New Code of Conduct

[Josh123914]

On the illegal content thing, what country/state laws are being applied here?

I mean I'm not going to be posting anything illicit, but in Thailand its illegal to wear or take photos of yourself wearing yellow. Knowing for future reference what nations laws we're operating under would be nice.

 

[Battenberg]

Honestly I've never paid much mind to the specifics of the CoC and just try to avoid being a jerk to people but I do see at least 2 welcome changes here. Namely easing off the minimum content rule for comments and more defined rules against passive aggressiveness/ people who push the rules as close to breaking point as possible. Big thumbs up from me.

I do have one question though- what's the ruling on discussing adblock? No really, it's a genuine question. With the recent #WTFU campaign and the number of content creators coming out the woodwork to talk about other people monetising their videos I was curious if that changed the way people thought about adblock (I.e. is it OK to adblock a video if you know the content creator isn't the one profiting from that revenue). Given the history of that topic on this site I thought better of making a thread but I'm curious to know if there is an official answer/ consensus for future reference.

 

[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.

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.

We have a "Forums Games" forum? *goes off and checks*

Well, stick me in a dress and call me Sally, so we do. How long has that been there?

Just for the sake of clarity: A Spider-Man thread is a thread dedicated solely to posting 60's Spider-Man memes. Daystar's food threads were him posting humourous threads about British food, and Escapist is Drowning was an historic moment in the community from not too far back, actually, though I think that fad got mod-wrath'd because it was clogging the forums. If memory serves, someone posted a perfectly innocent "x and y are drowning, which do you save" type thread and the community went nuts with it, eventually culminating in a thread called "Escapist is drowning" with possibly some other text in the title, I don't remember.

Shitposting of the highest order, basically, but fun times, nonetheless. I seem to recall the last change to the CoC (or maybe the one before it) that basically put the kibosh on fun threads like that, much to the sadness of a number of people here. Doesn't seem like that's a thing anymore, though, so yay?

 

[Jamash]

I have a question about the specifics of this part of the new CoC.

Zero tolerance offenses

This section of the Code of Conduct also includes special circumstances that overrule any other type of warning and result in immediate removal of your posting privilege. Note: These circumstances cannot be appealed and will not expire.

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.

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?

 

[Idsertian]

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

That would be a damn shame, since he just posted one recently. Almost had me, too, the clever sod.

 

[DoPo]

Namely easing off the minimum content rule for comments

Low content. It wasn't "minimum" content. There wasn't a word count that had to be satisfied. The rule isn't really changed for over a year or more. As long as the comment contributes to the discussion, it's not a low content one.

I do have one question though- what's the ruling on discussing adblock? No really, it's a genuine question. With the recent #WTFU campaign and the number of content creators coming out the woodwork to talk about other people monetising their videos I was curious if that changed the way people thought about adblock (I.e. is it OK to adblock a video if you know the content creator isn't the one profiting from that revenue). Given the history of that topic on this site I thought better of making a thread but I'm curious to know if there is an official answer/ consensus for future reference.

That also hasn't been changed. It's also explicitly spelled out in the rules - do not admit or advocate the usage of adblock. It can be discussed as long as you refrain from those two. The infractions handed out have been for exactly those two reasons, including the "infamous" Jim Sterling episode - if you go through the comments, the warnings given were mostly to people saying "yeah, I use adblock and so and so".

 

[Cowabungaa]

Most of the vague bits seem to have been answered already, but I have been rather curious about this one:

If you can't communicate without using combative, aggressive, or passive aggressive responses, then consider that these may not be the forums for you.

I'd like to know how you're going to judge passive aggressive responses. Because that shit can be real sneaky.

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

Now that'd be a shame. Nah, I doubt it. Hopefully. It's basically satire anyway, those topics basically create their own discussion value.

 

[Battenberg]

Low content. It wasn't "minimum" content. There wasn't a word count that had to be satisfied. The rule isn't really changed for over a year or more. As long as the comment contributes to the discussion, it's not a low content one.

Ok, low content not minimum. Either way I was just saying was just that people often get a point across in a comment in just a few words but then feel obliged to add an extra sentence or two that aren't necessary because of that rule (often specifically referencing it in that extra sentence). Between removing it from the CoC and some of the comments clarifying it in this thread hopefully those people, myself included, won't feel the need to skirt around it since it often cluttered straightforward comments.

That also hasn't been changed. It's also explicitly spelled out in the rules - do not admit or advocate the usage of adblock. It can be discussed as long as you refrain from those two. The infractions handed out have been for exactly those two reasons, including the "infamous" Jim Sterling episode - if you go through the comments, the warnings given were mostly to people saying "yeah, I use adblock and so and so".

Oh yeah, didn't notice it had been put in the same rule as illegal narcotics and piracy on first read. Whilst I neither condone nor use adblock it seems like it would be difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion on the topic if one side of the argument is disallowed so I'll continue to give that whole subject a miss. Cheers for replying though, feel a little silly missing it first time round.

 

[DoPo]

Low content. It wasn't "minimum" content. There wasn't a word count that had to be satisfied. The rule isn't really changed for over a year or more. As long as the comment contributes to the discussion, it's not a low content one.

Ok, low content not minimum. Either way I was just saying was just that people often get a point across in a comment in just a few words but then feel obliged to add an extra sentence or two that aren't necessary because of that rule (often specifically referencing it in that extra sentence).

*shrug* Then they shouldn't have.

 

[Sassafrass]

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.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

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.

Well, so long as it's enforced as such that's fine, though I'd still suggest for it to be included so that people know they don't have to worry about it here anymore. The Escapist hasn't exactly been the best place in that regard.

Please link to some examples of clear LGBT discrimination on this forum that went unchecked by moderators to support your claims. Otherwise, it can safely be assumed that what you're trying to do here is slant the moderation in your preferred direction whenever this comes up as part of a valid discussion topic. Example: the Pillars of Eternity thread from months ago. Disagreeing with people on an issue gets heated at times, but in no way should it be classified as "hate" or "discrimination" by default just because someone claims it makes them feel "unsafe". A public internet forum isn't a safe space where you should be able to silence dissenting views like that.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

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

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Well you should be happy to know that "disagreeing with people" is not inherently a homophobic or transphobic remark. Though why you felt the need to bring up safe spaces is beyond me. Is disallowing homophobic and transphobic remarks making a safe space to you? If it is, you should be taking issue with the racist and sexist remarks part of the current CoC, since they're serving the same purpose, but for demographics people are less openly hostile to.

I felt the need to bring it up because safety is a word that was specifically used in the CoC. It's a misnomer when you stretch its definition to include anything that can make person feel uncomfortable, such as an internet argument. It evokes a sense of serious physical danger when none is present, and the potential for psychological trauma that's also used to justify it has been overblown time and time again as a means to give special snowflakes more rights than regular snowflakes.

Though you seem to have some misconceptions about forums on the internet, namely that they're somehow "public" and antithetical to "safe spaces." They're not, they're very much private. They just happen to be owned by people who welcome everyone until you give them a reason to kick you out. And they're very much safe spaces, because they moderate their community and remove that which they deem is unacceptable.

It's public in that anyone can anonymously join this forum and participate in the discussion regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or nationality. Venues where one need only to adhere to the rules of common decency aren't at all exclusive "safe spaces" in the traditional definition of the term. If the Escapist amends the CoC to include ridiculous things like "claims of reverse racism/sexism will not be considered", then we would have a proper safe space.

 

[StreamerDarkly]

You calling the things you want in your particular safe spaces "common decency" does not change the fact that you're instituting a safe space where only what you find acceptable is allowed to stay. The idea that the only safe spaces are those found in the wild fantasies of people endlessly complaining about them is little more than an attempt at pretending that a safe space is something that only other people do.

If we go by your definition, every town square is also a safe space because certain forums of speech classified by law as hate speech or incitement to violence are disallowed. If every place is then a safe space, as you seem to be arguing, what possible relevance does the term even carry? I'll be honest, I really don't like the term for the reasons mentioned in the previous post concerning its practical application. It's a neon sign with the message HERE, SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS printed on it.

Though what this has to do with a simple desire to see the apparently de facto rule of homophobic and transphobic remarks being moderated made de jure is a bit of a stretch, since, as you said, you don't believe rules of common decency constitute a safe space and thus your issues with safe spaces aren't really relevant.

No problem. Just make sure to include cisphobic and heterophobic on that list, OK? You've neglected to mention it so far, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an oversight.

 

[Politrukk]

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.

Two things.

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.

2) We're humans. No one is perfect and we wanted to be sure there was a way of handling situations that are borderline as, at times, hot topics can lead to decisions that may be correct, but the severity of the action is wrong.

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. That's true anywhere you go.

Topic-less Thread Creation
What about a deliberately vague title? "You'll never believe this..."
What won't I believe? That the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire? That Kristin shot JR? That it wasn't butter? That someone couldn't be bothered to come up with a Topic that reflected the discussion that wanted to conduct? Well, that last one is quite believable.

It's just baiting people into looking at your post instead of telling them why they're clicking on it. Let's be considerate of others and give them an idea of why they should read said post.

Official staff group discussion and communication
Are those groups addresses supposed to be url links? Because, as of now, they're just text.

Good call. Fixing.

Necroing posts isn't something I feel is worth worrying about and the old "low content" rule was a bit harsh for my taste.

Has there been some change to how the system treats locked threads? It seems that pages of threads have been set at locked, which would mean they automatically get deleted. I had suggested this a few times to the tech team (each time being met with a resounding /shrug) that the old threads simply remain sunk. That way any discussion could continue, but without that thread rising to the surface and interfering discussions on the top of the forum.

Closed, not deleted. It's more or less an archiving system so they can't be replied to. They can still be read and it only affects non-stickied, non-content related posts.

Dictatorships never are generally well liked.

Not saying you don't have the right but sure you can't expect people to just sit and smile at your rule 0 although it is your prerogative to institute it.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

No problem. Just make sure to include cisphobic on that list, OK? You've neglected to mention it so far, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an oversight.

I'm going to have to say something here, because we're reaching silly proportions. Cisphobia is not a real thing, neither is heterophobia, there might be people who could be legitimately classified as such, but they're few and far between and they have no real power. Certainly not the power to actively discriminate against cisgender and straight people in any meaningful way. Virtually anything that's called cisphobic, or heterophobic is either an expression of extreme frustration, or turning actual hate around as a parody.

So can we stop devaluing real issues like homophobia and transphobia which contribute to mental and physical abuse, sexual assaults, assaults, murders, and rampant discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. Because straight and cis folk don't experience the kinds of hatred, threat, active violence, and discrimination that LGBTQ+ folk endure on a daily basis. Cisphobia and heterophobia are literally non-issues in comparison. Especially since in a lot of the developed world it's still legal to discriminate against LGBTQ+ folk in housing, employment, and access to services. Even in the places where it's officially illegal a LGBTQ+ person can't expect to even have their case heard if they're discriminated against. Where as a cisgender straight person will never face active discrimination for being cisgender and straight.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

The passive aggressive section and stuff dealing with skirting the rules is VERY welcome. Pretty snazzy. I actually had a question about flagging... I know it might sound dumb, but, can you be affected by flagging a post that was seen as not breaking a rule? I know it sounds odd, but sometimes I feel worried bout flagging a post I personally see as breaking/skirting a rule, and I dunno how long/often I can flag those before a mod sends me a message with a big ol "stop that!"

14 warnings in 11 months, and only 2 of them were actually accurate.

Sweet biscuit cakes, what's going on there? O3o

That actually does flow into a question of Rule 0... Personally, I'm all in favour of it. I think it'll be helpful for mods to be able to see a rule break and be able to fix a behavior that's skirting a rule with a simple slap of the hammer. But I am just concerned about a record like in the screen cap. I dunno if it's any of my business, I apologize if it isn't, I'll drop it if it's not. But if I had a record like that, I'd be concerned if Rule 0 was gonna be pretty damning to my account, or maybe I was doing something that was now clarified in the new sections and clarifications of the new CoC

(Side note: I have no idea if this was the case with IceForce, I'm not attempting to make implications. It's merely a question based off of that screen cap and following up with the new CoC rules, and making sure Rule 0 isn't gonna somehow make everyone's inboxes explode the same way. Of course, that's what appeals are for. I understand that, don't worry)