New Code of Conduct

[Amir Kondori]

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.

Except this is in regards specifically to moderating the forums, not just warning and banning people because they don't like their beliefs or opinions. You can always appeal.

 

[shrekfan246]

There were times when ordinary users (ie: non-mods) would wield the COC like a weapon against other users. (I even had it happen to me a few times, in the old GG megathread.)

If I was to guess, I'd say this 'Backseat Moderating' rule is designed to stop that kind of behavior.

Yes, I don't mind any moves to curb that sort of behavior (in the same way that I've never really minded the rule about being unable to call people "trolls"). I think I'd just appreciate maybe a bit more clarity on whether it means any reference to/discussion of how someone is breaking the rules, or specifically people directly using the CoC as a "gotcha!"

EDIT: Sorry for the edit storm on my posts. I imagine context will be key, as it has been on these forums for years, but either way I think I've asked about the only thing that really confuses me now.

 

[Drathnoxis]

I'm really glad to see that Low Content is no longer an infraction. I have seen so many good posters banned because of that rule!

I think Rule 0 can be made clear, but sound less like "The mods are holier than thou". You could say something like "The mods have the authority to use their discretion in determining which posts to take action on". You don't actually have to use the words "always right" especially when a few sentences later it says "you can make an appeal", implying that they're not always right.

I agree with this, the wording in that section could definitely be improved.

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 think that section could use some better wording too, it seems like you are twisting the definitions of the words to make them fit and that makes the rule kind of confusing as it is written. You should have a more general term and then give sexist, and racist as examples. Discriminatory, I think that's the word? Like:

"As it pertains to the comfort and safety of other posters, please keep discriminatory (sexist, racist, etc.) or grossly perverted remarks out of your posts."

Also, I'm a little nervous to see "Advertising" as an instaban with no appeal. Like, I can understand it's necessary for spambots and such, but what if somebody who's been here for 5 years with 6000 posts just made something that they are really proud of. They temporarily forget the rule and rush to the forum to share, and then BAM, permaban!

What is even considered advertising anyway? If I found something really cool and make a thread about it, posting a link, could I be permabanned for advertising? Is there a way to tell the difference between someone posting something they made themselves and posting something somebody else made that they think is cool?

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?

 

[NeutralDrow]

Was the exclusion of thread necromancy intentional, or a goof?

Unattended threads are now locked automatically after a period of days. (Either 60 or 90, don't remember which.) So thread necromancy is no longer possible, and is subsequently no longer needed.

Wait...are locked threads searchable, now? Or is it distinct from a "sunken" thread?

 

[n0e]

WRT old threads being automatically locked, will those threads also be automatically deleted like when a moderator manually locks a thread?

They won't be deleted, just archived so they can no longer be posted in. Fear not.

Whoa, wait a minute? I'm receiving a warning for that? The hell?

Its very clearly a joke directed at Elfgore's tendency to be overly dramatic when he would lock necro threads, not insulting him. Its no more harmful or mean-spirited than someone making a joke about me liking boobs or CaramelFrappe liking Miia.

It may have been mis-interprated as a personal attack, I don't know, but the best thing to do would be to file an appeal and n0e will look into it. Sometimes it can be hard to judge banter vs. attack when not everyone knows the personal relationships between members. Perhaps this is something we can work on. I always enjoy a good bit of banter myself.

Well that's the thing, isn't it. 'Passive-aggressiveness' is so deeply engrained in this forum's psyche, it's going to take a while to eliminate.

Just going on what other people have said (because I honestly don't know if this is true or not) but from what I've heard, Escapist's forums are oft-described by people elsewhere on the internet as being pretty 'passive-aggressive'. (Hence my "psyche" and "engrained" comment, above.)

Sadly, there is some truth to this, yes.

You're right though, there aren't going to be any overnight miricals for anyone with this new COC, it'll take time for members and moderators alike to adjust to the new style of moderating and community participation that ultimately n0e has in mind, with contribution and support from all of us, but I genuinely think it'll make a positive impact in the long run.

On that note, I am curious if pointing out how someone is breaking or skirting the rules is considered backseat moderating? I feel like calling out certain rule-breaking behaviors at least has the potential of improving someone's posting habits, if "you . . . provide reasoning and justification for your statements"

Making a post in a thread to specifically point how that person is skirting a rule or breaking one, is indeed backseat moderating. It's not your job, as a member, to publicaly warn another user for their behavour, that's our job, basically. If you have concerns about a post, the post can be flagged, and if you have specific concerns about the overall behavour of another user, feel free to contact a member of staff privately and away from the thread.

What would be acceptable, would be a friendly introduction to a new member of the community, depending on the context either in a PM or in the thread, only if it's not the sole reason for replying and would be valuable to others to read also.

What is definately not acceptable, however, is bashing each other over the head with the rulebook. If that went on before, it stops now. That's our job.

 

[n0e]

Also, I'm a little nervous to see "Advertising" as an instaban with no appeal. Like, I can understand it's necessary for spambots and such, but what if somebody who's been here for 5 years with 6000 posts just made something that they are really proud of. They temporarily forget the rule and rush to the forum to share, and then BAM, permaban!

What is even considered advertising anyway? If I found something really cool and make a thread about it, posting a link, could I be permabanned for advertising? Is there a way to tell the difference between someone posting something they made themselves and posting something somebody else made that they think is cool?

I personally have had a lot of experience with this problem over the years, and as moderators we're pretty astute at noticing all the hallmarks of someone who is here purely for their own advertising gains over a long-time member who has earned the right to share their own personal project or something of that nature.

Obviously it's never acceptable to post advertisements for profitable ventures or scams and things of that nature, but no, you're not going to get an infraction or a ban for sharing something awesome! Even if it's something you made, like a mod / map or whatever the case may be.

 

[n0e]

"Illegal Acts or Materials
Posting, admitting to, or advocating any illegal act or content, such as footage or images of any crime, will lead to immediate ban and forwarding of any and all information to the appropriate authorities."

What if the thread is about something involving criminal activity? For example, if there is some sort of ongoing riot in a major city, like London a few years ago or that rebellion that was going on in the Ukraine(? I might be mistaken on which country) last year, would it be okay to post photos or videos as it is relevant to the thread? Its not any sort of admission to criminal activity or anything, its just posting relelvant information about a current event.

Trust your instincts!

So yeah, basically you're on point. Discussing something that is in the news, such as a mass-murder case, or a terrorist attack, or other kind of news event, or general interest discussion, is of course perfectly fine.

What isn't acceptable is threads discussing how to commit mass-murder, get away with terrorism, acquire a copy of the anarchists cookbook, etc. etc.

So yes, posting news reel footage of an ongoing incident is fine. Posting a video about how to make a bomb, for example, well, that goes without saying.

Gotta agree on this bit. Last year we had a thread where not only did a few users say that they'd murder their kid if they turned out trans but stated that others should do the same, which, well, is advocacy of murder of a child on the basis of their gender. I didn't make a big deal of it in the thread but I flagged it and nothing ever came of it. I think I even notified a moderator about it directly a few days after I had flagged it.

I think I would definitely agree that is beyond the boundaries of good taste.

Ditto. I got a mod wrath recently that wasn't overturned where I was hit for being insulting in a passive-aggressive manner where I was being completely genuine and trying to help a poster. When I made an appeal the person who handled it offered some suggestions so that it wouldn't seem insulting even those I actually employed those in the post that was flagged. I was told I wouldn't get in trouble in the future if I did 'x' thing even though I did 'x' thing in that post because somebody still didn't like my tone. What are you supposed to do in such a situation? Good faith seems dead because of that.

I often find it's really easy to mis-read the tone of someone's post sometimes when you're on the internet, right? You're missing so many things, tone of voice, body language, all that stuff.

I find the best way to avoid coming across as passive aggressive is to use some qualifying language, 'Please don't take this the wrong way', or 'I hope you don't mind,' - please and thank you, a smile face or a joke somewhere to break any possibility of perception of tension.

It's quite easy to come across as being passive-aggressive, especially when using short, sharp sentences or one liners, for example, so perhaps it's just a case of stepping out of the box and imagining yourself reading your reply as if someone else posted it, and thinking about the possible ways people may view that post?

 

[IceForce]

What is definately not acceptable, however, is bashing each other over the head with the rulebook. If that went on before, it stops now.

Oh yes, it definitely went on before.

Making a post in a thread to specifically point how that person is skirting a rule or breaking one, is indeed backseat moderating. It's not your job, as a member, to publicaly warn another user for their behavour, that's our job, basically. If you have concerns about a post, the post can be flagged, and if you have specific concerns about the overall behavour of another user, feel free to contact a member of staff privately and away from the thread.

We're allowed to provide specific examples, yes? (I hope so)

In which case, the following thread page is a pretty good case study:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.933687-people-Boycott-Marvel-until-its-CEO-resigns-and-hand-over-Marvel-because-he-donated-money-to-Trump?page=7

I won't link to the individual posts (because it feels too much like I'm calling out specific users to be moderated, even though I'm not), but if you read through the posts on that page you'll see that most of them are talking about one particular user infringing on the COC, with various people offering their various explanations as to why he broke the rules (or not).

Is this sort of thing covered under "Backseat Moderating"?

 

[shrekfan246]

Making a post in a thread to specifically point how that person is skirting a rule or breaking one, is indeed backseat moderating. It's not your job, as a member, to publicaly warn another user for their behavour, that's our job, basically. If you have concerns about a post, the post can be flagged, and if you have specific concerns about the overall behavour of another user, feel free to contact a member of staff.

What would be acceptable, would be a friendly introduction to a new member of the community, depending on the context either in a PM or in the thread, only if it's not the sole reason for replying and would be valuable to others to read also.

Okay.

So then, would quoting somebody (for the sake of the hypothetical and because of your wording let's say they're an established member who's been active for a year or longer) to discuss how they could better follow the rules or why something they've said might potentially break the rules, but have that only be a part of the overall post which then goes on to discuss the larger topic of the thread at hand be considered unacceptable under these new rules? Alternatively, would calling someone out for problematic behavior that is also against the rules (i.e. homophobia/transphobia/sexism/racism) again in the same framework of it not being the sole reason for the entire post be, in itself, against the rules under this new system?

My concerns mostly stem from my belief that being unable to directly confront somebody would seem to stymie attempts to raise the average level of discourse on the internet. Now, direct confrontation can itself be counter-productive (EDIT: especially if it leads to derailment), but I honestly don't think that people who are "problem posters" are going to see the metaphorical error of their ways if they're just slapped around by the authority a bit. At least from what I've seen in the past, they tend to just find other websites where they're free to continue acting in the way that got them warned/banned to begin with. I know that it's a bit idealistic of me to believe that someone is actually going to overhaul their deeply entrenched opinions just because they got into an online slapfight, but... well, I still have some faith in people, I suppose. XD

 

[n0e]

-snip-

So yes, I would consider some of the content in the example you posted to be a good example of backseat moderating.

Derailing a thread like that isn't helpful to anyone. Again, the best course of action, if you see someone breaking a rule, don't quote it, question them directly or acknowledge it publicly, just flag it, contact a moderator in private and let the moderators deal with it.

The way I see it myself, is that it's not particularly a great impression on the topic or the community in general when someone potentially comes along to participate in a discussion only to find the topic derailed to discuss the why's and why-not's of one bad apple's wrongdoing. If anything it only serves to propagate the problem.

 

[n0e]

Okay.

So then, would quoting somebody (for the sake of the hypothetical and because of your wording let's say they're an established member who's been active for a year or longer) to discuss how they could better follow the rules or why something they've said might potentially break the rules, but have that only be a part of the overall post which then goes on to discuss the larger topic of the thread at hand be considered unacceptable under these new rules? Alternatively, would calling someone out for problematic behavior that is also against the rules (i.e. homophobia/transphobia/sexism/racism) again in the same framework of it not being the sole reason for the entire post be, in itself, against the rules under this new system?

My concerns mostly stem from my belief that being unable to directly confront somebody would seem to stymie attempts to raise the average level of discourse on the internet. Now, direct confrontation can itself be counter-productive, but I honestly don't think that people who are "problem posters" are going to see the metaphorical error of their ways if they're just slapped around by the authority a bit. At least from what I've seen in the past, they tend to just find other websites where they're free to continue acting in the way that got them warned/banned to begin with. I know that it's a bit idealistic of me to believe that someone is actually going to overhaul their deeply entrenched opinions just because they got into an online slapfight, but... well, I still have some faith in people, I suppose. XD

There's an element to common sense in this, but generally speaking, it's better for a problematic poster to be dealt with by the moderation team / staff then by calling that person out yourself.

The quickest and most effective way to deal with someone who is breaking a rule, or trying to skirt around one, isn't to quote them in a thread and call them out on it, because it's going to escalate into an argument with that person, guaranteed.

Of course, we do really rely on the community a lot to help us keep the forums clean, so we more than encourage you to contact a moderator privately or to flag the post, and make known your concerns, so we can deal with them accordingly on your behalf.

But I appreciate your sentiment, nontheless, I know exactly what you're saying, but often it's best left to the staff to deal with, because unfortunately not everyone is going to take what you say reasonably.

This isn't to say that you can't debate the rights and wrongs of a topic or anything like that, obviously, it's just where it concerns the COC of this website, flag it up and leave us to warn people about breaking it, basically.

 

[shrekfan246]

Snip

Fair enough, thanks for the response. I suppose I still have my concerns about it, but I'll do my best to respect it all the same.

 

[IceForce]

The way I see it myself, is that it's not particularly a great impression on the topic or the community in general when someone potentially comes along to participate in a discussion only to find the topic derailed to discuss the why's and why-not's of one bad apple's wrongdoing. If anything it only serves to propagate the problem.

I think the problem might stem from this forum's moderation transparency. Allow me to explain...

On other forum sites, moderated posts are often completely hidden from public view (even if the post is in the middle of a thread or discussion). Only the mods and the recipient of the moderation can see the post, no one else. So there's nothing for anyone else to gossip about or derail onto.
On this forum however, the moderation is much more transparent and not hidden from public view. This is good, but it creates the problem of 'warned' posts sticking out like a sore thumb, sometimes resulting in a thread derail (even if it's just someone asking "Why'd so-and-so get warned for that?") Suspensions and bans are even worse, since there's a link on all the user's posts linking to the one post that did them in. This can cause people to flock to and congregate on a thread out of sheer curiosity and nosiness.

Now let me be clear, I'm not saying the moderation should be made less transparent, because I like moderated posts being visible like they are. But I guess derails like I've described above are the price we pay for having that level of transparency.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Thanks for minimizing my concerns by attemtpting to showing how others suffer more thus dehumanizing and marginalizing my feelings. Should all races stop complaining until the native americans ghave their grievances redressed since they were the most oppressed? No, every individual has the right to address any personal grievance they suffer, regardless of their race, gender, or identity. Minimizing the suffering of those in traditionally privilieged groups is still minimizing suffering. There is no way that people actively trying to kill me was an order of magnitutde less and you are dehumanizing me by assuming that. You have no clue how consistent the suffering I have endured and assuming it is minimal is marginalizing and dehumanizing me. You are a hypocrite and I feel offended by how you marginalize my experience. I have directly (and consistently) experienced threats and violence and had people chase me with a baseball bat for having long hair. You are now hypocritically reducing my experience the same way you say others do when their experiences of abuse are brought up. Just because I am cis does not mean my experience of abuse was any less traumatic. Power is an individual concept and reducing me to constituent parts to assess my level of marginalization is dehumanizing and hurtful.
I am not trying to tone police. I have seen anti cis talk in these forums and it sincerely bugs me. I can sympathize with lgbt issues and still actively feel harmed by the language they use. The fact that I have suffered from violence from a marginalized community does not invalidate the horrible language and practices they engaged in. Just because other cis, white men, can be jerks (as can people in all groups) does not mean that I don't have valid feelings that are hurt everytime cis white men are reduced or insulted. My membership in groups considered to have more power than others does not negate the fact that my suffering still sucks and was inappropriate.

I'm not minimizing your experiences. But here's a contrast, I have a friend that was beaten, tortured for hours, raped repeatedly, the group of guys who did this to her also tried to brand her with the words "tranny" and "it freak". These people also tried to murder her, but the gun jammed and she barely escaped with her life. Now as a further contrast that basic story has been related to me in somewhat different circumstances by no fewer than a dozen people I know. All of them are trans.

I said I symapthize with you, I understand how you feel in how you've been treated, that's actually very humanizing. Using in buzz words doesn't change the fact that you still have it a lot batter. It also doesn't change the fact that you're relating the story as a tactic for tone policing, you're telling me to shut up. That's in spite of the fact that I really do understand how you feel because of how you've been treated. In spite of the fact that what those people did is wrong and they really should know better. More over I condemn them as scum for having treated you like that.

Still the magnitude of mistreatment does matter. I had to present male for a year and a half to have a job I desperately needed, in order to take care of my father who just had open-heart triple bypass surgery. I had to cut my hair, wear male clothes, bind my chest, and "act like a man". All of that just to have a damn minimum wage job. Mind you this was 5 years into my transition. When I hit the point where I could no longer take it, where I was drinking heavily each night just to escape the pain keeping that job... I filed a complaint and was fired for it. After that me and my dad went homeless for a year, despite my presentation and ID, I was forced into the men's homeless shelter. All of that doesn't make your experience invalid, but it should put some perspective into how vastly different our situations are just because I'm trans and you're cis. All I ask here is that you understand, I spent two and a half years on the verge of suicide because of the discrimination and invalidation I faced, that's not to mention a year of constant threats of rape and murder.

None of that is anti-cis, that's reality of how hard I have it for not being cis, compared to really the relatively easy time you've had because you're cis. I don't begrudge you, and I'm not saying that your experience is less valid. At the same time it's a lot less severe and a lot less systemic. Please understand when you're wronged, I'll be in your corner, no one should be treated the way either of us has been.

Should the assholes that happened to be publicly identified as an lgbt group that spit on me for being me be punished? Yes or no? Keep in mind I wasn't in any way trying to engage or converse. I was just in an elevator and they spit on my for being cis white male. At that point no part of their experience justified harming me or oppressing me.

They spit on you, that's legally battery at the minimum, but in my state that qualifies as assault in the second. If not publicly exposed, reported to the police at least. So yes, they should have been punished. But in this case you were targeted for harassment, not oppressed, oppression is systemic, it would be something you experience on every level of your life, not just in an isolated incident. People with power to write law are trying to force me into the incorrect bathroom, where I'm more likely to experience harassment and brutality, that's oppression. Being harassed and accosted on one occasion isn't oppression, it's still illegal and totally wrong, but it's not oppression. Also keep in mind, I can't pass for male even when I try, my year and a half in the shit job proved that. If we met in a men's bathroom you'd freak out, because I don't and can't pass for male, so you'd see me as a woman in a men's only space. You're not a bad person for that, not at all. Still it'd be a problem, all because I wasn't born female and law makers want to put me in your space.

You say you aren't playing the oppression olympics yet you tried to marginalize and minimize my suffering because others suffer. You assumed it was minimal on my part thus making it worse. You come across as a hateful hypocrite to me.

I am not trying to minimize you, nor am I trying to minimize your experience, I'm trying adding perspective. Realize your suffering is not constant, it's not enforced legally, and your identity isn't invalidated at every opportunity. That's not a bad thing on you either. I never called you "scum", I never said you're unimportant, but I did try to point out that your treatment is automatically more credible than mine. Let me show you this: The FRC has a RNC Plan to legislate trans people out of US life and society. Huffington post source. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/and-then-they-came-for-tr_b_9258678.html] FRC Source. [http://www.frc.org/transgender]

Now look at those sources and tell us LGBTQ+ folk have it better than you. Because people are still trying to out law you as a person. Right? RIGHT!?

You can address you own suffering without negating the suffering of others. Stop minimizing suffering that is experienced by privileged groups as less valid. Unless you know a totality of an individual's experience then you are not qualified to negatively judge how much they are oppressed.

Except you're not oppressed, you're not minimized, you're not ignored out of hand, you don't have people trying to make laws against who you are... I DO! Every single "religious freedoms act" every "bathroom bill" every government restriction of rights of trans folk is aimed squarely at me and everyone even remote like me. Have they tried to ban cisgender identities legally? Fuck no! Have a sense of perspective. No matter how bad you've had it, it's a drop in the bucket compared to how LGBTQ+ folk have had it. We get murdered.. Exterminated by "good god fearing" cis folk... So tell me, how are your isolated incidents comparable to my systemic every moment of every day oppression. Hint it's not. I sympathize with how you've been badly treated, but I'd bet money you'd throw me under the bus and pass a bill to make who I am illegal.

Specific rules need to protect all of us or they will de facto cause some of us being "more equal."

No that's bullshit. Every minority has had to fight tooth and nail for the most basic respect as human beings. Those of us who don't conform need special protections because those in power are the majority and they try to legally limit our rights. You will never really face that... A hair cut will never make you want to slit your wrists... All you've done is excuse real systemic bigotry and favoritism in your favor. So wise up.

Edit: I'm not invalidating any wrongs you have faced, I'm showing how skewed in your favor society is. You could win a lawsuit for someone denying you a job for just having long hair, I can't win one for someone denying me a job for being trans, even when the law is in my favor. Think about that. You have an automatic support structure because you're "normal", I lack one just because I'm not "normal"...

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

I'm a big fan of rule zero. I've expressed this in previous threads, but the previous rules made it very easy to skirt the line on the rules and be jerks with no recourse because no rule was technically broken. Same with the passive aggressiveness rule. It will be interesting to see how these rules in particular play out, hopefully well.

I also like the removal of the low content rule. I think that just made things worse than better. Good ideal, not as good in practice.

Just a question if we already talk about it, probably not the right place to ask though, any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one? It just means that people who've been here longer are closing in to their doom, especially if they can't play "the game" right.

I'd like to second this. That is all.

As for the ongoing discussion about including homophobia and transphobia specifically alongside racism and sexism, well, I get the point that that sort of thing shouldn't have to be expressly stated, but while we were expressly stating things anyway it would have been nice.

The thing is... Well, I'll believe n0e that they think they are a big LGBTQ supporter but I know lots of people who say that and consistently fail to live up to even the most basic standards of tolerance, let alone support. My bar is set exceedingly low for this and I am constantly disappointed by people who really should be better. So I'm going to take the Yahtzee path on this and just expect nothing and be pleasantly surprised when you prove yourself.

And really, I'm not sure how effective the moderation team can really be in solving cultural inertia problems anyway. The Escapist is the only community I still frequent where I feel like I have to walk on eggshells about being trans. I'm not even sure why. It's like simply being me is a political statement, one that people will come out of the woodwork to try to counter. And I can tell you this: it never, ever felt like that when I was presenting male here.

Is there a solution to this? I am not sure, but somehow other places manage to not make every thread that mentions gender issues into the political equivalent of a boxing match.

 

[n0e]

CoC...
CoC's never change.
Much.
I've lost count how many times they've been changed, actually.

But yeah, looks good and I guess in regards of discussing illegal stuff, the site would adhere to US laws as it's based in the US.

I plan on having it reviewed once a year. Communities change, and a review of the Code of Conduct that governs them should be looked at if it needs to change, too.

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

Well that's the thing, isn't it. 'Passive-aggressiveness' is so deeply engrained in this forum's psyche, it's going to take a while to eliminate.

Just going on what other people have said (because I honestly don't know if this is true or not) but from what I've heard, Escapist's forums are oft-described by people elsewhere on the internet as being pretty 'passive-aggressive'. (Hence my "psyche" and "engrained" comment, above.)

Having experienced quite a level of passive aggressive comments that I've had to look into, I know full well about the overall attitude this forum has with passive-aggressive behavior. But, if we want to make a change, we need to start somewhere.

I'm really glad to see that Low Content is no longer an infraction. I have seen so many good posters banned because of that rule!

I think Rule 0 can be made clear, but sound less like "The mods are holier than thou". You could say something like "The mods have the authority to use their discretion in determining which posts to take action on". You don't actually have to use the words "always right" especially when a few sentences later it says "you can make an appeal", implying that they're not always right.

I agree with this, the wording in that section could definitely be improved.

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 think that section could use some better wording too, it seems like you are twisting the definitions of the words to make them fit and that makes the rule kind of confusing as it is written. You should have a more general term and then give sexist, and racist as examples. Discriminatory, I think that's the word? Like:

"As it pertains to the comfort and safety of other posters, please keep discriminatory (sexist, racist, etc.) or grossly perverted remarks out of your posts."

To each their own. I feel the language as is explains it clearly. I'm not saying you're nitpicking, but if both definitions get the point across, why change it?

Also, I'm a little nervous to see "Advertising" as an instaban with no appeal. Like, I can understand it's necessary for spambots and such, but what if somebody who's been here for 5 years with 6000 posts just made something that they are really proud of. They temporarily forget the rule and rush to the forum to share, and then BAM, permaban!

What is even considered advertising anyway? If I found something really cool and make a thread about it, posting a link, could I be permabanned for advertising? Is there a way to tell the difference between someone posting something they made themselves and posting something somebody else made that they think is cool?

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?

Discretion of the Moderator. They're the front line of any action that's taken. They'll use their judgement to determine how to handle each situation as it arises. (Part of that Rule 0 everyone thinks is going to be used to ban people at will for some reason) Obviously, we don't want to ban anyone for simply expressing their joy of randomgame, and want to remove those who simply want to clutter our forum with advertisements.

Rules are intentionally vague to allow interpretation of them and add flexibility in how they're handled. Believe it or not, it's a really good thing to do. I think past experiences have clouded your optimism and expect what everyone seems to be afraid will happen, will. It won't. I'm far too old to go on a power trip. I'd rather have a happy and lively community to be a part of.

 

[Strazdas]

well i have to admit i was wrong. i did not expect you to improve CoC, but you did. Its not perfect, but its better than what we had before. There still are some issues that worth bringing up.

Rule Zero is a funny one, because it implies that staff is suprahuman omnipotent beings instead of humans. I understand why you put it given the behaviuor you've seen lately, but it just sounds like staff is some royalty that can shit all over the peasants like we're back in middle ages. I think a better wording would help. right now it sounds like ego trip.

anything else that the moderators see as offensive are also not permitted

This is a blanket authority for moderators to ban anything because offense is entirely subjective. I mean, its not like they couldnt ban anyone they wanted anyway, but this basically says "yeah we will ban anyone we dont like".

Another thing to point out is that some rules overlap. For example lets take Piracy. Piracy is an illegal act where Escapist is registered and thus would fall under permaban, but it is also mentioned as an example of infraction only offense. which one is it?

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.

I think this is covered by:
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)

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.

and yet just couple weeks ago we had a moderator that decided to enforce a nonexisting rule and went so far as to edit other peoples posts until he was told he was wrong by the staff. people who didnt listen to him were doing the right thing in this case. Though i think that was before you came here.