New Code of Conduct

[n0e]

Did you just write the thing and realize how impossibly wishy washy and poorly defined it was before deciding to throw Rule Zero in there?

When you get down to it forum guidelines and rules are irrelevant anyway. It all comes down to how good the moderators are. Outside of some questionable warnings (for others, not myself) they seem fine to me but I don't know what the track record is since this forum has been going for a long long time.

Honestly, we're tired of folks skirting the rules just to give us the proverbial finger when it comes to actions against them for doing so.

If you're deliberately walking the line between breaking and not breaking a rule, Rule 0 is enacted and the moderators are allowed, and encouraged, to make the decision if it should be acted upon or not.

 

[DoPo]

Word count no longer relevant.

But it never really was. This was reworded with the last change of the rules already, I believe, but even before that - contribution hasn't been down to a word count but informational content.

It was intentional, as with the lack of "low content" posts being something we worry about. Necroing posts isn't something I feel is worth worrying about and the old "low content" rule was a bit harsh for my taste.

So long as your post contributes in some positive way to the discussion, it's fine and there's no minimum level of text required. Just try not to make a habit of it. We want to see discussions, not just acknowledgements.

One of the things the low-content rule guarded against was people quoting someone and just putting "This" under the quote with nothing else added. That sort of posting behavior can often be seen on other internet forums which have no low-content rule.

Are "This" -style posts still being moderated?

This is also something I thought had been in effect for a long ago - the "^this" posts don't contribute to the discussion thus merit the low content warning.

EDIT: Wrong quote...

EDIT EDIT: Also, forgot to mention, I thought the "^this" style comments were falling under the general Forum Conduct section, however, I would agree that missing a specific "offence level" for them may be slightly misleading. I thing, or rather hope, the content-less posts are still not allowed - as I said, they go against the spirit of Forum Conduct, but there is not a specific entry for them. They should be at the same level as "Topic-less Thread Creation", as they are more or less similar in nature.

 

[Silvanus]

"My favorite thing about rope bondage is the specific interplay between and gravity, and how it of <intimate discussion of arousal reaction, and further detailing of the desired response to sexual activity>."

I've reported you for that. It's against the new Code of Conduct[footnote]To be clear: I haven't really.[/footnote].

OT: Happy to see "backseat moderating" added, and "low content" removed. Also echo what Something Amyss said, about including other minority groups.

 

[SolidState]

Well, the thing I instantly noticed was that "passive-aggressive responses" are now explicitly against the rules.

That gets a HUGE +1 from me.

(And it will certainly be interesting to see how certain people's -- not naming any names -- posting styles are going to change to accommodate this new rule.)

 

[LetalisK]

For the Backseat Moderating change: This might be a stupid question, but I'm a bit confused. Does this include when you are not trying to moderate the person yourself, but rather help them avoid moderation? For example, "fyi, the mods will probably give you some wrath for that MLP gangbang picture. Might want to remove it before they get to it."

 

[Albino Boo]

For the Backseat Moderating change: This might be a stupid question, but I'm a bit confused. Does this include when you are not trying to moderate the person yourself, but rather help them avoid moderation? For example, "fyi, the mods will probably give you some wrath for that MLP gangbang picture. Might want to remove it before they get to it."

In the mod team chat there is a lot of "discussion" by non mods as to what mods should or should not do. This has lead to the chat being full of opinions about the rules rather the bringing to attention of the mods problems, which is the purpose of the chat.

 

[Kross]

For the Backseat Moderating change: This might be a stupid question, but I'm a bit confused. Does this include when you are not trying to moderate the person yourself, but rather help them avoid moderation? For example, "fyi, the mods will probably give you some wrath for that MLP gangbang picture. Might want to remove it before they get to it."

Those kinds of posts, while sometimes helpful to new people (who confirmed they read the rules), are almost always irrelevant to the actual discussion and can derail or otherwise clutter the thread (compounding the original post with other posts that aren't relevant to third parties participating in the discussion).

Send them a private message if you care about their posting habits enough to be their friend.

 

[n0e]

For the Backseat Moderating change: This might be a stupid question, but I'm a bit confused. Does this include when you are not trying to moderate the person yourself, but rather help them avoid moderation? For example, "fyi, the mods will probably give you some wrath for that MLP gangbang picture. Might want to remove it before they get to it."

It's all about how you present yourself. Giving people friendly advice when they are new to the community is not a bad thing, when it comes to newbies for example, would be quite welcome I imagine.

However, backseat moderating can be harmful and not very constructive. 'Mods should delete this' or 'I think you should get banned for this', etc. etc. is neither constructive nor welcome.

With the new COC, we hope to put a little more common sense into things, really. If you're doing something for the right reasons, and not to be selfish, upset, troll, discriminate or generally make an ass of yourself, you'll be grand.

 

[madwarper]

Rule 0
This needs to go. Either the mods/staff are always right and there's no need for an appeals process, or mod/staff are human that are capable of erring and the appeals process can make amends for their fallibility. Can't have it both ways. If you want to say that there's a time and place to appeal a penalty, and any discussion outside that arena will be met with further penalties, that's OK. But, your Rule 0 gives an air of being needlessly standoffish.

Topic-less Thread Creation
What about a deliberately vague title? "You'll never believe this..."
What won't I believe? That the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire? That Kristin shot JR? That it wasn't butter? That someone couldn't be bothered to come up with a Topic that reflected the discussion that wanted to conduct? Well, that last one is quite believable.

Official staff group discussion and communication
Are those groups addresses supposed to be url links? Because, as of now, they're just text.

Necroing posts isn't something I feel is worth worrying about and the old "low content" rule was a bit harsh for my taste.

Has there been some change to how the system treats locked threads? It seems that pages of threads have been set at locked, which would mean they automatically get deleted. I had suggested this a few times to the tech team (each time being met with a resounding /shrug) that the old threads simply remain sunk. That way any discussion could continue, but without that thread rising to the surface and interfering discussions on the top of the forum.

 

[n0e]

On the subject of profanity, I just noticed this:

Swearing is permitted on the forums, but only in moderation within posts, and never within titles of topics.

That last bit, that's new. Was that added because thread titles appear on the site's front page? (And you don't want swear words appearing on the front page?)

Correct!

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.

What about other minority groups? This site has had a pretty active LGBT population for years, and it's rather disheartening to see this not mentioned, as it can pertain both to comfort AND safety of a significant number of users here.

It would fall under sexist comments if a comment attacks a sexual nature and racist if it attacks the LGBT community itself. Race is rather loosely defined this day and age

Example; Jews, when it comes to debates and discussions are considered a race of people when, in fact, it's a religious preference.

I feel like it shouldn't be assumed that people will read that rule and think that it also applies to LGBT people, mostly because you have to twist how sexism and racism are generally understood (while declaring that LGBT people are now a race) to make it apply to them. It's not like it would be difficult to just add homophobic and transphobic onto it.

True, but also, sucks to be them if they don't read the rules they agreed to.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to attack others for that opinion. If you can't communicate without using combative, aggressive, or passive aggressive responses, then consider that these may not be the forums for you. Focus your response on your disagreement with a person's opinion, not on the person.

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)

If anything else, being a dick towards a group of folks of any sort is frowned upon. By frowned upon, I mean my banhammer will see action if they do it.


<- Strong supporter of LGBT rights.

 

[IceForce]

Rule 0
This needs to go. Either the mods/staff are always right and there's no need for an appeals process, or mod/staff are human that are capable of erring and the appeals process can make amends for their fallibility. Can't have it both ways. If you want to say that there's a time and place to appeal a penalty, and any discussion outside that arena will be met with further penalties, that's OK. But, your Rule 0 gives an air of being needlessly standoffish.

Yeah, I mean, you're not wrong. "Rule Zero" effectively gives the moderators carte blanche to moderate whatever they like.

Then again, the "Don't be a jerk" rule (now gone) basically did the same thing. So I guess it's just another way of wording that.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Rule 0
This needs to go. Either the mods/staff are always right and there's no need for an appeals process, or mod/staff are human that are capable of erring and the appeals process can make amends for their fallibility. Can't have it both ways. If you want to say that there's a time and place to appeal a penalty, and any discussion outside that arena will be met with further penalties, that's OK. But, your Rule 0 gives an air of being needlessly standoffish.

I'm in favour of it to an extent. This site has had a known problem with people skirting too close to the line and hopefully that will solve it. The appeals process, from what I gather reading around here, has been used a lot anyways so I doubt it'll be a new thing. It once took me a few weeks to get something of mine appealed and that was back in 2014-2015. I imagine it will be rather polarizing, though.

They've now directly addressed the passive-aggressiveness in the Personal Conduct heading. I'm happy.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

FUCK fuck Fuckity Fuck Fuck

How would you like to go see the school councilor?!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[n0e]

Rule 0
This needs to go. Either the mods/staff are always right and there's no need for an appeals process, or mod/staff are human that are capable of erring and the appeals process can make amends for their fallibility. Can't have it both ways. If you want to say that there's a time and place to appeal a penalty, and any discussion outside that arena will be met with further penalties, that's OK. But, your Rule 0 gives an air of being needlessly standoffish.

Two things.

1) When it comes to any decision made on the forums, the moderators/staff are always right. It means you can't just ignore what they say or do whatever the hell you want thinking you don't need to listen to them.

2) We're humans. No one is perfect and we wanted to be sure there was a way of handling situations that are borderline as, at times, hot topics can lead to decisions that may be correct, but the severity of the action is wrong.

Moderators aren't stupid. They can make mistakes, but the vast majority of decisions they make are correct and do not require any further consideration. It's only a handful that may need additional investigating. That's true anywhere you go.

Topic-less Thread Creation
What about a deliberately vague title? "You'll never believe this..."
What won't I believe? That the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire? That Kristin shot JR? That it wasn't butter? That someone couldn't be bothered to come up with a Topic that reflected the discussion that wanted to conduct? Well, that last one is quite believable.

It's just baiting people into looking at your post instead of telling them why they're clicking on it. Let's be considerate of others and give them an idea of why they should read said post.

Official staff group discussion and communication
Are those groups addresses supposed to be url links? Because, as of now, they're just text.

Good call. Fixing.

Necroing posts isn't something I feel is worth worrying about and the old "low content" rule was a bit harsh for my taste.

Has there been some change to how the system treats locked threads? It seems that pages of threads have been set at locked, which would mean they automatically get deleted. I had suggested this a few times to the tech team (each time being met with a resounding /shrug) that the old threads simply remain sunk. That way any discussion could continue, but without that thread rising to the surface and interfering discussions on the top of the forum.

Closed, not deleted. It's more or less an archiving system so they can't be replied to. They can still be read and it only affects non-stickied, non-content related posts.

 

[madwarper]

It means you can't just ignore what they say or do whatever the hell you want thinking you don't need to listen to them.

That may be what you intended for it to mean, but it's coming off as a holier than thou; "[we're] always right. deal with it."

2) We're humans. No one is perfect and we wanted to be sure there was a way of handling situations that are borderline as, at times, hot topics can lead to decisions that may be correct, but the severity of the action is wrong.

Moderators aren't stupid. They can make mistakes, but the vast majority of decisions they make are correct and do not require any further consideration. It's only a handful that may need additional investigating. That's true anywhere you go.

This is what should be in the CoC. It has a much more amiable tone than what is currently written.

It's just baiting people into looking at your post instead of telling them why they're clicking on it. Let's be considerate of others and give them an idea of why they should read said post.

Is that going to me memorialized in the CoC, or just a rough guideline?

 

[n0e]

This is what should be in the CoC. It has a much more amiable tone than what is currently written.

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?

 

[IceForce]

Moderators aren't stupid. They can make mistakes, but the vast majority of decisions they make are correct and do not require any further consideration. It's only a handful that may need additional investigating.

I'm not meaning to be an ass here or start an argument, but I personally take issue with this. And here's why:

Spoiler

14 warnings in 11 months, and only 2 of them were actually accurate.

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.