ignored users.

Send the PM before you initiate the block?

Either way, keep personal matters out of public forums. A topic does not benefit from it at all. If someone has upset you enough you feel the need to block them, then just block them and move on from it, making it known you've blocked them, especially publically, is a bad idea and could run you foul of the COC, so, again, please don't do it.

 

[Lightknight]

The new rules look fine. I'm assuming that we can still have intellectual discussions about topics of race and sex as they scientifically differ from one another and the racism/sexism would be something along the lines of someone making an offhanded insult regarding sex or race.

Kind of makes the point redundant. Were people permitted to make racist/sexist comments before in an insulting way? Sounds more like a back-patting rule if this was already covered but that's what businesses do nowadays anyways.

Would someone making an earnest assertion that males are dumber than females in general be grounds for warning (still assuming that if they then decided to present data on the matter it would be even more deemed as a discussion piece rather than insult)?

 

[happyninja42]

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.

Yeah I recall getting a warning for using the word the word troll. Now I just say things like "Don't feed the thing we all know is going on, but can't use the word for in this context!" or "Don't feed things that live under bridges!" etc. So far, no issues with breaking CoC.

 

[IceForce]

Yeah I recall getting a warning for using the word the word troll. Now I just say things like "Don't feed the thing we all know is going on, but can't use the word for in this context!" or "Don't feed things that live under bridges!" etc. So far, no issues with breaking CoC.

That is indeed the problem with outlawing certain words; people will always find ways around it. They'll even make up their own word if they have to.

 

[madwarper]

Spoiler: @FileTrekker

The idea behind choosing Rule 0, a D&D reference, was to try and take the edge off the fact that the existence of 'Moderators are always right' is always going to come across as what it is, you can only sugar-coat it to some degree, but we wanted to make it fun in a way that a lot of The Escapist's typical demographic would relate to, in order that it didn't come off as 'holier than thou'.

But the fact is that it also addresses the appeals system and the right way to dispute a decision, and the wrong way to do it. If we thought that all we ever needed was Rule 0, because we're all demi-gods and never wrong, we wouldn't bother putting an appeals system in place at all, and dedicating half of Rule 0 to explaining how it works, right?

If the D&D reference was supposed to be tongue in check, then it clearly missed its mark as I and a few others in this thread have taken exception to the wording and tone of Rule 0. Poe's law and whatnot.

"It's at the staff/moderators discretion of when to apply penalties if they believe your speech or conduct is detrimental to the harmony and good order of the community. If you feel you have been unfairly penalized, then you can appeal it via the appeals process."

Spoiler: @n0e

And correct! The legality of posts is based on U.S. law.

But, what US laws?

The Escapist is located in North Carolina, right? So, would the discussion of Cosplay at Comic Cons be permissible since according to North Carolina state law, that's illegal unless they all filed the necessary paperwork with the register of deeds?

Spoiler

http://www.dumblaws.com/law/186

? 14-12.10. Holding meetings or demonstrations while wearing masks, hoods, etc.

No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, hold any manner of meeting, or make any demonstration upon the private property of another unless such person or persons shall first obtain from the owner or occupier of the property his or her written permission to do so, which said written permission shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the county in which said property is located before the beginning of such meeting or demonstration.

(1953, c. 1193, s. 9; 1983, c. 175, ss. 3, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)

Or, Defy Media is located in California, right? So, would having a cultural discussion on the Japanese bathhouses be permissible since according to California state law, bathhouses are illegal?

Spoiler

http://www.dumblaws.com/law/190

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 11225


(a) Every building or place used for the purpose of illegal gambling as defined by state law or local ordinance, lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, and every building or place in or upon which acts of illegal gambling as defined by state law or local ordinance, lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, are held or occur, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance.

Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to apply the definition of a nuisance to a private residence where illegal gambling is conducted on an intermittent basis and without the purpose of producing profit for the owner or occupier of the premises.

(b) Every building or place used as a bathhouse which as a primary activity encourages or permits conduct that according to the guidelines of the federal Centers for Disease Control can transmit AIDS, including, but not limited to, anal intercourse, oral copulation, or vaginal intercourse, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance.

For purposes of this subdivision, a "bathhouse" is to be defined as a business which, as its primary purpose, provides facilities for a spa, whirlpool, communal bath, sauna, steam bath, mineral bath, mud bath, or facilities for swimming.

PS: The addresses of the usergroups on the CoC are still just text.

Spoiler: @sky14kemea

I like this idea, actually. I think using a deep blue like our usernames could be a good choice, plus it's easy enough to spot.

The only problem is getting Mods into the habit of using it, some Mods have their own style so they might not feel as happy about having to learn colour coding.

I had been asking for that for a while. Be a trend setter Spider-mod.

 

[IceForce]

PS: The addresses of the usergroups on the CoC are still just text.

Not only that but they're not consistent. The first two (Mod group, Ideas group) both go to the group's chat page directly, whereas the Tech group link goes to the group's home page and NOT the chat page directly.

 

[IceForce]

There is also the fact that anything banned is likely to suddenly be enjoy a significant inflation of its perceived significance, a kind of Streisand Effect if you will.

Well yes, that's why there are an uncomfortably large number of users who try to go out in a blaze of glory and post "ADBLOCK ADBLOCK ADBLOCK" in as many threads as possible to try and get banned, thinking that the word is like Voldemort and that its mere utterance will trigger an automatic ban.