Official Discussion about the new Forum Rules

Recommended Videos

Sevre

Old Hands
Apr 6, 2009
4,886
0
0
Internet Kraken said:
Sevre90210 said:
Internet Kraken said:
If this was honestly your objective with these new rules, I'd say you have failed. Because this site looks far less friendly now that I know mods can delete posts and ban people just because they express dislike for certain content on this site. Draconian rules do not create a friendly and happy community.
If Moderators have always had that ability...why would we start now? If I wanted to I could delete every post you've made in this thread, and so could any other member of staff. But we haven't. I could say 'Don't be a Jerk' and ban you. But I don't.

Now I'd like you to explain to me why I don't if I have this omnipotence. Go on using all you've said in this thread, all the fearmongering about the free reign I have to do whatever I want, explain to me why you're still here.
Because this thread was created for the purpose of giving feedback and listening to complaints? I don't see the point of your question. Of course you could ban anyone you wanted at any time, but people would point out how it was completley unjustified. Which is what banning me for complaining in a threat meant for complaints would be. However, you can now ban people just for being negative about escapist content and, under the new rules, it would be perfectly justified.

I really don't get the point you're trying to make.
I'm saying I have the ability to ban you right now with no repercussions whatsoever, and I don't. If you think people are going to stand up for you...well you think very highly of people then.

I've read through your posts in this thread and you seem to think the worst of us, that these rules are here to give us more power over what we do and who we do it to and we will use the full extent of our power at every occasion in an unjustifiable manner. Wrong.

Don't Be a Jerk
This rule trumps any other. Any loophole you think you've found in any other rule is covered by this one. If you make our forums a less pleasant place to be, we don't want you here.
This rule isn't saying "Yeah we're going to ban you for not liking something", you've misinterpreted this. This rule is the last resort, like the 'Rotten Apple' clause. It's predecessor was something which was barely ever used (I can only think of one example in the last 6 months). If we didn't use that clause extensively, why would we use this?

You're reading to much into these rules, they're not vague, they're simple. You're seeing them as broad generalizations when in reality, they're just simple rules which people abide by in real life and we expect them to do so here too.

The point is, you don't like the notion of the moderators having so much power over you, well in reality we've always had this much power over you. You're just seeing it with more clarity because we've simplified everything. We have no new tricks, no new tools, we've just updated somethings, removed some loopholes and made it a lot more precise.

Now if we didn't use our power to abuse you before, why would we do it now? No moderator sits down and sets out to ban people they don't like. We sit at a queue, watch the community report people they don't like and reports they don't approve of, then we follow the rules to pass judgement. And no not everything gets mod wrathed because not everything deserves mod wrath.

If you live in fear of us then that means we're doing our job right I suppose, but we're not going to censor your thoughts on our moderation, or ban you for thinking we're jerks.
 

Nazz3

New member
Sep 11, 2009
860
0
0
Was there anything really NEW with the new rules?

I thought that those kind of rules already existed.
 

Vanguard_Ex

New member
Mar 19, 2008
4,686
0
0
Armored Prayer said:
Because the forums had been slowly becoming a less inviting place to be. The new rules are in place to provide tools to the mods to allow them to get rid of the jerks and keep you nice people!
THANK YOU! I'm glad I wasn't the only one noticing all this negativity and rudeness all over the forums, and I'm glad its being appropriately dealt with.
You say that but this proves that the mods are, in some cases, still too zealous. I keep getting hints from them that I will be banned for 'low content posts', yet even though I don't see how most of them are low content, any I do make are 1 in every 900 quality posts. Yet they would ban me for a post which should have had more words or something? If anything we need to ease up a little bit.
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,915
0
0
Sevre90210 said:
See I'm getting a distinctly different vibe from what you are saying as opposed to Virgil, who made it sound like you would get in trouble for any negative content about Escapist content. So which is it? It feels like you two have different views on what is justified by these new rules. Virgil says we'll be punished for making negative comments, now you're saying that it's a "last resort".
 

Sevre

Old Hands
Apr 6, 2009
4,886
0
0
Internet Kraken said:
Sevre90210 said:
See I'm getting a distinctly different vibe from what you are saying as opposed to Virgil, who made it sound like you would get in trouble for any negative content about Escapist content. So which is it? It feels like you two have different views on what is justified by these new rules. Virgil says we'll be punished for making negative comments, now you're saying that it's a "last resort".
Virgil is not a forum moderator, he will not be dealing with a post like yours. If an Escapist contributor causes trouble he'll sort it out.

I on the other hand will be dealing with your posts. First of all the rule you're talking about is No.3 whereas I'm talking about No.1.

How will No.3 be enforced? Simple, any comment that is just pure negative trash as in "This is shit, go die." will be punished. As they were before.

I don't see what's not to get here, Virgil was dealing with a completely different question. This isn't making the forums more Draconian, it's making everyone's life easier. If you don't like it then don't post.
 

Internet Kraken

Animalia Mollusca Cephalopada
Mar 18, 2009
6,915
0
0
Sevre90210 said:
Well if what you're saying is true the rules really haven't changed much, just been made more vague. Which confused me at first, since I assumed that if you were implementing a new set of rules that they would actually represent a new set of policies, rather than just a confusing rewording of the old ones. Or maybe I'm just mixing this all up since I'm not exactly the brightest lightbulb. Maybe these rules are easier to understand if you're a new member and not someone who's used to the format of the old rules.

To be fair to all the mods, I've been giving you a hard time based on past experiences. And most of the issues I have had with moderation in the past haven't cropped up recently, upon reflection. So unless I really do see some issues with the new moderation (or the old ones pop up again), I won't have a problem with this. Thanks for helping to sort this all out for me.
 

GrimTuesday

New member
May 21, 2009
2,488
0
0
Regarding thew R&P forum, how much will these new rules affect them? As a regular poster there I will be the first to admit there can be considerable hostility within the confines of that forum however, in my opinion users who enter should be aware that that will happen. There are some people who do take it too far however because of the nature of the subjects that are discussed there will be a lot of disagreement amongst the different users. So will that specific forum be cut a little more slack, or will it be subject to the same criteria as the rest of the forums?
 

smithy_2045

New member
Jan 30, 2008
2,561
0
0
How exactly does this address the clear inconsistency within the moderation? I'm allowed to call someone a "smug twat", but if I dare to say "I do/don't X because I have a life" I'm instantly suspended? It makes no sense.
 

smithy_2045

New member
Jan 30, 2008
2,561
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
smithy_2045 said:
How exactly does this address the clear inconsistency within the moderation? I'm allowed to call someone a "smug twat", but if I dare to say "I do/don't X because I have a life" I'm instantly suspended? It makes no sense.
But you're not allowed to call someone a smug twat either. Hence it's just too harsh all around.
While I believe people shouldn't be allowed to call other forum members smug twats, the moderation (or lack thereof) I've seen suggests that it's acceptable.
 

NewClassic_v1legacy

Bringer of Words
Jul 30, 2008
2,484
0
0
Zeeky_Santos said:
Well that's just it, isn't it? These new rules aren't in anyway specific and thus we see major double standards happening because some mods would call it 'being a jerk' while others would say 'it's just a playful jest'.
En lieu of criticizing the way the rules are laid out, without regard for how they're currently written, how would you have them stated? And, by extension, if this could be your personal Escapist community, what rules would you have? Suggesting "This is a problem" repeatedly is no more constructive than the alleged "double standard" that the new ruleset establishes.

So, explain how we can fix it. Talk about the best and brightest possible solutions. I'm all ears.

EDIT
Swollen Goat said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.250209-If-you-were-to-torture-someone-how-would-you-do-it

This is another example of my issues with the 'Rules' Girl gets suspended for talking about cucumber masturbation, but this thread I link is up to seven fucking pages?! Explain how that works, Escapist. Please. Or just ignore it again and pretend we don't remember these inconsistencies.
Explain? I just checked the Mod Queue. That thread's gotten four reports. Four. If you'd like to point fingers, then how is it that the girl in question ended up higher on the Mod Queue for her vegetable use than a thread about torture?

Again, there's that whole "what we see" versus "what we don't" thing going on. Regardless of the number of mods that can possibly be overlooking the Queue at any given moment, the short answer is we don't see everything. We never will have the all-pervasive eyes and ears of tens of thousands of users. So, we have to, at some time, rely on the eyes and ears of said tens of thousands of users.

You can comment on the moderation's failings all you want, but the short answer is you let that thread get to seven pages, you didn't PM me, or any other Mod, and you certainly didn't report it often enough. Yet somehow you point the fault entirely on our feet?

There should be a reasonable standard of co-existence. Large, public areas have signs and the expectation that the patrons will be kind enough to clean their own messes. They hire janitors to do the sweeping, and help win the fight against entropy, but at some point, there has to be a question of how much anyone can do.

Although, I do appreciate you bringing that thread to my attention. Granted, you could have done it privately, and directly to me, so it got fielded sooner. But, using it as an example to show that I'm a terrible person is acceptable too. I'm sure I deserved it. ;)
 

Jedamethis

New member
Jul 24, 2009
6,953
0
0
Croikey. I've already posted my opinion, but I'd like to high-five the mods. I'm sure I'd have gotten pissed and shouted at somebody by now...
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
Swollen Goat said:
NewClassic said:
Explain? I just checked the Mod Queue. That thread's gotten four reports. Four. If you'd like to point fingers, then how is it that the girl in question ended up higher on the Mod Queue for her vegetable use than a thread about torture?

Again, there's that whole "what we see" versus "what we don't" thing going on. Regardless of the number of mods that can possibly be overlooking the Queue at any given moment, the short answer is we don't see everything. We never will have the all-pervasive eyes and ears of tens of thousands of users. So, we have to, at some time, rely on the eyes and ears of said tens of thousands of users.

You can comment on the moderation's failings all you want, but the short answer is you let that thread get to seven pages, you didn't PM me, or any other Mod, and you certainly didn't report it often enough. Yet somehow you point the fault entirely on our feet?

There should be a reasonable standard of co-existence. Large, public areas have signs and the expectation that the patrons will be kind enough to clean their own messes. They hire janitors to do the sweeping, and help win the fight against entropy, but at some point, there has to be a question of how much anyone can do.

Although, I do appreciate you bringing that thread to my attention. Granted, you could have done it privately, and directly to me, so it got fielded sooner. But, using it as an example to show that I'm a terrible person is acceptable too. I'm sure I deserved it. ;)
Let me start this by saying something positive. I like you Nuke. I truly respect you because YOU are the one who had the courage and conern to make a thread addressing mod issues. And I thank you for that.

Now then, the less pleasant stuff. You couldn't have taken my post any more wrong if you tried. Let's take a step back, NOT START OFF BY ASSUMING EVERYTHING IS A DIRECT ATTACK ON YOU (I mean, ffs, I never once said 'Nuke' nor 'terrible' and yet your last sentence is the most passive aggressive avoidance of 'don't be a jerk' I've seen in a while, saying I called you terrible. Either stop taking everything personally, or don't post a thread asking for feedback. Post a thread asking how awesome you are.). OK, got that? Good. Let's move on. You seem to think I'm pissy because the torture thread wasn't deleted immediately. NO. I don't care what kind of content you do or do not allow on here Let me quote myself, since the relevant parts eluded you.



EDIT: Also, if it matters-the site never told me you quoted me. Lucky you I check on this thread, eh?
To be fair to Nuke, he was the victim of a recent flaming attack by another user on this site. The Moderation Proposal thread put him in the spotlight and I suppose people are sending their complaints (And insults) to him.

Also, you weren't given a notification because he edited the post in.
 

Sevre

Old Hands
Apr 6, 2009
4,886
0
0
Swollen Goat said:
maddawg IAJI said:
To be fair to Nuke, he was the victim of a recent flaming attack by another user on this site. The Moderation Proposal thread put him in the spotlight and I suppose people are sending their complaints (And insults) to him.

Also, you weren't given a notification because he edited the post in.
To play the opposite side of your card, should a moderator read into my post something from an incident that doesn't remotely involve me? Not saying it's unforgivable or horrible, just pointing it out since it's a quality not well suited to a moderator. I don't do it to embarrass or belittle, but just maybe it's something someone (and not necessarily you, Nuke, as without hearing from you yet, it would be conjecture) isn't aware of, and can use to improve their skills. I'm fully aware of the outright abuse the mods/admins have been receiving, but I'd like to think that while I am being confrontational, I'm at least getting a potentially constructive point of view across. The confrontationalism is because the feeling I get is that the goal of this thread is to prove the 'dissenters' wrong rather than acknowledge the feelings behind the frustration, and that maybe they're legitimate. Damn, sorry to use your post like a springboard like that.

Also, thanks for the info-I had no idea you didn't get a quote notification if it's edited in.
I'm sure Nuke has is own response to your previous post, but before I leave for the night I'll take this one :D

I understand what you're saying, and no we don't sit here and try to prove you guys wrong. Yes some people have the wrong idea and we try to clarify things, but we actually do listen to your opinions and use them to improve our system. The reason we have new rules is because of the community expressing their opinion that the old ones were outdated. Some people are having difficulties comprehending them, but I'm working on that one. Hopefully by the end of next week I'll have a solution up, but it depends on how things are going.

~Sev <3
 

megapenguinx

New member
Jan 8, 2009
3,865
0
0
I kind of wish the only rule we needed was, "Don't Be A Dick".
It would make things so much simpler and so much easier. Unfortunately, being a dick means different things to different people so sadly that might never be the case.
Oh well, good on you 'Pist staff for making things easier for the newbies and making people feel welcomed overall.
 

mr_rubino

New member
Sep 19, 2010
719
0
0
Y'know, typically when rules are amended, they are made more specific and grounded with information laid out in more detail. The Escapist has taken this in a different direction, making the rules as vague as possible to accommodate the already-pointless moderation contesting feature and making a FAQ thread where every moderator response to questions/concerns is 5 flavors of "Let me reassure you your fears are groundless, and your complaints, moronic."

In this case, it seems a very quick and very obvious protection of Ms. Foiles's contributions (Ms. Mayes is Australian (?) and thus can take care of herself apparently) to the point that a thread created to explain them was necessarily hostile to the users from the get-go.
 

Ironic Pirate

New member
May 21, 2009
5,541
0
0
Is there any-way we could get more a more concrete position on piracy? I don't do it, but punishment for it seems haphazard.

Again, I don't pirate (bad experience with Limewire), but clearer rules would be nice.
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
Ironic Pirate said:
Is there any-way we could get more a more concrete position on piracy? I don't do it, but punishment for it seems haphazard.

Again, I don't pirate (bad experience with Limewire), but clearer rules would be nice.
To my best understanding, their pretty much the same as last time. If you do not admit to it, advocate it or link to it, you should be fine. Note that advocate doesn't mean that you cannot support it. For example, a user could say that, while he does not pirate, he does believe that if a user plans to buy the game at a later time after using his pirated copy as a demo, then piracy could be justifiable.

That's the way I see it at least, granted I could be wrong about it.
 

NewClassic_v1legacy

Bringer of Words
Jul 30, 2008
2,484
0
0
maddawg IAJI said:
Also, you weren't given a notification because he edited the post in.
Pretty much this. Same goes for the bit above it. You'd be surprise some of the names I get called. My apologies for responding that way, it's been a long series of weeks.

Swollen Goat said:
It's a forum for you guys to tell us we're wrong for feeling the way we do. This place just seems like it's more concerned with BEING right rather than DOING right to me more and more as time goes on. Come to think if it, I'll bet you'll notice the discontent increases as you get to the older users-the ones who have had time to see that, yes, there are gaps in the system.
My biggest concern whenever dealing with something like this is that there's often very little culpability involved with either party. To state that just the users are at fault would be as fallacious as stating that just the mod team is at fault. Both parties have to have a certain amount of responsibility involved, and I feel like neither side is being fair to that. We're both at fault here, and if we both don't walk in accepting that, then we're both going to just keep spinning our wheels.

In all honesty, I feel like this thread was designed to promote the sort of civil-minded coexistence that has been a staple of nearly every emergent society. Words like "dictator" have been aliked to "tyrant" in connotation. By general standards, this place will get no better if we don't listen to what everyone tells us. Otherwise, we become the tyrannical dictators that characterize a gross misuse of power.

However, what I see when I look at threads like these are polarized opinions and limited support options. Either the site is being run to the pinnacle of perfection or is the cancer that is slowly burning itself away. Regardless of where either opinion lies, it becomes nigh-impossible to divine any sort of working solution to "ur doin it rong" or "ur doin it rite." I continually encourage users to promote suggestions, but the suggestions which have come are as vague and unclear as our rules have been alleged to being. Hearing "Make the rules more clear" is too unclear to be operable.

As I stated earlier in this thread, in my experience, the more precise a single rule tries to be, the less likely the rule is to be clear. Even then, every single court case in the United States history is a living proof to the fact that no matter how clearly black and white a rule is phrased, there will always be a gray area. It's inevitable. We've tried to make the specific purpose of a rule clear. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than what we had before? I think it is.

Mods take this personally, myself and others as well, is because our passion is the only thing bringing us back here day after day. I can think of a handful of users who are reported for every single post they do. I clear countless posts from the Queue that have nothing wrong with them. It wouldn't surprise me if you or I haven't been on the business end of a report because someone has issue with what we have done or said in our time here at the Escapist. We take things we invest a lot of time in quite personally.

The reason you're on this thread bringing all this up is because you feel very strongly for the site. To point, you get irritated by how this site ends up sometimes, you said so yourself.

However, the problem with hunting consistency in rule layouts is there's never a good solution for everyone. I can't count on both hands the number of users, old and new, that have asked for new, cleaner Guidelines.

Zeeky_Santos said:
The way I see it, you never needed to change the rules in the first place.
Yet posts prove, time and time again, that there will always be a want for something, somewhere. My first concern with making the moderation or rules more consistent would be making fundamental alterations to how these forums are run.

Posts never seem to say that they want these forums to grow to be something new and exciting. Everyone says they want things to go back to the way they were in the golden days. We all want this forum to be a more personally fulfilling experience. We all take it personally. If we didn't, the mods have less to moderate, and the users less to argue about.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,680
0
0
With regards to rules against posting advocating illegal acts, to which jurisdiction does that apply? Local to the user, or local to the server? Is someone from the Netherlands who encourages people to consume marijuana facing a banhammer?
 

maddawg IAJI

I prefer the term "Zomguard"
Feb 12, 2009
7,840
0
0
Dags90 said:
With regards to rules against posting advocating illegal acts, to which jurisdiction does that apply? Local to the user, or local to the server? Is someone from the Netherlands who encourages people to consume marijuana facing a banhammer?
I would like to assume its unique to the user. The Escapist has been pretty lax about the subject of Marijuana and illicit drug use. I think the rule more likely applies to piracy, torrents and things similar to that.