New Code of Conduct

[n0e]

Though a quick check of the old rules shows there was stuff in it about not having illegal acts in posts, yet that thread with a video of a policeman getting shot in the head remained un-edited (another quick check shows it's still un-edited) and un-banned, despite it being reported multiple times.

Can you post the link in the Moderator's Discussion Group, so I or another mod can take another look at it?

Thanks!

 

[Souplex]

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.

I must say, I object to that. Revival is always better than repeat.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Under what country's or state's jurisdiction will things be considered illegal or a crime? Is it illegal where you live, illegal in the US, or illegal in North Carolina where the Escapist is based?

Also, just how closely will this ruling be applied?

For example, in a discussion about the ongoing migrant crisis in Europe or some of Donald Trump's policies in the US, the subject of illegal immigrants and illegal immigration will come up.

Illegal immigration and crossing or breaking through another country's border is illegal by definition, so if someone were to post footage of some of these illegal immigrants (such as video journalism from the migrant camp in Calais or tensions and action at a border as migrants attempt to illegally cross a fence or board a vehicle), then they would be posting footage of a crime. Also, if someone were to express the view that they believed migrants should have the right to enter other countries irrespective of borders or the proper channels, then they would be advocating an illegal act.

Would such posting footage of and advocating these illegal acts and crimes be met with an immediate ban with no possibility of appeal, or would the degree of illegality of these illegal acts and the amount of zero tolerance to be applied to such posts be up to Moderator's discretion and personal and/or moral interpretation of the laws being broken?

What about if someone posted a video in which someone was technically assaulted, or in which a group of people were partaking in an illegal gathering or committing acts of vandalism?

What about video that contained speech that may be considered hate speech in one region, but which is directed at or critical of a group of people who aren't protected by Hate Crimes legislation in some areas, and which is protected as Free Speech in another area? How about if this video of illegal hate speech was posted in order to critique it?

Also, on the subject of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and other accusations of bigotry or prejudice, what are the definitions of these terms under the CoC, or are they defined by the person making the accusation who felt offended?

There's a lot of unpacking to do with these examples, so their specificity makes having universal answers difficult.

For the most part, on the discussion or footage of illegal acts, assume that for the purposes of webhosting, illegal items are a problem. Any links to hosts of pirated content, websites to resell stolen items or hacking tools, or such things is not permitted. If it's possible for The Escapist, DEFY Media, or the Escapist webhosts to be sued, subpeonaed, or visited by the police is going to be material that's disallowed on the forums.

Further, on the subject of good taste. Things like Daily Motion videos of beheadings, violent riots, or any particularly gory footage (including surgery videos, etc.) are all going to be deemed subject ill-suited for the Escapist forums.

As for other regions' definitions of hate crimes, that will depend entirely on how well those definitions mesh with the general understandings of hate speech of the userbase and moderation team. A lot of material that would be disallowed in other contexts is understandable for critiques or commentary. For that, it will depend more on framing than on subject material. If the material in question is liable to grossly offend, then it's possible that even for critique, it would be removed. But likely not with infraction attached, unless that goodwill is abused repeatedly, seemingly for the intent to offend. In those cases, Rule 0 will apply.

As for the offending, it'll depend on an interplay between the result (did the person being addressed feel offended) and the moderator's understanding of that offense. There are some who will be more sensitive to things than a majority of others, and in those cases, there will need to be some moderation of tone to find a middle ground (or use of ignore feature, messaging discussion to agree to disagree, etc.).

It's hard to know without more context how these things will go explicitly, but hopefully that's enough to go on.

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.

I may just be an old fart on the mod team, but I've actually had several of those weeks before. It's not fun, but certainly not unfamiliar territory for the old and gray among us. I'm sure n0e and FileTrekker have had their share of them from the GameFront forums as well.

Side Note: What's the policy on avatars?

Same rules as would exist in posts. Keep it PG-13, avoid excessive sexual content or violence, don't be offensive, but otherwise you're golden.

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?

This has come up before, and it's something we (moderators) discuss pretty regularly with community management and the Tech team. Typically speaking, it's something that we want to work toward, but are other things that need more immediate addressing (either on community side with CoC works or internal administration, or on Tech side with invisible works), so it's a discussion that is always a little withdrawn.

Safe to say we're talking about it, and the more we work through getting there, the faster something like it will come about. I make no promises, but it's something we're looking into.

Thanks for the suggestion!

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. ... 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.

In this case, the clinical model for safe space doesn't apply with that much rigor. In practice, we're looking for a space in which no one feels persecuted. Safe space in the sense of a place that neither adds to detracts from someone's ability to have a discussion or interact in a way that feels reasonable. Everyone has more or less the same respect to speak their mind where others can do the same.

Anyone using any wording, belief system, or power to mistreat others is going to fall foul of the Code of Conduct, regardless of what they're wielding.

Hopefully, it gets enforced and the forums become much more pleasant, as a result.

There's going to be an adjustment period, as with anything else. Failing anything else, you can always message me (or really any the other mods) with specific questions or posts you really want to highlight as problematic, and we'll be happy to look at it. If you want us to get back to you and speak to why we do or don't think a post should be moderated, feel free to ask as well, and we likely will. I know I certainly will.

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.

I must say, I object to that. Revival is always better than repeat.

Contact page [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/contact/] is going to be your best resource for that. Or a message to [user]n0e[/user].

With that as the rule, aren't we going to get problems how a BDSM focussed sexual orientation will always involve atributes and elements that conservative-minded people regard as perverted? It's an integral part of that sexual orientation after all. Banning detailed discussion of that, could lead to a de facto ban on discussing the sexual orientation itself in any meaningful way, because (explicit) details are far more an integral part over there. ... But somehow I can't shake the impression that "Don't discuss explicit acts" could potentially result in problems for people for who discussing that is necessary to express their sexual orientation at all.

Could we have a bit of an open discussion on what's too detailed when it comes to kink?

Use discomfort and courtesy as your guide. Bear in mind, according to the forum account requirements, there will be users between the ages of 13 and 18 posting and reading on these forums. So, any explicit discussion of sexual acts themselves is going to be taken with a grain or two of salt, given their potential audience. Most parents wouldn't be happy with their younger children reading about the detailed particulars of knife play or auto-erotic asphyxiation, so naturally there is a bit of extra effort to keep that sort of discussion from being something a younger user might trip over accidentally.

If the discussion goes into detailed aspects of the sexual practice itself, as in details of what to do during sex or on which parts to perform what actions, then it's probably not something suited for the public forums. That would be a better fit for usergroups, I suppose, or an external source that has more freedom to discuss the detailed aspects of adult activities.

As for what others consider "perverted" as to belief, there's naturally going to be an amount of leeway. Homosexuality, the existence of kink or fetish belief, and the discussion of personal values ("Being a furry is important to because..." style statements) aren't disallowed, nor is really any personal belief. The details that are prohibited are largely for the comfort of others. There are many sexual practices I don't particularly want to read about, and if you're likely to discomfort others by the exposure to the details in your post, it's safer just not to post it.

As for what you do in messaging or closed usergroups, that's more free reign. No harassment, stalking, or illegal stuff, but beyond that: you do you.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.[/quote]

Jews are called a race because of the Hebrew bloodline. Most Hebrews have a direct genetic lineage and it's rather difficult to become a Jew other than through birth, meaning that while it's not entirely true that Hebrew is a "race," it is close enough for jazz. This isn't so much a lose definition of race as it is referencing two different things: Hebrew culture and Hebrew heritage.

However, I'm not here to argue Semitic semantics. Just alliteration. >.>

I would think, and I'm not trying to backseat mod here, so please take this as an attempt at being constructive, that "loosely defined" would kind of be bad for a code of conduct. I mean, there have been several responses following mine that sort of detail a similar concern. I'm going to quote ThatOTherGirl here:

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.

Because I've both been there and done that on this site.

And i also appreciate that you've said with other things that "that was then, this is now." This is true and I understand that. But there's a history on this site of stuff relating to gays and transfolk sliding under the radar. We've been accused of being sick, sideshow freaks, child molesters and dangerous to ourselves and others (though I suppose molesting children also falls under that) without any sort of moderation or warning. Now, I'm not trying to point fingers. It's even completely possible that such reports have been buried in the mod queue, since I don't fully understand what's up with that. But we've had people moderated for reacting to such statements, which doesn't exactly seem like the rules were working to protect.

Less specificity seems to make this a more likely outcome.

And from the other end, it would strike me that it would make it more of a headache for staff, given that people probably aren't going to consider these things racial or sexual in nature and might have a bit of a cow over being modded for it. We're living in a culture where even in the US a quarter of people don't think LGBT individuals should be allowed to exist, and it's quite easy to find rather casual homo/transphobia as a result. But maybe I'm completely wrong, and won't ramp anything up.

On the other hand, I do appreciate that the rules aren't longer than a set of D&D core books.

 

[Politrukk]

-removed quotes-

Rule 0 is there to fill in the gaps from any potential loopholes that may arise. This isn't a democracy. If you want to view it as a dictatorship, that's your prerogative. I prefer to see it as an admin of a forum stating that it's their interpretation of the rules that goes, not the other way around. As that's what it really is. It's an internet forum, there must be someone that has the final say about an issue that crops up. Almost all of the time, it will be my moderator team that handles these issues. They know the forums and are generally familiar with the folks that post in each forum. Rule 0, for that, means that if you get into an argument and a moderator says stop. You stop. If you are at odds about something that was said that may or may not be against the code of conduct, it's the moderators choice that is "correct". It's the same with the staff who do appeals. The same rules apply there as they do here.

Honestly, unless you plan on causing issues, the Code of Conduct won't even affect you. Be mature and respectful to others and there will never be a problem. It's when people get that chip on their shoulder and hide behind the shield of anonymity when they make accusations that cause issues and require us to get involved. Rule 0 allows us to ensure that they cannot take advantage of any loopholes they find and stamp out any potential issue with the "gray area" of a topic.

You don't need to like Rule 0, but again, unless you're planning on being a dick to someone or something, it will never apply to you. My staff are not tyrannical members on a power trip. They would much rather just create posts and replies like any other member instead of having to police the troublemakers. They do it because they want to keep the place a positive destination for those that visit.

Well that's pretty clear-cut and clarified then.

A dictatorship need not be bad perse especially when it comes to maintaining a degree of order.
Ask the Romans, they thrived under it.
I feel the harder and still appropriate term shows how strict the boundaries actually are and that's fine, I can understand if the word gives a bad vibe but it shouldn't really it's just a system.

(I hope I didn't get misunderstood again, I'm sort of a factual to the point person and I've learned people can view that as being testy and strange here).

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

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.

Huh, I must have missed that. Guess I shouldn't have taken inu-kun's word for it, my bad.

But even with that in place the problem still seems to be there. Most long term users, quality posters too, are really close to a permanent and it really is because they have been around for a long time.

I mean, inu-kun has been around forever. I rarely agree with them, but they are a fairly good poster and the community would be diminished if they are banned. It really does seem like the system is heavily stacked against the long time and frequent posters.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

That could be a way out of that dilemma, but would a post like "I've read your question about knifeplay, and you can read detailed stuff about that in this user group [link]" be okay? ... Is the label "contains detailed discussion of X and Y" enough?

Honestly, that sounds like the kind of thing that would be better left to messaging. Starting threads specifically about certain aspects of sexual, fetishistic, or kink play seems like it would flirt hard with the PG-13 line, regardless of any other aspect of the discussion that might be problematic for readers.

I'm not opposed to saying things like "We have a usergroup specifically for certain aspects of BDSM, [link here]." if it comes up in conversation otherwise, but it does sound like you're looking for some semblance of carte blanche in starting sexually-centered discussion. I really don't think this is the setting for dedicated discussions on those topics.

Really, speak abstractly, and you should be okay. If you want to start a discussion that details the intricacies of a particular type of sex-play, this isn't the right venue.

As for what others consider "perverted" as to belief, there's naturally going to be an amount of leeway.

That puts most of my concerns to bed. Thanks.

Glad to hear it. "To bed" is a great place for sexual concerns [http://i.imgur.com/6sLnaOU.gif].

 

[runic knight]

Well, lots to comment on, but for now I will stick to a few points since they were brought up recently.

1st, rule zero. Yes, I get the idea of it is a joke hyperbole, and as a D&D fan, I'm quite familiar with rule myself. It is sort of tone-deaf though, given the issues with confusion and inconsistency that many people have complained about and the frustrations that has caused. Comes off as pretty hostile and needlessly confrontational when viewed by those previously unhappy with how things went, and likely viewing new changes wearily as it is.

I get the idea of having a chain of command and having users respect the mods' authority instead of arguing with them or in mod chat outright. But people make mistakes and rule zero runs counter to that. The wording that people are not allowed to argue in an appeal also sounds rather odd in the same way. Isn't the point of an appeal to argue your case that the action was unjustified in the first place?

2nd, the strike decrease rate being lowered. The rules are more relaxed, so the strikes should be decreased a little more slowly, makes sense. Has a few issues though. For one it doesn't take into account existing strikes because of the old rule system and issues there. I don't suppose old infractions are re-opened to new appeals, so I have to wonder if a delay on the change over wouldn't be better on this change just so fewer people are left out in the cold about it all. Sort of doubt the new management will do a celebratory "amnesty" for a strike or two just so everyone can get down to a reasonable rate before they try the rules to commemorate the new CoC and management. Also, as other users have said, the time-required based strike decrease has always been a great determent for community participation and continued involvement, and the change seems it will only make it more potent. You get a strike, you need to wait 6 months for it to clear. This is the same if you post a million times or never for that time. The fact that strikes take so long to decrease actively seems to punish more frequent posters (more posts increase odds one will be hit with a strike), and as I myself have had to deal with, you can get strikes chaining together at the 5 month period and never see a decrease for it. 3 of my current strikes are from over 4 years ago because of this. It is uncommon, to be sure, though still another flaw with the current lifebar system.

Going to toss out some ideas here in a spoiler about what could work as ideas to tackle the issues there. I don't want to derail the topic itself, so please don't anyone turn them into argue points here, but still felt they should be thrown out where relevant.

Spoiler

As for alternatives though, there are options, though each with pitfalls of their own. First to come to mind would be a defines strike duration for infractions. Each strike is separate entity with regard to time it lasts. This would offer a lot of flexibility to moderation, as it gives different violations different weight (a frequent complaint with the current system where everything is either 1 strike or outright ban). Simply have a strike last a certain time based on the severity of the infraction then remove itself when it runs out. The total number of strikes would still determine bans and what not, but the individual strikes would not end up permanent scars unless you can go the whole 2 year period without one (which would likely only be acquired by deserting the forum entirely for some users now).

As another possible use, using shorter term strikes on new users would be far less damning to the fledgling user's total health and initial experience on the forums then the current "jaywalk strike stays for 6 month" we have had, and the slightly less but still rigid new system.

Another idea would be to have a "write on the chalkboard" approach where users demonstrating they understand the rules by way of simply posting a lot without getting strikes (thereby showing they do understand the rules) could lose some strikes for it based on post count. It would balance the current flaw of high-activity posters being more vulnerable to the current system by having a lesser means to lose strikes. As a bonus, it would not only encourage people with strikes to actually stick around instead of abandoning the site for months, if not forever, but also encourage them to post better. Simple guidelines about it not being in game forums or other content-less subforums, and having a limit to the amount they could lose in a duration (perhaps no more then 2 in 6 months or so to mirror the current system while not being abusable) would help prevent gaming the system there, though I would actually have to ask about this one being bad to be "gamed", as if you have a requirement that the posts be content-full because of where they are posted, someone trying to push out a huge number of posts that are on topic and contribute to the community while following the guidelines would seem like something that would be good for the community if they tried (especially if in conjunction with a limit to how many in a timeframe.

Finally, going to comment on the passive aggressive rule. Not sure how it will be executed, but I look forward to seeing it used to help prevent the sort of attitude and toxicity that has been an issue.

 

[Sassafrass]

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.

I can dig that, a fresh look every 12 months or so may help keep things a bit more civil around the place.

 

[DoPo]

What is the ettiquette when it comes to spoilers?

I'm also interested in this.

I've also have another question:

Off-Topic discussions. Interestingly, one appeared right in this thread[footnote]which reminded me to ask[/footnote] and the policy on these has never really been clear, yet most other forums I've been on, off-topic tends to be where the "minor issue offences" are if not just a tad lower - comments at least tangentially connected to the topic are certainly allowed and even one, two, or several would be tolerated but excessive offtopic posting is punished.

 

[DoPo]

2nd, the strike decrease rate being lowered.

Wait, how has it been decreased? It has always been 6 months for -1 level, 2 years for a reset, ever since I joined, at least.

Here is the previous version [http://archive.is/SSJ8t] of the CoC and it's the very last section called "Amnesty".

Here is the version from the 11th of October 2011 [https://web.archive.org/web/20111010034848/http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct] - its the most recent snapshot that the Wayback Machine had from before my joining - this was the version at the time I registered.

Finally, here is the version from the 15th of May 2011 [https://web.archive.org/web/20110515200536/http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct] which is the closest one to your join date that was archived.

The same policy seems to have been in place for about half a decade now - it hasn't been lowered.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

As everyone else has already said, you get mad(MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD) amount of +respect from for including "Passive-aggressive behaviour" for CoC.

Besides that, still no "No of-topic posts" on the homepage of the mod chat. Do that, and you will have even +respect from me.

Has passive aggression really been that much of a plague here? I think ever post I've seen on the topic is somewhere between positive, and downright grateful for the rule. What happened here?

When the whole gamergate thing was at it's peak for a significant amount of time tons of people were taking pot shots at each other, dragging old arguments into new threads, that sort of thing, but doing it all in a way that was passive aggressive and didn't quite violate the rules. The Escapist back then was very into trying to moderate based on a precise set of rules, so it was pretty easy for a poster to go exactly far enough to be a obvious toxic jerk but never see a warning. Calling out this behavior for what it was could also be dangerous due to the "don't call people trolls/names" rule.

For a while it seemed like passive aggressive potshots were the most common type of post on these forums. Regulars have been trying to reduce this problem ever since.

Like many others I actually stepped away from the site for quite a while for this exact reason. I am one of the few that came back eventually. (When I came back I used a new account as I had started presenting trans online and my old account was easily tracked back to me by people I am not out to yet, which is why my post history is short.)

 

[Drathnoxis]

]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.

As much as I'd like to take credit, the section I was talking about hasn't actually been changed. Looking back, the "Inflammatory Comments / Trolling" heading probably always used the word "discriminatory." This does raise the question as to why the "Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks" heading exists because it seems to be essentially redundant.

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)

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.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Wait, Queen Michael, is that you? If not, then come to this thread and call me a cuck and an idiot for making such a grievous mistake. Also give me a manga recommendation; I've been hungering for a new mango to read.

Haha, no, that is not me. I would rather not say my old account name, it can still be tracked easily back to me.

But I can give you a manga recommendation. You ever heard of The Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer? It is fantastic. I don't want to tell you anything about it because even the reveal of what it is was fantastically handled. In general terms though, think action/fantasy manga set in modern day.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

But I can give you a manga recommendation. You ever heard of The Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer? It is fantastic. I don't want to tell you anything about it because even the reveal of what it is was fantastically handled. In general terms though, think action/fantasy manga set in modern day.

Didn't hear of it, but adding it to the list as we speak. And because the low-content post rule is gone, I can make short response without getting modded! :'D

Spoiler: Thank you, based n0e

And 'ey, since you're trans and we're having a mango sharing thing: Ever heard of Bokura no Hentai? And before you ask, no; it is not a hentai. Or least that's what perverted m8 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/TrilbyWill] of mine says. [sub][sub][sub][sub](Hush, Twilby, I know you're into all kinds of creepy sex things!)[/sub][/sub][/sub][/sub]

I had not heard of it. I'll put it on the list though.