New Code of Conduct

[Superbeast]

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works or internal administration, or on Tech side with invisible works), so it's a discussion that is always a little withdrawn.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!

Fair enough that other stuff wants to be sorted first.

Oooh, I thought of another suggestion! Not really code-of-conduct based but more moderation generally.

On a lot of other websites I am on, the moderators pick a particular text-colour to use as their "mod voice" to help distinguish between regular posting and posting to redirect a thread. It is particularly useful once you get into quote-chains and stuff, where a mod can clearly steer in a reply to one group and participate on-topic in the same post. It is also helpful for the rare instance that a moderator has to edit a post, the notice/context can be clearly displayed thanks to the difference in font colour.

I also know that in the past there has been some confusion when someone (be it mod or staff) have joined in a light-hearted thread and joked around about banning people, and someone else comes in and misunderstood and gone on a moderation rant.

Now, other forums let mods pick their own colours because they have activated forum signatures where such can be explained, so maybe there should just be one colour on the CoC for the mods to use?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

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.

Sorry about the derail. Added the person to my ignore list, as I got the idea with their last post that I was giving attention where it only caused more issues. Adding gasoline to the fire if you will.

Anyways I still do have a specific concern:

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)

-Bunch of unrelated stuff-

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.

We have homophobia, racism, and sexism specifically mentioned, but not transphobia. I've seen a lot of casual transphobia, and thinly veiled transphobia, even recently... It does make me uncomfortable posting here some times. I think that's one thing that specifically needs to be mentioned in this case, because I've seen transphobia uncontested quite a bit, so long as it's just vague enough. Not to mention that I've talked with a lot of trans members of the board, it seems a lot of trans users have abandoned the forums because of anti-trans hostility in the past. Kind of worries me.

Along with that I think we need a rule about keeping political and religious discussions civil, I've seen them get really nasty. Granted both subjects tend to be emotionally charged, which is understandable. Still I've seen people's political leanings be used against them outside R&P, as a method to discredit someone. That's not really a civil way to have a discussion.

 

[Barbas]

(Snip).

That doesn't seem necessary; you could just put it under bigotry or hate speech to keep the word count down and cover all the bases, especially since the CoC's now being changed to better address behaviour like like attacking someone's character, ridicule, mockery and uncivil muppetry, this approach makes more sense to me. As something that is not as well understood as, say, homosexuality or bisexuality, I personally thought that most of the comments I recall seeing about trans. people were made from a position of ignorance rather than sincerely malicious attempts to dehumanize them. I don't recall seeing the hostility you've mentioned, but you can rest assured that to the best of the mods' ability, it'll be met with the same treatment given to other pernicious behaviour.

The ability to write an explanatory note for why you're reporting a post is a popular request that should hopefully be added in the near future, but in the meantime please forward any examples of what you've described to a moderator for review.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

(Snip).

That doesn't seem necessary; you could just put it under bigotry or hate speech to keep the word count down and cover all the bases, especially since the CoC's now being changed to better address behaviour like like attacking someone's character, ridicule, mockery and uncivil muppetry, this approach makes more sense to me. As something that is not as well understood as, say, homosexuality or bisexuality, I personally thought that most of the comments I recall seeing about trans. people were made from a position of ignorance rather than sincerely malicious attempts to dehumanize them. I don't recall seeing the hostility you've mentioned, but you can rest assured that to the best of the mods' ability, it'll be met with the same treatment given to other pernicious behaviour.

The ability to write an explanatory note for why you're reporting a post is a popular request that should hopefully be added in the near future, but in the meantime please forward any examples of what you've described to a moderator for review.

The problem is that people use an act of ignorance to indulge in both homophobia and transphobia. Most of what comes off as coming "from a position of ignorance", is also used to justify blatant transphobic behavior that is extremely damaging to those who experience it. Like intentional misgendering and making patently false biological assertions in an attempt to damage trans people, then claiming a position of ignorance. They're doing it specifically to get away with insulting, offending, and antagonizing trans folk. People making damaging assertions to invalidate other people isn't something you can say is "just because of ignorance". Aside from that in practice, when there aren't specific protections for a marginalized group, that marginalized group rarely sees justice done in situations where they're wronged.

Also theres the 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' standard to go on. This is double when people claim ignorance in order to attack groups in a round-about way. Like people who claim ignorance of scientific backing for trans folk as an excuse for misgendeing us, call us sick for seeking transition, and referring to sexual reassignment surgery as mutilation...

Spoiler: The relevant post

If words still have a meaning they are still brothers - no human being can change their gender regardless of their inclination or the way they dress or behave.

The concept here is that they are not changing their gender but rather were born as a gender that did not match their physical sex. Any work they do on their outer appearance is then to just come more in line with their internal gender. Can they turn their X into a Y or their Y into an X? No, but that's not the point. The point is to look in the mirror and not feel like you're in the wrong body.

We have all kinds of disorders and strange medical conditions in the world, is it so strange to imagine that there could be a condition like that? Hell, we have a condition where you get born with the genitalia of both sexes.

As for the linguistic argument of gendered nouns having meaning, it was only somewhat recently that we've begun to distinguish between the male gender (internal) and the male sex (external). Language is just catching up. If it helps you any, they are called gendered pronouns and not sex pronouns which now does mean reference to one's gender identity.

That would be true if you could find something measurable in the body or brain that objectively define your definition of gender - I might be wrong but I don't think such a thing exists, as behavior/sexual preferences cover such a wide range that any attempt of classification would be largely subjective. Facebook's ridiculous Gender Multilist is a prime example of this.

I will keep using gender-based (that is, sex-based) pronouns because I'd rather use wording that describes an objective situation over one that is based on subjective and ailing choices.

Of course he can dress as he want and even change his name - I just hope he won't choose to reach the point of mutilating himself simply because he dislikes the body he was born with.

Spoiler: Screenshot* of said post.

*Some extentions redacted so as not to violate the CoC.

Seriously there's a proclamation to misgender trans folk, referring to the choice to transition as being an "ailing choice" as in a choice of poor health, misgendering of Lilly Wachowski in a thread with a bunch of trans posters, and referring to SRS as mutilation. You can't chock all of that up to plain ignorance.

So I'm a bit less than satisfied with the answer provided.

 

[runic knight]

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.

huh, wonder why I was thinking it dropped two. ah well, the points raised still stand about the issues with that whole thing I guess.

 

[sky14kemea]

Oooh, I thought of another suggestion! Not really code-of-conduct based but more moderation generally.

On a lot of other websites I am on, the moderators pick a particular text-colour to use as their "mod voice" to help distinguish between regular posting and posting to redirect a thread. It is particularly useful once you get into quote-chains and stuff, where a mod can clearly steer in a reply to one group and participate on-topic in the same post. It is also helpful for the rare instance that a moderator has to edit a post, the notice/context can be clearly displayed thanks to the difference in font colour.

I also know that in the past there has been some confusion when someone (be it mod or staff) have joined in a light-hearted thread and joked around about banning people, and someone else comes in and misunderstood and gone on a moderation rant.

Now, other forums let mods pick their own colours because they have activated forum signatures where such can be explained, so maybe there should just be one colour on the CoC for the mods to use?

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

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

 

[runic knight]

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.

huh, wonder why I was thinking it dropped two. ah well, the points raised still stand about the issues with that whole thing I guess.

If they're going to commit to the "Health Bar" idea, which I think is a bad idea by the way, it doesn't make sense to make it reset too quickly.

The reasons why it's a bad idea are pretty obvious though, and begin with the problem of making every "bar worthy" offense fundamentally identical. Getting tipped into a suspension or ban for any one, is the cumulative effect of the ones before it. It also means that a collection of relatively minor mistakes are ultimately treated the same as a collection of more deliberate acts. Most of all though, it means that the last few warnings take on a stupid significance. I can't believe that mods treat the warning that bans someone, like the warning that gets them their first green mark. And yet, that first green mark and the last one, are equally weighted in this system.

There is a reason why basically no sites use this, in any form, ever, and never really have. It's not like it's a new idea, it's just a really bad idea. It has all of the downsides of mandatory minimum sentences, and none of the potential benefits. Any sense of accountability it provides is bound to be illusory, which I gather has been true if the reaction to the passive aggression rule is anything to go by. I'm sure it's just going to stay since it's always been there, and coming from another site I guess I don't have much input.

It's not a good system though.

Good points, though I think the time to decrease strikes, especially ones that are given for minor violations in the first place, is actually making the problem worse overall. You take the "all strikes are equal weight" problem and then add it to a system where only time removes strikes, and it discourages some long term and frequent posters from staying around when they get a couple strikes. Sure, you will have a group of regulars that know the system and know what to avoid, but that is far from all posters. And the strikes earned in the learning process for minor, unintentional things carry the same weight as the occasional troll calling other posters asshole, making it discouraging to see, even more so when some actively aggressive and hostile posters seem to get fewer strikes while piddly stuff is punished severely. Little wonder many users would leave seeing that sort of thing.

Even worse, people trying to avoid strikes learn the habits of other posters not getting strikes as a sort of evolution of forum users. Now in a normal system, that sort of learning is fine. But in a system where all strikes are equal, you see people who learn to avoid the strikes because of technicality rather than lack of intent and having that mimicked by other users. When all strikes are equal, those who avoid any strikes propogate and those who don't eventually get banned (or leave instead of waiting for strike decreases). This shapes the behavior and attitude of the community. Now previously this fostered passive-aggressiveness, sniping and bypasses such as attacking groups instead of individuals. While the rules have been adjusted to target those negative behaviors specifically and that is an improvement, I have to wonder if that isn't just a patch on the underlying problem then really addressing that.

 

[IceForce]

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

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

Are "This" -style posts still being moderated?

This.


[sub][sub]Okay, seriously though, I'd still be interested in an answer to this question of mine.[/sub][/sub]

 

[n0e]

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

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

Are "This" -style posts still being moderated?

This.


[sub][sub]Okay, seriously though, I'd still be interested in an answer to this question of mine.[/sub][/sub]

*shakes fist* Why I oughta....



Sorry, yes, good point. No, simply posting 'this', I think everyone can agree, does the square root of sod-all for everyone, so in those cases we'll provide a friendly nudge not to do it and escalate from there if we need to do so.

But the post you just made is actually an example of what may have been called a low-content post in the past, but actually made me laugh and had a point to make so, yeah, that kind of 'low-content' post is good.

 

[Barbas]

(Snip).

I've certainly seen some people make posts that are pretty provocative whilst claiming they're 'just asking' or similar. You can chalk almost anything up to ignorance, though, because ignorance is the default position on any subject. The difficulty is in deciding when that crosses over into what I mentioned, while trying to keep treatment equal in all situations. I believe that post is being reviewed by the mods. In future when you're addressing a specific post or person in moderation complaints, using the PM system is preferable as, like the flagging system, it avoids unpleasantness from disagreements carrying over into the forums and across threads.

 

[SolidState]

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!

That raises a bit of a problem, though. Are the people who were banned for low content going to be unbanned?

Speaking more generally, what is the policy on users being banned for breaking a particular individual rule that later gets retracted from the rules? Because it seems a bit unfair that permabans should remain in place due to a rule-break that's not actually against the rules anymore.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

(Snip).

I've certainly seen some people make posts that are pretty provocative whilst claiming they're 'just asking' or similar. You can chalk almost anything up to ignorance, though, because ignorance is the default position on any subject. The difficulty is in deciding when that crosses over into what I mentioned, while trying to keep treatment equal in all situations. I believe that post is being reviewed by the mods. In future when you're addressing a specific post or person in moderation complaints, using the PM system is preferable as, like the flagging system, it avoids unpleasantness from disagreements carrying over into the forums and across threads.

Yeah and I apologize for bring a disagreement from another thread into this one. Having said that it wasn't specifically a moderation complaint, but rather an example highlighting the issue I'm talking about. The other thing is that I believe ignorance really shouldn't excuse bad behavior. Just my thoughts, especially because I've been subject quite often to people feigning ignorance so they could disrespect me for being trans. As a general experience both in the real world and online, not specifically pertaining to The Escapist. Since I'm very personally familiar with the tactic, well, it does honestly make me exceptionally angry, it's become a pet peeve of mine anymore. Again I apologize.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

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!

That raises a bit of a problem, though. Are the people who were banned for low content going to be unbanned?

Speaking more generally, what is the policy on users being banned for breaking a particular individual rule that later gets retracted from the rules? Because it seems a bit unfair that permabans should remain in place due to a rule-break that's not actually against the rules anymore.

Well...arguably, they broke the rules that were set at that time, so it should stand.

Not that I'm a fan of that outcome- I miss some folks too.

If we allow that, then you could feasibly make an argument for applying current rules retroactively. Not that I think they'd do either one of those things, as it'd be a good bit of work and folks who've been banned for forever are likely not making a point of logging in when they can't post so they probably wouldn't even know if they were unbanned to begin with.

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.

Excessive sexual content? So, artistic nudity is potentially allowed, just not porn?

 

[DoPo]

Well...arguably, they broke the rules that were set at that time, so it should stand.

Not that I'm a fan of that outcome- I miss some folks too.

Worth noting that people who have been permabanned have been given a second chance after a while - a year or so. Vault101 has returned and even Zeel himself got unbanned for a (very short) while. Retroactive ban lifting is not really needed, as permabans aren't that permanent.

 

[SecondPrize]

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.

I did get an infraction once for posting a video of an Alliance Tournament match in EVE I flew in. Then I appealed and it was cleared up because I was allowed to appeal.

 

[SecondPrize]

I see everything twice.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Worth noting that people who have been permabanned have been given a second chance after a while - a year or so. Vault101 has returned and even Zeel himself got unbanned for a (very short) while. Retroactive ban lifting is not really needed, as permabans aren't that permanent.

Good point.

Not really sure what the official standpoint is on that kinda thing, but there's certainly precedent.