New Code of Conduct

[n0e]

And correct! The legality of posts is based on U.S. law.

But, what US laws?

The Escapist is located in North Carolina, right? So, would the discussion of Cosplay at Comic Cons be permissible since according to North Carolina state law, that's illegal unless they all filed the necessary paperwork with the register of deeds?

Spoiler

http://www.dumblaws.com/law/186

? 14-12.10. Holding meetings or demonstrations while wearing masks, hoods, etc.

No person or persons at least 16 years of age shall while wearing a mask, hood or device whereby the person, face or voice is disguised so as to conceal the identity of the wearer, hold any manner of meeting, or make any demonstration upon the private property of another unless such person or persons shall first obtain from the owner or occupier of the property his or her written permission to do so, which said written permission shall be recorded in the office of the register of deeds of the county in which said property is located before the beginning of such meeting or demonstration.

(1953, c. 1193, s. 9; 1983, c. 175, ss. 3, 10; c. 720, s. 4.)

Or, Defy Media is located in California, right? So, would having a cultural discussion on the Japanese bathhouses be permissible since according to California state law, bathhouses are illegal?

Spoiler

http://www.dumblaws.com/law/190

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 11225


(a) Every building or place used for the purpose of illegal gambling as defined by state law or local ordinance, lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, and every building or place in or upon which acts of illegal gambling as defined by state law or local ordinance, lewdness, assignation, or prostitution, are held or occur, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance.

Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to apply the definition of a nuisance to a private residence where illegal gambling is conducted on an intermittent basis and without the purpose of producing profit for the owner or occupier of the premises.

(b) Every building or place used as a bathhouse which as a primary activity encourages or permits conduct that according to the guidelines of the federal Centers for Disease Control can transmit AIDS, including, but not limited to, anal intercourse, oral copulation, or vaginal intercourse, is a nuisance which shall be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages may be recovered, whether it is a public or private nuisance.

For purposes of this subdivision, a "bathhouse" is to be defined as a business which, as its primary purpose, provides facilities for a spa, whirlpool, communal bath, sauna, steam bath, mineral bath, mud bath, or facilities for swimming.

PS: The addresses of the usergroups on the CoC are still just text.

The issue isn't what is legally allowed to be discussed, but what is allowed to be discussed here. Technically, nothing, by law, is illegal in a discussion so long as it's a debate about the subject itself. Only once you cross into ways of performing/creating or otherwise discussing said tasks in a way beyond a debate are you going to cause issues.

Also, keep in mind that this is a private forum, and we are legally allowed to restrict content that can be discussed here. Some of it is to prevent sensitive issues from being discussed that may disturb the bulk of our community or simply doesn't belong on a message board with a site that's devoted to science, technology and video games. It may be legal to talk about, but there are topics we don't want it to be here and have it against our rules.

 

[StatusNil]

Why is ad-block treated the same as piracy and illegal narcotics?

I'm not trying to advocate it, it is just that to my knowledge those programs are generally not illegal, so I'm just confused why it is being treated like that.

Was there already a thread explaining this somewhere?

Yeah, as DoPo said, this site makes money through ads. Flaunting ways to enjoy its content without contributing to its earnings is simply highly disrespectful.

To those who want an ad-free experience on this site, I would say that a PubClub subscription is very reasonably priced at 20 of your Earth Buckaroos per year.

 

[n0e]

I haven't read this whole thread to see if this has been mentioned, but could we have a rule against quoting someone, but changing what they've said in the quote and then saying 'fixed that for you'? Because it's annoying, smug, and extremely rude (unless you're just joshing your best bud).

IMO, If it's good humour, it'll probably be let slide, but otherwise it may be considered a minor offense under the COC concerning the minimum effort required for posts and the person asked nicely not to do it, repeat offenders formally warned, etc.

 

[n0e]

If the D&D reference was supposed to be tongue in check, then it clearly missed its mark as I and a few others in this thread have taken exception to the wording and tone of Rule 0. Poe's law and whatnot.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the wording of Rule Zero is quite mild really, especially compared to quite a lot of other forums, and as I say, you can't skirt around the fact that Rule Zero is what it is; it is perhaps the concept of Rule Zero rather than the wording that is something people are taking exception to, but it is unfortunately the reality of this bulletin board; it is privately owned, and ultimately, what the owners / administrators / keepers of the board says goes, above all else.

It's very important that people understand that, in my experience, because it prevents a lot of arguments, especially when particular troublemakers end up under the impression they have some kind of rights or freedoms under the law to say what they want, no matter how offensive / against the rest of the COC it is.

 

[madwarper]

but the wording of Rule Zero is quite mild really, especially compared to quite a lot of other forums,

You'll forgive me if I'm a bit disappointed by this statement, as it is indicative of an attitude that I find highly troubling, though not limited to those of this site. It's my belief that aiming to merely be slightly better than something else is setting the bar incredibly low for oneself.

We are trying to help you communicate with the community in a more amiable tone, an area where Rule 0 is an utter failure.

and as I say, you can't skirt around the fact that Rule Zero is what it is;

You are correct. Your house, your rules.

But, if a host is often standoffish towards their guests, it should come as no surprise when people stop visiting.

it is perhaps the concept of Rule Zero rather than the wording that is something people are taking exception to,

No. Stop. That is the complete opposite of what I have said.

It is not what is being conveyed, it is how you are conveying it.
It is the wording we are taking the exception to.
It is the "the moderator or staff member is always right."

 

[n0e]

Snip

Fair enough, but I genuinely believe that, regardless of how you word it, people will find exception to what Rule Zero is trying to say stand-offish.

I don't think there's a way to say 'We're always right' without saying 'we're always right', if you know what I mean? Most bulletin boards have this type of rule in their rulebook, often a lot more bluntly then we did it, frankly.

By all means please continue to let us know if you have any suggestions on how to re-word this, though.

 

[madwarper]

I don't think there's a way to say 'We're always right' without saying 'we're always right', if you know what I mean?

Then, simply don't say it? Because, "you" aren't always right.
That's the reason why we have the appeals process in the first place... Is it not?

Being a former DCI L2 Judge, I can somewhat commiserate with the position you're in. When called to issue a Ruling (either as a floor or head judge), on a few occasion I had to deal with players that were dissatisfied with the Ruling they received.

Now, regardless of whether my Ruling was in line with the Rules[footnote]They always were, because I was that good.[/footnote], how I chose to interact with the player was entirely up to me. I could have simply gone with a "I'm right... And, you're wrong. So, nyah." But, I went with the more diplomatic "This is the ruling as it is now. If you don't like it, here is the process to appeal and make your grievances known. However, doing so publicly at this point in time is disruptive and will lead to your expulsion from the event."

After all, the "Don't be a jerk" rule should act as a two-way street. Both for those issuing the Rulings, and those receiving them.

By all means please continue to let us know if you have any suggestions on how to re-word this, though.

"It's at the staff/moderators discretion of when to apply penalties if they believe your speech or conduct is detrimental to the harmony and good order of the community. If you feel you have been unfairly penalized, then you can appeal it via the appeals process."

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.

 

[StatusNil]

I don't think there's a way to say 'We're always right' without saying 'we're always right', if you know what I mean? Most bulletin boards have this type of rule in their rulebook, often a lot more bluntly then we did it, frankly.

By all means please continue to let us know if you have any suggestions on how to re-word this, though.

Well, you could always go with something like "Moderators are considered an authority in disputes." Simply states the order of precedence without going into abstract truth claims.

 

[Superlative]

snip

Ultimately, if a user thinks rule 0 is being abused, they can always vote with their feet (leave the site). The mods generally do a wonderful job of letting people do their thing (I've been mostly lurking since about 2007), but ultimately everything is up to the discretion of the mods and the owners. Freedom of speech only entitles a person to say something without getting arrested; it doesn't guarantee an agreeible audience or keeping your welcome after your utterance.

Rule 0 is overall a good thing IMO, as it destroys the whole "the rules say X and I did X-1 and X+3 and neither of those equal X" argument. Given the age and maturity spread on the Escapist, this is going to come in handy.

I haven't read this whole thread to see if this has been mentioned, but could we have a rule against quoting someone, but changing what they've said in the quote and then saying 'fixed that for you'? Because it's awesome, cool, and extremely radical dude! (unless you're just joshing your best bud).

Wow, I feel really dirty after that. What kind of foul dark magic could be weaved with such spells!

 

[madwarper]

[snips]

What? Have you read any of my posts?

This is not about how/when Rule 0 is applied. It is the wording and the tone of Rule 0, itself.

It is not what is being conveyed, it is how you are conveying it.
It is the wording we are taking the exception to.
It is the "the moderator or staff member is always right."

 

[IceForce]

I think the main problem with the rules saying that "the mods are always right" is that it's patently untrue. Anyone who's had an infraction appealed and overturned can attest to that.

I don't want to bring up my checkered moderation history again, so I'll bring up a couple of other examples instead:

About a couple of months ago, there was an incident where a moderator mass-edited a large number of posts to spoiler and hide them, citing that it was a guideline he was enacting to improve the readability of the thread.
Many users complained about this and stated that it wasn't actually an official guideline at all, that it actually made readability worse, and also that it was unfairly targeting the more verbose users. Later it was revealed by a staff member that the users in this case were absolutely right, and the moderator was in the wrong.

Another example:

A month or so ago, someone on my friends list was permabanned with "banjumping" being cited as the reason. The account they use was the only account they've ever owned, so they most certainly were not "banjumping".
They managed to appeal it, and they later revealed to me that the explanation given in their appeal reply was "Sorry!, someone pushed the wrong button."

This example is especially worrying now, given that "banjumping" is no longer something that can be appealed, according to the new COC.
So what happens the next time someone "pushes the wrong button"? Is that user just shit out of luck?

 

[Saulkar]

Something I want to know. Me and other users have in the past purposely derailed obviously nefarious threads (created by new users with very suspicious links), that were obviously going to be shut down, by memeing the hell out of them without repercussion. Now, while this has not happened in a long time is it still OK?

 

[n0e]

As a diehard asimov fan I do love the idea of a zeroth rule.

In this particular case, if we ever have the purely hypothetical situation of a moderator intentionally antagonising part of the userbase, would that mean that moderator is still right?

The moderators and staff have their own code of general ethics and behaviour that, while not necessarily written in as formal a document as the users' Code of Conduct, are there via various staff mechanisms that are not obviously visible to regular users. A moderator isn't simply knighted and set free to do as he or she pleases. They are trained and expected to represent the forum in the best possible way.

If you believe a moderator is abusing his or privilege to a gross extreme, then flag it to n0e immediately.

Believe it or not Rule Zero is not here to allow Moderators to get away with murder; you should expect us to behave in a fair and impartial way.

Like for example using mod privileges to spy on a usergroup and post excerpts in another usergroup to make fun of the comments, hilariously in particular a comment that people in the usergroup are discussing that they have a feeling of being spied on?

And if a purely hypothetical situation like this would occur, would it be possible to discuss it on this forum so that

1. The people who were spied on can actually be informed that they were spied on
2. The community could actually start to heal from hypothetical events like this by working through them

I'm not sure I understand this, I assume you mean peering in a private usergroup of some kind and then talking behind your backs in another group, or something?

Believe me we have neither the time nor inclination!

Again, trust me, I've known n0e for over 10 years and you'd quickly incur his wrath if I or any other mod did that. And turst me, we'd be subject to Bessy The Banhammer just as much as anyone else.

Rule 0 is about the Member / Moderator relationship, in which the member should respect the moderator. The Moderator / Senior Staff relationship is another matter, and therefor any very major, serious concern with a moderator on this level, which I have rarely if ever seen in my 14+ year career as a moderator, super-moderator and administrator, should naturally be flagged directly to n0e.

n0e has been hired as a full time employee for a long time by Defy Media and has an essential continuous employment going back to the early 2000's. He's well liked, respected and trusted, and got this gig because the company knows he is a decent human being with talent and ability.

You can trust him that if one of us stepped out of line to an extreme, he'd be behind you 100% of the way. But he also knows how to pick good moderators, so in my experience the issue never comes up.

Hope this helps address some of your concerns.

 

[n0e]

Something I want to know. Me and other users have in the past purposely derailed obviously nefarious threads (created by new users with very suspicious links), that were obviously going to be shut down, by memeing the hell out of them without repercussion. Now, while this has not happened in a long time is it still OK?

It keeps such threads near the top of the thread view is the thing so, it's not ideal in that respect but you aren't going to get banned for it or anything.

But yeah, its best just to flag it and leave. At the very least flag it so we can quickly bin it.

 

[SolidState]

I'm not sure I understand this, I assume you mean peering in a private usergroup of some kind and then talking behind your backs in another group, or something?

Believe me we have neither the time nor inclination!

Then it may surprise you to learn that the incident that dunam was describing was not just a hypothetical; it actually happened.

And that's the thing, whether it be a moderator abusing their usergroup access rights, a moderator abusing their post editing rights, or simply the large number of 'weekend vacation' suspensions that later get overturned through appeal, there are a multitude of instances where the mods haven't been right.

If this site is turning over a new leaf, that's awesome to hear. I'm just saying that it's going to take a while to build up the trust again after those previous incidents.

 

[n0e]

I'm not sure I understand this, I assume you mean peering in a private usergroup of some kind and then talking behind your backs in another group, or something?

Believe me we have neither the time nor inclination!

Then it may surprise you to learn that the incident that dunam was describing was not just a hypothetical; it actually happened.

And that's the thing, whether it be a moderator abusing their usergroup access rights, a moderator abusing their post editing rights, or simply the large number of 'weekend vacation' suspensions that later get overturned through appeal, there are a multitude of instances where the mods haven't been right.

If this site is turning over a new leaf, that's awesome to hear. I'm just saying that it's going to take a while to build up the trust again after those previous incidents.

Absolutely.

I 100% agree trust is earned and not given, hopefully we do earn that trust from you guys, but I understand it will take a long time.

 

[Saulkar]

At the very least flag it so we can quickly bin it.

So no more memeing the spodermon?

Darn, but it makes at least some sense. You might have someone new come around and click a dangerous link if the thread is trending.

 

[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.

Still interested in these.

 

[n0e]

@n0e: One question I had is, would users intentionally calling someone by a slightly altered name or a different name entirely in a patronizing way on a consistent basis be considered passive aggressive? For instance, I've noticed a number of users who are rather hostile towards IceForce (whom I quoted above) refer to him as "IceForge" instead on multiple occasions. I've also noticed recently a certain user refer to another user by a different name in each post, such as "Mr. Hopkins" "Don Corleone" and "Adam Orth". It just seems like an incredibly immature way to insult someone without blatantly insulting them.

It's a bit petty if they did that intentionally, but honestly not something so heinous that we need to police it. If they want to act like little kids, let them. It only puts a spotlight on their credibility with what they say about a topic.

Policing it would only remove the evidence for others to see what kind of a person that is.

 

[Kanatatsu]

In my opinion, over-modding has ruined what were once vibrant forums. That that for what you will.