New Code of Conduct

[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.

 

[DoPo]

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.

I'm fairly sure that is the official stance - if you get permabanned, you can eventually come back. It's not stated in the rules, but it has happened - Vault101 and Zeel aren't even the only ones, just two names I remembered - there was few more. Not a lot, mind you, but I imagine it's not because the rest who wanted to be back were denied but because they didn't want to be back. Which is understandable, as well.

 

[Barbas]

(Snip).

That's all right. Always flag what you think a mod needs to see. Guidelines are being worked on that'll hopefully help us make the site a more pleasant place for you to be.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

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

Yep. There's even an artist thread floating around in Off-Topic with such things, and it's been around for years. Generally speaking, it's better to avoid nudity where possible, but as long as there's a distinction between nude art and erotic art, then it should be a non-issue.

 

[Drathnoxis]

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.

I'm fairly sure that is the official stance - if you get permabanned, you can eventually come back. It's not stated in the rules, but it has happened - Vault101 and Zeel aren't even the only ones, just two names I remembered - there was few more. Not a lot, mind you, but I imagine it's not because the rest who wanted to be back were denied but because they didn't want to be back. Which is understandable, as well.

Or they didn't even know it was an option. It'd actually be pretty nice to make it official and either have a clause in the rules that states you can make a second appeal after a year to be unbanned, or just get a year long ban when your bar fills up and have that be separate from a permaban.

 

[n0e]

I've warned people before in this thread about backseat moderating and derailing the topic, and the above exchange was completely uncalled for.

Richard Gozin-Yu, people can edit posts for any reason, and it is not for you to derail a topic to call that out, especially in that way. If you have a problem with what someone has said in a post, either original or edited, flag it up privately to a moderator. Don't backseat moderate and derail topics like that please.

People are free to edit their posts after they make them, regardless of the circumstances, I'd rather have someone blow off a little steam then instantly regret it and correct their mistake then prevent them from doing that, aside from all the perfectly legitimate reasons for editing after posting.

I trust this is clear and the topic can move on to what it was intended for.

Thanks.

 

[n0e]

Is telling someone else "I'm reporting you" and/or "I'm going to block you" an infraction-worthy offense? It seems like those words don't have any utility other than attempting to anger the other person. Just block/report them in silence and move on, right?

Yes, please don't do that.

Take all your issues to the staff privately, you're exactly right that all this is doing is escalating a problem and not doing anything to improve it.

 

[n0e]

Are there any strictly gaming related subjects that are still considered too contentious or controversial to bring up? I recall years ago certain console vs console and console vs pc posts blowing up in a manner that truly surprised me. I'm assuming civil tone and game appropriate subjects are a given but are there more cautions?

There's nothing in the COC to prohibit any type of gaming related topic, we're not about preventing discussion of a topic, it's how people behave within that topic. There's nothing wrong with a console vs console thread, for example, in principle, but it's probably going to cause us more work

Regardless, that's what we're here for. One can only hope people know how to handle such discussions in a civil and mature way, and those who can't adjust to that don't have to be there, basically.

 

[Soleca]

I'll believe in change when I see it.
Moderation here has always been shall we say partisan in nature and I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

 

[theSovietConnection]

*SNIP*

If I might propose a compromise between you and the other poster, perhaps reword the rule to this?

Discrimination will not be tolerated on these forums, particularly in regards to racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious beliefs.

Perverse remarks will be subject to the PG-13 standard.

As far as my comments on the changes, I like 'em, particularly the addition of rule 0. It'll be a nice change to see that people can't skirt the rules by "Attacking the idea and not the person, but I'm totally attacking the person".