New Code of Conduct

[IceForce]

Anyway, moving on from that, another question:

How are 'thread derails' going to be handled now? There was a small clause in the previous COC that mentioned it, but I can't see it mentioned in the new COC at all.

 

[n0e]

Anyway, moving on from that, another question:

How are 'thread derails' going to be handled now? There was a small clause in the previous COC that mentioned it, but I can't see it mentioned in the new COC at all.

Topics drifting into other conversations naturally is not so big of a deal, but randomly hijacking a thread or using it for a ping-pong quoting match type argument that isn't on topic won't fly.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Sexist, Racist, or Perverted Remarks
As it pertains to the comfort and safety of other posters, please keep sexist, racist, or grossly perverted remarks out of your posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inflammatory Comments / Trolling
You may not post anything that is reasonably considered discriminatory towards other members. (i.e. homophobic, prejudiced or any other comments that would be deemed as hate speech)

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


<- Strong supporter of LGBT rights.

As nice as that sounds, those have been the basic operating standards for posting for a long time... I've seen quite a lot of thinly veiled, but still obvious transphobia and homophobia that's had basically no action taken against it. By that logic I think that homophobia and transphobia need to be specifically mentioned. Otherwise it seems to get a pass.

Edit: This applies double with Rule 0 actually. Not arguing with the mods and cutting out the behavior that earned you an infraction has always been the rule. But it had to be specified anyways.

 

[Fox12]

Questions for n0e

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

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

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

yay

 

[n0e]

Just a quick question about the COC update.

I notice that the guideline against advocating for pedophilia was removed from the COC. Is that due to its redundancy caused by this clause?:

"Posting, admitting to, or advocating any illegal act or content, such as footage or images of any crime,"

It's inclusive. It's illegal content and we didn't feel the need to post it twice.

 

[Kanedias]

PG-13? Do you know what that actually means? Your forum isn't PG-13, by any stretch. If you're really going to enforce that, a lot is going to have to change. You might want to reconsider your metaphor.

 

[Kross]

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.

To be fair, I almost perma-banned you immediately when you emailed my boss directly about some forum shit (twice I think?), and the mods talked me down (multiple times even, every time you're stressing them out I offer).

 

[Kross]

site less like a stalag.

Odd, I have you flagged as a possible ban jumper, and you already had mod action asking you not to be rude.

The mods are your friends. I, on the other hand have zero tolerance for people adding tedium to my life or theirs.

 

[9tailedflame]

In regards to the sexism/racism angle, is this the new or old definition? In other words, are straight white men still protected? Or is similar action against them not considered sexism or racism?

 

[Idsertian]

"Purposeful use of jokes, images, or videos are allowed if it serves to enhance the thread, whereas posting random meme images unrelated to the topic does not."

Does this mean we can make Spider-Man threads in Off Topic again? Or threads like Daystar's food threads? Or "Escapist is drowning" style threads? 'Cos, come on, those were pretty fun things.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Could I get a long list of examples of passive aggressiveness? I've never understood what it is and I'd like to make sure I'm not doing it. I've always thought of myself as agressively passive. Grrr zzzz.

It's hard to make up a good example for this off the cuff. Passive aggressive statements typically use soft, general targets to imply incapability, incompetence, or that the target is unintelligent. Statements like "Figures someone from that group would say something like that." or "Since some people are in this thread, I guess it's ruined." are the kinds of statements that really target someone or some group without actively using language to be rude, or otherwise break rules.

Hopefully that gives you an idea of what we mean, though.

In regards to the sexism/racism angle, is this the new or old definition? In other words, are straight white men still protected? Or is similar action against them not considered sexism or racism?

According to the Code of Conduct, the "protected" folks are users. That applies universally for all genders, sexes, races, political beliefs, socio-economic statuses, etc. If anyone is being rude to anyone for any reason, the Code of Conduct has an edge-case for why it's a bad thing.

However, there are a lot of discussions that speak generally that are hard to pin down. Talking about how white men are privileged isn't an offensive statement, but it can be an emotionally charged one. Likewise for LGBTQ discussions. Trans rights. Political beliefs. Religions.

There are limits to how moderators will respond based on the discussion in question, but yes, the protections in the sexual, racial, ideological clause of the Code of Conduct apply equally.

 

[Pseudonym]

Today I was making a post and I got this new coc presented to me when I tried to post it. It started out saying that my message was saved. While I got my message back by clumsily fumbling around with the back button of my browser and some other random buttons, I'm not entirely sure whether my message was actually saved or whether my browser saved it for me. It seemed to me like something went wrong there. More of a technical issue than anything related to the new Coc but I thought I'd point it out nonetheless as it is kind of related to the new coc. Maybe it was just a one-off error for whatever reason, idunno.

The new rules look fine. I don't have much of an opinion about that.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

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.

Even now there are things I'm afraid to say about the CoC since I fear mod wrath, so I just won't say them. I feel like what I have to say will fall under "criticism/complaint of the mods/rules", which needs to be tunneled through the private channels like PMs.

For the specific CoC language, I'll talk with [user]n0e[/user] about it. Can't make any guarantees, but we'll see what we can do.

As for criticism, I'm always happy to hear it. Hit me with a PM, and I promise no discussion related to the CoC will be infracted. You can quote me on that.

"Purposeful use of jokes, images, or videos are allowed if it serves to enhance the thread, whereas posting random meme images unrelated to the topic does not."

Does this mean we can make Spider-Man threads in Off Topic again? Or threads like Daystar's food threads? Or "Escapist is drowning" style threads? 'Cos, come on, those were pretty fun things.

Honestly, although I'm not 100% certain exactly which threads you're referring to, some of these threads sound like they'd be better fits for Forum Games, which are largely exempt from the low content or no-discussion thread rules.

Really, the idea is we don't want a thread to be exclusively about in-jokes or group humor - that's better left to usergroups or similarly closed communities - but we also don't want to have to shut down every post or thread that's built on humor or cheer. It's about finding a balance. If a thread exists exclusively to make jokes, then it's probably not a terribly meaningful thread. If a thread says something with its jokes, and bolsters the community in so doing, then it's a different story.

 

[9tailedflame]

Could I get a long list of examples of passive aggressiveness? I've never understood what it is and I'd like to make sure I'm not doing it. I've always thought of myself as agressively passive. Grrr zzzz.

It's hard to make up a good example for this off the cuff. Passive aggressive statements typically use soft, general targets to imply incapability, incompetence, or that the target is unintelligent. Statements like "Figures someone from that group would say something like that." or "Since some people are in this thread, I guess it's ruined." are the kinds of statements that really target someone or some group without actively using language to be rude, or otherwise break rules.

Hopefully that gives you an idea of what we mean, though.

In regards to the sexism/racism angle, is this the new or old definition? In other words, are straight white men still protected? Or is similar action against them not considered sexism or racism?

According to the Code of Conduct, the "protected" folks are users. That applies universally for all genders, sexes, races, political beliefs, socio-economic statuses, etc. If anyone is being rude to anyone for any reason, the Code of Conduct has an edge-case for why it's a bad thing.

However, there are a lot of discussions that speak generally that are hard to pin down. Talking about how white men are privileged isn't an offensive statement, but it can be an emotionally charged one. Likewise for LGBTQ discussions. Trans rights. Political beliefs. Religions.

There are limits to how moderators will respond based on the discussion in question, but yes, the protections in the sexual, racial, ideological clause of the Code of Conduct apply equally.

Ok, but a hypothetical similar discussion about talking about different privileges that black people are women have would be treated equally, right?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

"Purposeful use of jokes, images, or videos are allowed if it serves to enhance the thread, whereas posting random meme images unrelated to the topic does not."

Does this mean we can make Spider-Man threads in Off Topic again? Or threads like Daystar's food threads? Or "Escapist is drowning" style threads? 'Cos, come on, those were pretty fun things.

Honestly, although I'm not 100% certain exactly which threads you're referring to, some of these threads sound like they'd be better fits for Forum Games, which are largely exempt from the low content or no-discussion thread rules.

Really, the idea is we don't want a thread to be exclusively about in-jokes or group humor - that's better left to usergroups or similarly closed communities - but we also don't want to have to shut down every post or thread that's built on humor or cheer. It's about finding a balance. If a thread exists exclusively to make jokes, then it's probably not a terribly meaningful thread. If a thread says something with its jokes, and bolsters the community in so doing, then it's a different story.

Does that mean things like Taco News joke news stories are out too?