New Code of Conduct

[n0e]

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.

That was then. This is now. I'm a bit more hands on.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

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.

That was then. This is now. I'm a bit more hands on.

I would like to say that I appreciate that.

 

[PsychicTaco115]

I like this Code of Conduct, the new rules and the layout

Then again, I'm a sick fuck who found the old CoC not that bad

I'll continue as I have in the past; do no evil c:

 

[Tsun Tzu]

A CoC change?

Fun!

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.

It's anecdotal.

Personally, I've received 8 (I think I got one or two reversed; memory's failing me here) warnings over the past 5-6 years, four of which were in a 5 month period wherein I apparently lost my patience a lot more than the previous few year's time. But the total breakdown is as follows:

Two for low content.
Two for calling [small](A spade a spade...I can't help it...because I'm at least 50% right on this so far)[/small] someone a troll.
Four for being a dick. [small](It's so hard not to be sometimes. Get it? Hard? HA.)[/small]

I think I got one of the dicks reversed (a painful process, to be sure), but I try to own up to the crap I do and, frankly, all (possibly save for one) of the above were called well by the moderators.

On the other hand, I've also seen quite a lot that I'd deem to be over the line go unwarned, or seemingly innocuous posts getting slapped...which is entirely anecdotal on my part as well. Not to mention the number of people who've skirted bans for yeeeeeears. WHICH-

Segue.

Is why I have a bit of a problem with rule 0.

We're all different. Stuff is subjective. Room for error. And the rule, as it's currently worded, comes across like "I'm right, you're wrong, if you have a problem then bugger off because we're the final word, m8" and lends a sense of predeterminism to the appeals process.

With that said? I like you moddy types and don't envy you your jobs. ESPECIALLY because-

Segue Part Deux.

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.

You've all officially consigned yourselves to a 90 hour work week.

Seriously, you've all got your work cut out for you now and...man, the appeals process is gonna be a nightmare. Thank fuck that this rule isn't retroactive. A good 75% of the forum, including myself, would get whacked upside our heads with the hammer immediately.

Fuck, half the people in this thread would be gone.

But...still. I like it. Finally. Good. May make for less acidic exchanges.

]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."

Seconding this.

It neatly handles the ongoing discussion about anti-white stuff too. So. Woo. Compromise. And, after refreshing the CoC again...hours later, I'm glad to see that this was implemented.

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.

Also, this.

Not at all due to my own personal interest or anything.

Side Note: What's the policy on avatars?

 

[n0e]

Alrighty, KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime, Terminalchaos, feel free to continue this discussion in a more appropriate thread, but if we can leave this particular debate at the door as far as pertains to the non-COC part, as we'd like to keep it centred on discussion of the new Code of Conduct, please.

Thanks.

 

[IceForce]

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

It's anecdotal.

Well yes. I'd hope that my experiences are not representative of the wider picture. Because if they are, it means that contrary to what was stated, the "vast majority" of moderator rulings are in fact not correct. Because that's certainly how it's been in my case.

But yes, you're right. It's not a conclusion we can reasonably jump to with a sample size of only 1.

Is why I have a bit of a problem with rule 0.

We're all different. Stuff is subjective. Room for error. And the rule, as it's currently worded, comes across like "I'm right, you're wrong, if you have a problem then bugger off because we're the final word, m8"

To be fair, they've always had this ability. The powers-that-be here have the right to ban anyone they like for any reason they like, as does anyone who runs their own private internet forum. Which is why I always find it amusing whenever someone tries to pull the 'freedom of speech' card here.

Really, the only difference is that the previous COC had the affability to not actually mention this facet directly, whilst the new COC does mention it directly.

 

[IceForce]

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.

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.

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.

Also, this.

Not at all due to my own personal interest or anything.

Uh, I'm not sure what you guys are asking. Because the COC already talks about exactly what inu-kun says there in his post. "any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one?"

It's right here:

After every 6 months without any warnings, you will drop down one level on the Forum Health Meter. After 2 years without any warnings, your meter will be returned to 0, regardless of where it was before.

It's at the bottom of the 'health bar' section.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Well yes. I'd hope that my experiences are not representative of the wider picture. Because if they are, it means that contrary to what was stated, the "vast majority" of moderator rulings are in fact not correct. Because that's certainly how it's been in my case.

But yes, you're right. It's not a conclusion we can reasonably jump to with a sample size of only 1.

I dunno, man. This comes across as a little passive aggressive to me.

Mods! MOOOODS!

[small]I kid. I kid.[/small]

To be fair, they've always had this ability. The powers-that-be here have the right to ban anyone they like for any reason they like, as does anyone who runs their own private internet forum. Which is why I always find it amusing whenever someone tries to pull the 'freedom of speech' card here.

Really, the only difference is that the previous COC had the affability to not actually mention this facet directly, whilst the new COC does mention it directly.

Well sure. At least having the illusion of freedom is kinda nice though.

Uh, I'm not sure what you guys are asking. Because the COC already talks about exactly what inu-kun says there in his post. "any way to have cooldown period to decrease the penalties? Like having half a year without issues lowering it by one?"

It's right here:

After every 6 months without any warnings, you will drop down one level on the Forum Health Meter. After 2 years without any warnings, your meter will be returned to 0, regardless of where it was before.

It's at the bottom of the 'health bar' section.

Ah. I appear to have misread it.

I thought he was asking for a reduction in the existing time it takes to lose a bar, not asking for a reduction period.

 

[Parasondox]

I just saw my thread title was altered just a bit. Well, from correctly saying "fuck" to "f*%k". Not a big deal but still interesting to see.

Let's hope the new rules don't push users away from the site.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'd like to second Jamash's questions in post 66, which don't seem to have been answered yet.

EDIT: Oh, and the usual stuff about how rules are only as good as the way they are enforced.

 

[Random Gamer]

I can obviously see the pros and cons of the Zeroth Law. Still, at the end of the day, the wording is a bit provocative, but the gist of it makes sense, because most forums if not all will have mods acting on their own interpretations, sometimes on a case by case, and this is specially the case here considering that some rules are vague and open to discussion/interpretation. At least that rule avoids the usual hypocrisy of "this code is purely objective and will be applied like we're robots, without our feelings, likes, dislikes, and failing human reasoning interferring", which happens when the core doesn't state that mods and admins can go beyond strict rules and have the final say.
The real test is in how it's actually applied.

I also like a lot the "This is a private site, it's not a strictly public space, so we set the rules". Because it's exactly how internet sites are, and most people fail to realize it. Any forum, at the end of the day, is a dictatorship, even 4/8chan; they can be North Korea or a benevolent enlightened dictatorship, but at the end of the day, the owner of the site/forum, the one who pays for it and is legally responsible is the guy who is the ultimate master, and is the autocrat of that place. It might be tampered in cases where people have to pay to post, because they contribute to the funding of the site, but in a case like Escapist, it would obviously be tough to differentiate between random posters and Pub Club members.

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.

Interesting idea.
I've always thought (even if it's quite unrealistic) that most laws should be reviewed on a regular basis, every few years, to check if they're still relevant or should be modified according to the current situation/scientific advances/political environment/moral setup of the society/other, so that's a good move, I think.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

So the only thing I noticed to worry about is that I cannot swear in titles, but I dont actually know if I could beforehand.

Once I learned how to attack ideas rather than people(thankyou for teaching me to do that Escapist I genuinely believe it made me a smarter person) and not to talk about illegal things I really had no trouble not getting warnings. The only time I got one recently was when I made a thread that I felt would get controversial and changed it on purpose to something that got me no discussion value warning.

People carry on about it making us passive agressive but I think its great. Learn not to tie your sense of self worth to your ideas and maybe you can actually change your mind on issues and grow as a person.

I got really close though to getting banned years ago. People worry about the mods being too harsh now but I still have a message in my inbox from years ago where somebody couldnt believe I got a warning for quoting Stiffler from american pie. It was maybe a little trolly because it was a guy asking how to talk to a girl he liked, but still I dont think it would happen now.

 

[Superbeast]

This may be more of a suggestion for the Tech team, but with the new CoC I feel it is relevant to this thread: would it be possible to implement a system where you can explain why you are reporting a post?

For example, someone can have a really lengthy post that has an insult or two buried in it and it would be easy for a moderator to miss the few words and otherwise think the post was reported erroneously/maliciously.

I am concerned about this because there was recently comments that over-reporting was being considered as potentially being an offence.

This forum has an international userbase and the new CoC is a little vague - my country has hate-speech laws and is politically centre/left of typical American values (depending on the time period one looks at) which has inevitably shaped my morals and upbringing. As such, there may be something I see as blatant homophobia/transphobia (etc.) that would get a pass in a more American context, again leading to a moderator perhaps thinking that the post had been reported maliciously.

I would really appreciate a text-box to be able to highlight specific quotes of a post that is being reported and provide an explanation as to why I felt such a post needed examination by the moderators.

Some forums have this as a required feature, others it is purely optional. I prefer it being an optional feature as otherwise it can be a pain in the butt to have to write an explanation for why you are reporting "fake documents here" spambots, to use a recent example. I know you can do this by going to a user's profile and using that version of the report feature, but that involves having to go back-and-forth to a particular thread/post to pull out the problematic elements and find the correct hyperlinks and so on.

Having this textbox feature on the standard report button would make things more practical for the userbase and more efficient for the moderators (as specific behaviour is highlighted rather than having to scour posts/threads). It would also provide a way to flag one post to draw attention to a whole thread going off a cliff and requiring attention, thereby avoiding spam of the report queue and avoiding having to either post concerns publicly in the moderation usergroup (therefore creating possibility of drama) or PMing a moderator (who may not be active for some time given time-zones and daily life, whereas another moderator currently online would see a flag in the moderation queue more promptly and thus deal with a bad situation before it can deteriorate faster).

I think the new CoC is generally in the right place but a little vague, hence desiring this extra functionality.

 

[n0e]

I just saw my thread title was altered just a bit. Well, from correctly saying "fuck" to "f*%k". Not a big deal but still interesting to see.

Let's hope the new rules don't push users away from the site.

You're still okay to swear (non-excessively) in posts, but not in thread titles, this is so we can promote threads on places like the front page of The Escapist.

There's going to be a period of adjustment to this, I imagine, but you'll get used to it.

 

[SolidState]

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.

That was then. This is now. I'm a bit more hands on.

As someone who was affected by the incident that Strazdas mentioned, I'm glad to hear you say this. Additional staff oversight to ensure we don't get a repeat of that, is much appreciated.

 

[Parasondox]

I just saw my thread title was altered just a bit. Well, from correctly saying "fuck" to "f*%k". Not a big deal but still interesting to see.

Let's hope the new rules don't push users away from the site.

You're still okay to swear (non-excessively) in posts, but not in thread titles, this is so we can promote threads on places like the front page of The Escapist.

There's going to be a period of adjustment to this, I imagine, but you'll get used to it.

Makes sense. It doesn't bother me much. I know thread titles/links can be seen on Google searches and of course with swears in them, would make them seem aggressive and misunderstood on the topic being spoken about.

 

[StatusNil]

Well, I have to say I'm always apprehensive when the rhetoric of "Safe Spaces" enters the picture. It always seems like a confounding of categories to me, since the concept is derived from specifically therapeutic settings, not from a model of everyday interactions. And an Internet forum that is not especially conceived as a therapeutic site should foster adequate standards of everyday interaction, rather than emulate clinical models.

I realize that this language is commonly seen as standard boilerplate at the moment, but that is no reason to simply adapt to a trend that contributes towards establishing a virtual public sphere consisting of vast, overlapping group therapy rooms. Not only does it have a chilling effect on the public discussion of ideas, but it leads to conflicts of precedence among different groups seeking out these supposedly safe spaces. In actual clinical practice, safe spaces for different needs are kept separate, as that is the only way they can truly function. Everyone is not just dumped into the same chamber to squabble amongst themselves over who has the most claim for attention. There's no "universal safe space".

Bottom line: "safe spaces" are for retreat and healing, so a person can be empowered to face everyday interaction. A web site about video games and associated pursuits ought to be that everyday interaction, not the retreat. Now, does this mean that it should tolerate flagrant persecution of any identity groups? Of course not. But the standards it should aspire to ought to be those of common courtesy towards everybody, no matter what their distinguishing identitarian markers. Specialist nurture is, and ought to be, beyond the scope of a general gaming forum. There are other spaces for those needs.

Obviously whatever the exact phrasing in the Code of Conduct, how this forum works comes largely down to the moderation in practice. But insofar as the moderators look to the CoC for guidance, I feel this is an aspect at least worth considering, and I hope it will be. I do want the only site that I have ever paid a subscription fee for in all my years of Internet use since the 1990s to be a friendly and welcoming community (an ideal that I realize I myself haven't always exactly lived up to). But I've seen how setting oneself up for "Safe Space" overreach can release the furies of misguided righteousness, and it's not a pretty sight.

 

[Saltyk]

The rules seem much more simplified. I won't lie, I have literally never read the previous CoC before. They were way too long to slog through the whole thing. I may have skimmed them, at most. I generally boiled them down to "Don't be a dick." Anytime I wrote a post, I would ask, "Am I being a dick?" and edit or delete as necessary. However, these new rules are fairly easy to read and understand, so I applaud this change.

I also applaud adding "passive aggressive" posts to the CoC. I can't count the number of times I have seen someone insult, but not actually insult, someone and get away free and clear. Meanwhile, the person they insulted would get angry and get a warning or worse. But it is obvious to everyone that the first poster instigated it.

Truth be told, I may have made such posts in the past, but that was generally because I wasn't going to let deceitful or disrespectful posts go unanswered. And I knew I could get away with it. I was still nowhere near as bad as others on this site were (some of whom seem to be passive aggressive as a default). So I am happy to see that change. Hopefully, it gets enforced and the forums become much more pleasant, as a result.